An answer to several late treatises, occasioned by a book entituled A discourse concerning the idolatry practised in the Church of Rome, and the hazard of salvation in the communion of it. The first part by Edward Stillingfleet ...
Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.
1673
Approx. 510 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 189 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images.
Text Creation Partnership,
Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :
2004-05 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).
A71070
Wing S5559
ESTC R564
11873436
ocm 11873436
50175
This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of
Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal
. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.
Early English books online.
(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A71070)
Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 50175)
Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 751:41 or 826:11)
An answer to several late treatises, occasioned by a book entituled A discourse concerning the idolatry practised in the Church of Rome, and the hazard of salvation in the communion of it. The first part by Edward Stillingfleet ...
Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.
[86], 291 p.
Printed by R.W. for Henry Mortlock,
London :
1673.
Errata: prelim. p. [87].
A second part with title, A second discourse in vindication of the Protestant grounds of faith ... London, 1673, was published during Trinity term.
Reproduction of original in Duke University Library and Huntington Library.
Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.
Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors.
EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.
EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).
The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.
Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.
Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.
Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.
The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.
Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).
Keying and markup guidelines are available at the
Text Creation Partnership web site
.
eng
Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699. -- Discourse concerning the idolatry practised in the Church of Rome.
Catholic Church -- Controversial literature.
Church of England -- Relations -- Catholic Church.
Idols and images.
2004-02 TCP
Assigned for keying and markup
2004-02 Aptara
Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images
2004-03 Emma (Leeson) Huber
Sampled and proofread
2004-03 Emma (Leeson) Huber
Text and markup reviewed and edited
2004-04 pfs
Batch review (QC) and XML conversion
Imprimatur
,
Sam.
Parker
R.
in
Christo
Patri
ac
D
no.
D
no.
Gilberto
,
Arch.
Episc.
Cantuar.
à
sac
.
Dom.
April
15.
1673.
AN
ANSWER
To
several
late
TREATISES
,
Occasioned
by
a
Book
entituled
a
DISCOURSE
Concerning
the
IDOLATRY
Practised
in
the
CHURCH
of
ROME
,
AND
The
Hazard
of
Salvation
in
the
Communion
of
it
.
By
Edward
Stillingfleet
D.
D.
Chaplain
in
Ordinary
to
His
Majesty
.
The
First
Part.
LONDON
,
Printed
by
R.
W.
for
Henry
Mortlock
,
and
are
to
be
sold
at
his
Shop
,
at
the
Sign
of
the
Phoenix
in
St.
Paul's
Church-Yard
.
1673.
THE
General
Preface
.
IT
is
not
for
any
pleasure
I
take
in
Controversie
,
nor
out
of
a
Resolution
to
maintain
what
I
have
once
written
,
that
I
expose
my self
again
to
the
Censures
of
Some
,
and
the
Rage
of
others
,
in
Defence
of
our
Church
against
the
Church
of
Rome
:
But
out
of
a
just
sense
of
the
Weight
and
goodness
of
the
Cause
I
have
undertaken
;
which
(
if
my
affection
to
it
hath
not
strangely
blinded
my
judgement
)
doth
highly
concern
us
as
Men
,
as
English
Men
,
and
as
Christians
.
For
it
is
the
Cause
of
Sense
and
Reason
,
against
the
absurd
Doctrines
they
impose
on
both
;
it
is
the
Cause
of
our
Nation
against
the
Usurpation
and
Tyranny
of
a
Forrain
Power
;
it
is
the
Cause
of
the
true
Faith
and
Christianity
,
against
the
Errors
and
Corruptions
of
the
Roman
Church
.
To
abandon
such
a
Cause
as
this
,
were
to
betray
the
things
which
ought
to
be
most
dear
to
us
:
for
we
cannot
be
reconciled
to
that
Church
on
any
easier
terms
,
than
renouncing
our
Sense
and
Reason
,
enslaving
our
Country
,
and
hazarding
our
Salvation
.
And
what
can
they
give
us
in
exchange
for
these
?
It
was
the
last
of
those
three
Heads
,
which
gave
occasion
to
the
late
so
much
railed
at
,
and
so
little
confuted
Book
:
which
no
sooner
appeared
,
but
as
if
some
dreadful
Monster
had
risen
out
of
the
earth
,
some
crossed
themselves
and
kept
as
far
out
of
the
sight
of
it
,
as
they
could
;
others
made
hideous
out-crys
and
grievous
complaints
;
and
the
more
fearful
sort
were
forbidden
either
looking
on
it
,
or
entertaining
any
discourse
about
it
.
Upon
which
I
pleased
my self
that
I
had
not
added
another
Chapter
to
the
Book
;
for
if
that
number
had
agreed
with
the
ten
particulars
,
it
had
passed
among
them
for
the
Beast
with
seven
Heads
and
ten
Horns
;
and
they
would
have
been
glad
their
City
upon
seven
Hills
could
have
been
so
excused
.
But
this
unusual
noise
and
clamour
awakened
the
curiosity
of
many
who
love
to
see
strange
sights
;
and
that
which
otherwise
might
have
been
wholly
neglected
as
a
Book
,
was
enquired
after
and
looked
into
,
being
represented
as
a
Monster
.
But
when
they
found
that
this
evil
Spirit
(
as
they
accounted
it
)
which
themselves
had
raised
,
was
not
to
be
laid
again
by
hard
words
and
ill
language
;
they
began
to
consider
what
other
course
was
to
be
taken
to
suppress
it
.
And
forthwith
there
starts
up
a
Young
Sophister
among
them
,
and
bids
them
be
of
good
heart
;
for
by
letting
flie
at
him
some
Squibs
and
Crackers
he
did
not
question
,
but
he
should
put
this
Monster
into
such
a
Rage
,
as
to
make
him
fall
upon
himself
;
which
design
being
highly
approved
;
in
a
short
time
came
forth
that
dapper
piece
,
called
Doct.
Stillingfleet
against
Doct.
Stillingfleet
.
It
was
a
notable
plot
,
and
cunningly
managed
,
as
the
Reader
may
see
by
the
following
Answer
to
it
.
After
him
a
Graver
Person
undertakes
the
service
;
but
as
Hasenmullerus
tells
us
,
when
Ignatius
Loyola
sent
one
of
his
Brethren
at
Rome
to
dispossess
a
Person
,
he
gave
him
this
instruction
,
that
he
should
be
sure
to
come
behind
the
Devil
,
if
he
would
drive
him
out
;
accordingly
this
N.
O.
steals
quite
behind
my
Book
,
and
began
to
confute
it
at
the
wrong
end
,
hoping
by
that
means
to
drive
out
the
evil
Spirit
which
he
supposed
to
lodge
in
the
Body
of
it
.
Which
he
hath
performed
with
great
dexterity
and
success
,
as
the
Reader
may
be
fully
satisfied
in
the
Reply
here
following
.
These
two
I
undertook
,
before
any
other
appeared
,
and
intended
to
have
published
these
two
Answers
by
themselves
;
but
finding
others
that
had
written
against
me
on
the
same
argument
I
was
willing
to
bring
as
much
as
I
could
together
to
prevent
confusion
or
repetition
.
All
which
relating
to
the
Principles
of
Faith
,
and
the
Rosolution
,
and
Rule
of
it
,
I
made
account
to
have
dispatched
at
once
;
but
finding
the
Book
begin
to
swell
into
too
great
a
bulk
,
I
have
respited
some
parts
of
it
to
another
opportunity
.
When
those
two
men
had
done
their
Feats
,
an
ancient
and
experienced
Exorcist
;
(
and
yet
for
all
that
no
Conjurer
)
saw
plainly
this
Spirit
must
be
conjured
down
;
and
thefore
knowing
the
great
efficacy
of
Charms
,
he
gives
his
Book
the
Title
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Stillingfleeton
.
Which
words
put
me
almost
in
as
great
a
fright
as
the
Holy
Chair
would
have
done
;
I
began
to
consider
,
whether
Mengus
or
any
other
of
their
skilful
men
had
ever
used
those
Emphatical
words
before
;
but
I
am
willing
to
believe
it
was
the
sole
invention
of
J.
V.
C.
And
I
doubt
not
but
they
will
do
well
hereafter
in
Exorcisms
,
especially
after
the
holy
Potion
,
when
the
person
to
be
dispossessed
is
made
sufficiently
sick
with
Rue
and
Sallet-oyl
and
other
excellent
Physick
for
Devils
.
I
find
by
some
of
their
Authors
,
it
is
a
great
matter
to
get
the
right
name
of
the
Spirit
;
this
J.
V.
C.
hath
hit
unluckily
,
in
calling
this
Monster
the
Leviathan
sporting
in
the
waters
,
since
they
have
thrown
out
so
many
empty
vessels
for
him
to
play
with
.
And
his
three
books
of
Charms
,
have
been
no
unpleasant
entertainment
;
But
he
is
gone
;
and
I
love
not
to
tread
hard
on
the
graves
of
my
enemies
.
What
there
appears
material
in
him
(
if
anything
do
so
)
I
shall
consider
it
in
its
proper
place
;
chiefly
for
the
sake
of
my
Iudicious
Adversary
Dr.
T.
G.
who
was
the
first
and
I
think
the
only
person
that
hath
discovered
his
Book
to
be
a
Learned
Treatise
.
But
my
generous
Adversaries
,
finding
so
little
success
in
single
attempts
,
they
next
fall
upon
me
with
Chain-shot
;
viz.
A
Collection
of
several
Treatises
against
Doct.
Stillingfleet
.
To
make
up
the
number
,
they
bring
in
one
before
published
,
to
try
an
experiment
what
force
that
can
have
in
conjunction
which
had
none
of
it self
.
The
first
undertaker
therein
,
is
,
the
very
calm
and
(
according
to
his
new
Christian
Name
)
Serene
Mr.
Cressy
,
the
man
that
hath
learnt
to
mortifie
passions
by
Mystical
Divinity
;
but
is
so
far
from
being
sublimed
and
rectified
,
by
that
Chymical
way
of
devotion
,
that
he
seems
yet
to
remain
in
the
very
dregs
of
them
:
the
man
,
that
hath
so
accustomed
him-self
to
Legends
,
that
he
cannot
write
against
an
Adversary
,
without
making
one
of
him
.
And
although
there
be
many
very
pleasant
ones
in
his
Church-History
,
yet
I
hardly
think
there
are
many
more
wonderful
,
than
(
if
his
insinuations
had
any
colour
of
truth
in
them
)
the
first
part
of
my
life
had
been
.
For
by
making
me
so
active
in
those
times
,
when
I
was
uncapable
of
understanding
what
they
were
,
he
seems
to
represent
me
as
one
that
had
so
passionate
a
zeal
for
Presbytery
in
my
cradle
,
that
I
would
suck
of
none
but
a
Scottish
Nurse
;
that
the
first
word
I
pronounced
was
Covenant
;
that
I
would
go
to
School
to
none
but
Lay-Elders
;
and
was
cursing
Meroz
before
the
Parliament
at
eight
years
old
.
Is
not
this
a
hopeful
beginning
for
a
good
Legend
?
Will
he
,
saith
he
,
or
they
damn
the
execrable
Covenant
?
as
though
,
I
had
ever
any
thing
to
do
with
it
but
when
I
renounced
it
!
If
I
should
tell
him
,
that
as
great
a
Friend
as
he
takes
me
to
have
been
to
Presbytery
and
the
late
times
,
even
then
I
was
entred
into
Episcopal
Orders
by
a
most
worthy
and
learned
Prelate
of
our
Church
;
that
,
I
never
subscribed
any
Address
to
the
Usurpers
,
as
some
in
the
World
have
done
,
and
those
who
would
now
be
thought
the
Kings
most
loyal
Subjects
;
that
I
never
drew
off
any
one
person
from
their
Allegiance
to
the
King
to
submit
to
to
the
Popes
Nuncio
,
(
let
those
who
did
it
clear
themselves
)
even
such
an
Apology
would
give
too
much
countenance
to
so
pitiful
a
Calumniator
.
I
thank
him
that
he
hath
not
charged
me
with
laying
the
first
platform
of
Presbytery
at
Geneva
,
or
having
a
hand
in
the
first
and
second
Admonitions
in
the
days
of
Queen
Elizabeth
;
and
I
might
as
will
charge
him
with
the
Gunpowder
Treason
,
as
he
doth
me
with
any
thing
about
the
Covenant
.
By
this
we
may
guess
what
Ecclesiastical
History
we
are
to
expect
from
him
,
who
writes
so
at
random
about
the
matters
of
our
own
times
.
But
the
man
is
to
be
pitied
;
he
was
under
one
of
Mother
Juliana's
fits
,
he
writ
with
a
good
mind
,
but
he
knew
not
what
.
Some
vent
must
be
given
to
a
violent
fermentation
,
else
the
vessel
might
burst
asunder
;
and
I
hope
the
good
man
is
somewhat
more
at
ease
,
since
he
purged
away
so
much
Choler
.
I
assure
him
I
can
with
pleasure
read
what
he
wrote
with
rage
;
and
laugh
at
the
violence
of
such
passions
,
which
like
a
Gun
ill
charged
may
give
fire
and
make
a
great
noise
,
but
doth
the
greatest
mischief
to
him
that
holds
it
.
If
I
would
pursue
him
through
all
his
heats
,
I
must
undergo
the
Ordeal-tryal
,
touch
firebrands
without
hurting
my self
:
which
although
I
might
do
,
yet
I
know
my
Adversaries
are
so
implacable
,
that
even
that
would
not
convince
them
of
my
innocence
.
I
leave
him
therefore
to
grow
cooler
and
wiser
;
but
I
beseech
him
for
his
own
sake
,
that
he
would
attempt
no
more
the
justifying
the
union
of
nothing
with
nothing
,
and
for
the
sake
of
Religion
,
that
he
would
not
call
God
any
more
an
incomprehensible
Nothing
;
a
Description
fit
only
for
the
Atheists
Catechism
.
If
there
were
any
thing
in
his
railing
Book
which
looked
like
reason
or
argument
I
might
perhaps
at
my
leisure
be
perswaded
to
answer
it
;
though
I
do
not
love
to
have
to
do
with
mad
men
,
no
not
in
their
lucid
intervals
.
The
next
that
follows
is
one
that
goes
about
to
vindicate
the
Roman
Churches
devotions
and
Doctrine
of
Repentance
and
Indulgencies
,
he
is
a
meer
pattern
of
meekness
,
compared
with
S.
C.
,
he
writes
pertinently
and
without
the
others
bitterness
and
passion
.
His
great
endeavour
is
to
clear
the
honour
of
his
Church
,
from
the
absurd
Doctrines
and
practices
charged
upon
it
.
And
the
force
of
all
,
he
saith
lies
in
this
,
that
where
the
Church
hath
defined
nothing
in
her
Councils
,
it
is
to
no
purpose
to
object
that
such
Doctrines
are
taught
by
some
in
it
;
for
those
who
defend
their
separation
from
the
Communion
of
a
Church
by
reason
of
its
erroneous
or
corrupt
Doctrines
must
make
it
appear
that
those
are
taught
by
it
,
and
the
belief
of
them
also
exacted
from
its
subjects
.
To
this
purpose
S.
C.
likewise
speaks
(
in
some
of
his
lucid
intervalls
)
and
I
perceive
this
is
become
a
common
Topick
among
them
,
to
take
off
the
odium
of
such
opinions
and
practices
as
they
are
willing
enough
,
but
ashamed
to
defend
,
which
I
shall
in
this
place
briefly
remove
.
The
thing
I
was
to
prove
was
,
that
persons
in
the
Communion
of
the
Roman
Church
do
run
great
hazard
of
their
Salvation
:
for
which
I
instanced
particularly
in
several
opinions
and
practices
which
are
very
apt
to
hinder
a
good
life
which
is
necessary
to
Salvation
.
Now
a
twofold
Question
here
arises
.
1.
Whether
the
Church
may
justly
be
charged
with
those
Doctrines
and
practices
?
2.
Whether
,
although
the
Church
may
not
directly
be
charged
to
have
decreed
them
in
her
Councils
,
yet
so
much
countenance
and
encouragement
be
not
commonly
given
to
them
in
that
Church
,
that
particular
persons
do
run
great
hazard
of
their
salvation
by
reason
of
them
?
For
which
we
are
to
consider
,
that
it
hath
been
the
method
of
the
Roman
Church
to
allow
many
more
things
in
common
belief
and
practice
than
it
hath
dared
for
very
shame
to
decree
in
Councils
,
especially
when
such
things
have
been
objected
by
her
enemies
.
In
this
case
it
hath
been
thought
the
most
prudent
course
for
the
Councils
to
speak
deceitfully
and
in
general
terms
,
so
as
to
give
as
little
advantage
as
may
be
to
their
enemies
,
and
yet
to
retain
ground
enough
to
uphold
their
former
opinions
and
practices
:
Which
still
continuing
in
Vogue
and
reputation
,
become
so
much
the
more
dangerous
to
mens
Souls
,
because
their
Councils
having
had
opportunity
to
have
declared
effectually
against
them
were
so
far
from
it
,
that
by
their
doubtful
expressions
they
have
left
ground
enough
for
the
continuance
of
them
.
Now
from
hence
the
Directors
of
Conscience
among
them
frame
their
opinions
,
and
the
people
think
it
their
duty
blindly
to
follow
them
;
and
supposing
any
one
among
them
should
scruple
any
such
Doctrine
or
practice
,
to
whom
must
he
resort
but
to
his
Confessors
,
and
will
any
such
dare
to
condemn
what
is
generally
received
although
not
decreed
by
Councils
?
or
if
he
should
,
dare
any
person
rely
on
his
private
judgement
when
it
is
contrary
to
the
most
received
Doctrine
or
practice
?
Besides
,
the
promises
of
Infallibility
are
supposed
by
them
to
be
primarily
made
to
the
Church
,
and
only
by
way
of
representation
to
the
Council
;
and
therefore
Doctrines
or
practices
generally
received
and
allowed
by
the
Teachers
of
the
Church
and
the
Guides
of
conscience
,
must
be
received
by
them
as
true
and
good
;
for
otherwise
those
promises
would
fail
to
the
Church
in
its
diffusive
capacity
,
and
consequently
,
supposing
no
General
Council
,
it
were
possible
for
the
most
erroneous
and
pernicious
Doctrines
and
practices
to
prevail
in
the
Church
,
which
must
utterly
overthrow
all
pretence
to
Infallibility
.
But
in
our
present
case
we
need
not
run
so
far
,
for
I
shall
here
prove
that
in
the
most
material
points
insisted
on
by
N.
O.
viz.
the
Doctrine
of
the
efficacy
of
the
Sacraments
ex
opere
Operato
,
and
of
Indulgences
,
we
do
justly
charge
the
Church
of
Rome
even
in
the
decrees
of
her
Councils
with
laying
such
a
foundation
,
as
doth
overthrow
the
necessity
of
a
good
life
.
The
way
he
takes
to
vindicate
those
points
from
this
consequence
is
this
,
That
the
Sacramenta
mortuorum
,
viz.
Baptism
and
Penance
which
confer
justifying
Grace
do
require
a
subject
rightly
disposed
;
And
the
Sacramenta
vivorum
,
viz.
Confirmation
,
Eucharist
and
Extreme
unction
,
do
require
the
receiver
to
be
actually
in
a
State
of
Grace
;
the
same
,
he
saith
of
Indulgences
,
that
the
benefit
of
them
doth
suppose
a
man
put
into
a
State
of
Grace
by
the
Sacrament
of
Penance
;
so
that
the
whole
matter
is
put
upon
this
issue
,
whether
their
Doctrine
concerning
the
conditions
by
which
a
man
may
be
put
into
a
State
of
Grace
,
be
not
such
as
doth
overthrow
the
necessity
of
a
good
life
?
And
it
being
acknowledged
that
the
Sacrament
of
Penance
doth
confer
the
Grace
of
justification
on
all
persons
rightly
disposed
for
it
,
our
only
business
is
to
enquire
what
necessary
conditions
their
Church
requires
in
order
to
it
.
For
which
we
appeal
to
the
words
of
the
Council
of
Trent
,
for
Session
14.
c.
4.
That
plainly
determins
,
that
imperfect
contrition
or
attrition
although
it
cannot
bring
men
to
justification
without
the
Sacrament
of
Penance
,
yet
it
doth
dispose
men
for
obtaining
the
Grace
of
God
by
the
Sacrament
of
Penance
.
If
we
joyn
this
now
with
another
decree
of
the
same
Council
,
viz.
*
that
the
Sacraments
do
conferr
Grace
on
all
those
who
are
disposed
to
receive
it
;
I
leave
it
now
to
any
one
to
judge
,
whether
from
hence
it
doth
not
necessarily
follow
,
that
all
those
that
have
but
imperfect
contrition
,
or
bare
attrition
for
their
sins
,
are
by
the
Sacrament
of
Penance
put
into
a
State
of
Grace
,
according
to
the
Doctrine
of
the
Council
of
Trent
?
And
how
far
this
overthrows
the
necessity
of
a
good
life
,
will
appear
from
the
explication
of
contrition
and
attrition
given
by
the
same
Council
.
Contrition
is
defined
,
to
be
,
a
grief
of
mind
and
detestation
of
sin
committed
,
with
a
purpose
of
sinning
no
more
;
therefore
imperfect
contrition
or
attrition
must
be
such
a
grief
and
detestation
of
sin
past
,
as
implies
but
an
imperfect
purpose
of
sinning
no
more
.
From
which
it
evidently
follows
,
that
by
the
Doctrine
of
this
Council
a
man
may
be
put
into
a
State
of
Grace
without
so
much
as
a
firm
or
perfect
purpose
of
sinning
no
more
.
And
can
there
be
a
Doctrine
invented
by
men
that
doth
more
effectually
destroy
the
necessity
of
a
good
life
than
this
doth
?
For
the
State
of
Grace
puts
a
man
actually
into
the
favour
of
God
;
and
supposing
him
to
fall
into
mortal
sin
afterwards
,
all
he
needs
to
do
,
is
only
to
repeat
the
same
kind
of
attrition
and
receive
the
Sacrament
of
Penance
and
he
is
perfectly
sound
again
and
recovers
the
Favour
of
God.
I
know
the
Council
there
saith
,
That
this
attrition
must
exclude
voluntatem
peccandi
,
as
O.
N.
observes
;
but
that
implies
no
more
than
a
man
's
not
having
at
that
time
a
purpose
to
sin
again
;
and
the
Council
distinguishes
it
from
the
propositum
non
peccandi
de
caetero
,
or
the
purpose
not
to
sin
again
,
which
the
Council
applies
to
contrition
as
the
other
to
attrition
.
And
Cajetan
himself
quoted
by
O.
N.
calls
it
an
imperfect
purpose
of
not
sinning
.
So
that
after
all
the
evasions
which
have
been
yet
,
or
can
be
produced
,
the
Roman
Churches
Doctrine
of
Repentance
and
Indulgences
doth
most
dangerously
obstruct
devotion
and
a
good
life
.
I
desire
therefore
O.
N.
and
his
Brethren
to
be
a
little
more
sparing
in
their
censures
of
us
as
unfaithfully
representing
the
Doctrine
of
their
Church
,
for
we
understand
it
much
better
,
and
represent
it
more
truly
,
than
they
desire
.
But
supposing
the
words
of
the
Council
were
ambiguous
in
this
matter
,
what
better
help
can
we
have
to
understand
it
,
than
the
sense
of
their
most
eminent
and
learned
Instructours
of
Conscience
?
and
those
not
of
the
single
Order
of
Jesuits
,
as
some
would
have
it
believed
,
but
of
all
sorts
among
them
.
Melchior
Canus
who
was
far
enough
from
being
a
Friend
of
the
Jesuits
,
saith
expresly
,
although
a
man
knows
he
hath
not
contrition
but
bare
attrition
,
he
may
come
to
the
Sacrament
and
receive
grace
by
it
;
for
which
he
gives
this
reason
,
because
Baptism
and
Penance
,
are
Sacramenta
mortuorum
;
and
therefore
those
who
are
under
mortal
sin
if
they
have
attrition
whereby
the
impediment
is
removed
may
not
only
come
to
them
,
but
go
away
with
the
Grace
conferred
,
because
the
Sacraments
always
conferr
Grace
,
where
the
impediment
is
removed
.
And
he
is
followed
herein
,
saith
Morinus
,
not
only
by
Lopez
,
Pesantius
,
Nicol.
Isambertus
Professor
of
Divinity
at
Paris
,
but
by
the
fargreatest
number
of
their
modern
Divines
.
I
shall
not
so
much
as
mention
the
Jesuitical
Casuists
whose
Testimonies
are
produced
in
the
Jesuits
Morals
,
or
Provincial
letters
,
such
as
Filliutius
,
Amicus
,
Sa
,
Escobar
,
Bauny
,
&c.
But
I
shall
name
some
of
far
greater
Authority
among
them
.
O.
N.
frequently
cites
Paul
Layman
with
expressions
of
esteem
,
and
he
determins
that
true
contrition
is
not
necessary
to
the
Sacrament
of
Penance
after
the
commission
of
mortal
sin
,
but
attrition
is
sufficient
although
a
man
know
it
to
be
only
attrition
.
If
they
had
made
attrition
only
necessary
to
the
Sacrament
of
Baptism
,
they
might
have
pleaded
,
that
they
had
not
destroyed
the
necessity
of
a
good
life
afterwards
to
preserve
the
Grace
conveyed
in
Baptism
;
but
we
see
in
the
case
of
mortal
sin
afterwards
toties
quoties
no
more
is
necessary
but
a
new
Act
of
Attrition
,
and
that
not
only
when
a
man
mistakes
it
to
be
contrition
;
but
though
a
man
knows
it
to
be
bare
attrition
.
I
confess
Cardinal
Tolet
,
although
he
asserts
the
substance
of
the
Doctrine
,
yet
he
saith
attrition
only
serves
when
it
is
mistaken
for
contrition
;
but
this
Morinus
tells
us
the
later
Divines
laugh
at
and
explode
.
Cardinal
Lugo
not
only
contends
for
the
Doctrine
,
but
asserts
it
to
be
the
Doctrine
of
the
Council
of
Trent
,
viz.
that
attrition
with
the
Sacrament
of
Penance
is
sufficient
for
the
Grace
of
Justification
;
and
quotes
Suarez
,
Vasquez
and
Maeratius
,
as
sufficiently
proving
from
the
words
of
the
Council
,
that
attrition
is
the
next
disposition
to
the
Grace
of
justification
conveyed
by
the
Sacrament
;
and
this
attrition
he
there
shews
against
Sylvius
,
doth
not
imply
an
imperfect
love
of
God
above
all
;
which
is
directly
contrary
to
O.
N.
And
in
another
place
he
proves
,
that
a
man
is
not
bound
always
to
contrition
for
his
sins
although
they
be
mortal
;
for
saith
he
,
if
he
were
,
then
a
man
having
attrition
cannot
be
excused
but
only
by
invincible
Ignorance
from
a
new
mortal
sin
in
coming
to
the
Sacrament
of
Penance
without
contrition
,
because
some
time
is
commonly
supposed
to
intervene
between
a
mans
attrition
and
his
justification
by
the
Sacrament
,
in
which
time
he
would
sin
mortally
by
omitting
contrition
,
if
he
were
obliged
to
it
;
but
this
,
saith
he
,
is
against
the
common
opinion
of
Divines
,
that
a
man
contracts
any
new
guilt
by
omitting
contrition
.
Nay
he
afterwards
determins
,
that
a
man
that
hath
received
the
Sacrament
of
Penance
with
bare
attrition
is
not
bound
,
under
the
guilt
of
mortal
sin
,
for
omitting
it
,
to
an
act
of
contrition
at
the
point
of
death
;
which
is
,
he
saith
,
the
commonly
received
opinion
among
them
,
and
he
quotes
Diana
,
Coninch
,
Becanus
,
Layman
,
Fagundez
,
Faber
,
Turrianus
,
Salas
and
others
for
it
.
The
great
argument
he
brings
,
is
,
because
Confessors
do
not
think
themselves
obliged
to
put
men
in
mind
of
an
act
of
contrition
at
that
time
as
necessary
,
as
common
experience
shews
.
And
are
not
such
Confessors
excellent
Guides
to
Heaven
the
mean
while
?
If
they
be
,
they
have
found
out
a
much
broader
way
and
wider
gate
than
ever
Christ
intended
.
What
not
one
single
act
of
contrition
necessary
!
No
,
not
at
the
point
of
death
!
What
pity
it
is
for
sinners
,
you
have
not
the
keeping
of
Heaven-gates
?
How
do
they
want
the
Sacrament
of
Penance
in
Hell
,
for
no
doubt
there
is
attrition
good
store
there
!
But
above
all
of
them
commend
me
to
honest
Gregor
.
de
Valentiâ
,
who
not
only
makes
contrition
unnecessary
,
but
saith
it
is
rather
a
hindrance
to
the
effect
of
the
Sacraments
.
From
whence
Morinus
justly
infers
,
that
a
Confessor
ought
not
to
perswade
the
Penitent
to
Contrition
;
nor
the
penitent
to
endeavour
after
it
.
Nay
Morinus
shews
,
that
grave
men
and
famous
in
their
Church
do
assert
that
a
Penitent
having
received
the
Sacrament
of
Penance
,
is
not
bound
to
so
much
as
one
act
of
contrition
or
the
Love
of
God
in
order
to
his
reconciliation
with
God.
Yea
,
although
a
man
hath
hated
God
to
the
last
act
of
his
life
if
he
receives
the
Sacrament
of
Penance
,
they
deny
that
it
is
necessary
for
him
to
be
contrite
for
his
sins
or
to
love
God.
Nothing
could
go
beyond
this
but
what
follows
in
him
,
that
the
excellency
of
the
Evangelical
Sacraments
above
the
legal
consists
in
this
,
that
the
Evangelical
Sacraments
have
freed
us
from
the
most
heavy
yoke
〈◊〉
of
contrition
and
the
Love
of
God.
O
admirable
Guides
of
Conscience
!
I
do
not
at
all
question
but
Jews
,
Turks
and
Heathens
have
a
much
better
and
truer
notion
of
Repentance
,
than
these
men
;
the
Pagan
Philosophers
were
Christians
to
them
.
And
what
injury
have
I
done
them
now
,
in
charging
such
things
upon
them
which
obstruct
devotion
and
overthrow
the
necessity
of
a
good
life
?
For
I
hardly
think
it
possible
to
contrive
a
Doctrine
more
effectual
for
that
end
,
than
to
tell
men
that
the
Sacraments
of
the
Gospel
do
free
men
from
that
heavy
yoke
Contrition
and
the
Love
of
God.
But
supposing
there
were
no
such
Foundation
for
this
Doctrine
in
the
Council
of
Trent
,
as
we
see
there
is
would
there
be
no
danger
to
mens
Salvation
,
if
their
Confessors
generally
told
then
these
things
,
and
they
knew
it
to
be
th●
current
opinion
among
them
?
Is
there
〈◊〉
danger
of
falling
into
the
ditch
whe●
the
Blind
lead
the
Blind
,
unless
General
Council
expresly
allow
of
it
?
〈◊〉
there
no
danger
by
Empericks
a●●
Mountebanks
,
unless
the
whole
Co●ledge
of
Physicians
approve
them
?
An●
of
all
sorts
of
Empericks
,
the
worst
a●●
such
Casuists
and
Confessors
.
Is
ther●
no
way
to
magnify
the
Sacerdotal
office
unless
they
have
a
Power
to
Trepan
Soul
into
eternal
flames
for
want
of
true
repentance
;
by
making
them
believe
th●
Priests
absolution
with
bare
attritio●
will
make
all
even
with
God
?
Or
〈◊〉
this
Doctrine
only
a
Decoy
to
draw
great
sinners
into
your
nets
?
And
all
this
while
is
your
Church
innocent
,
which
at
least
sees
and
will
not
reform
these
things
?
In
A.
D.
1665.
24.
of
September
and
18.
May
,
1666.
the
Congregation
of
the
Inquisition
at
Rome
under
Alexander
.
7.
took
upon
them
to
censure
45.
several
Propositions
of
the
late
Casuists
,
as
scandalous
and
pernicious
to
the
Souls
of
men
,
but
not
one
of
them
relates
to
this
Doctrine
of
repentance
,
although
the
Jansenists
in
France
had
complained
of
it
.
Whence
could
this
arise
but
from
looking
on
it
as
the
Doctrine
of
their
Church
?
Indeed
I
find
that
on
May
5.
1667.
The
Pope
caused
a
Decree
to
be
published
straitly
forbidding
all
persons
in
their
debates
about
Attrition
,
to
condemn
each
other
;
but
it
is
worth
our
while
to
understand
,
what
this
controversie
was
,
viz.
Whether
bare
attrition
doth
require
an
act
of
the
love
of
God
;
and
although
the
Negative
be
there
said
to
be
the
more
common
opinion
,
yet
the
Pope
would
not
have
the
others
that
affirmed
it
to
be
censured
.
But
not
the
least
word
against
the
sufficiency
of
bare
attrition
.
Are
any
of
the
Books
censured
which
assert
this
Doctrine
?
Nay
,
they
are
published
with
great
approbations
.
Are
any
of
the
Defenders
of
it
discountenanced
?
Nay
,
they
are
Persons
in
the
highest
esteem
,
dignity
,
and
Authority
among
them
.
Are
any
cautions
given
to
Confessors
to
beware
of
these
Doctrines
?
Nay
,
these
very
Books
are
purposely
written
and
approved
for
their
instruction
and
use
.
And
if
their
Church
be
innocent
after
all
this
,
so
was
the
Iewish
Church
in
our
Saviours
time
;
for
the
corruptions
that
were
then
among
them
had
no
decree
of
the
Sanhedrin
,
that
I
find
,
for
them
;
it
was
only
their
Schoolmen
and
Casuists
,
the
Scribes
and
Pharisees
which
introduced
them
.
And
yet
our
Saviour
thought
mens
Souls
in
danger
,
when
he
bid
them
beware
of
the
leaven
of
the
Pharisees
.
I
confess
when
we
debate
the
causes
of
Separation
from
their
Communion
,
we
think
it
then
reasonable
to
alledge
no
more
,
than
what
they
impose
on
all
to
believe
and
practice
(
and
we
have
enough
of
all
Conscience
in
that
kind
without
going
farther
)
but
when
we
represent
the
hazard
of
Salvation
to
particular
persons
,
we
may
then
justly
charge
them
with
the
pernicious
Doctrines
and
practices
which
are
received
and
allowed
among
them
,
although
not
decreed
by
the
Church
in
Councils
.
For
otherwise
it
would
be
just
,
as
if
one
should
say
to
a
man
,
that
asked
him
,
whether
he
might
safely
travel
through
such
a
Country
?
yes
,
without
doubt
you
may
,
for
although
there
be
abundance
of
Thieves
and
High-waymen
,
yet
the
Prince
or
the
State
never
approved
them
,
or
gave
them
licence
to
rob
Travellers
.
Do
you
think
any
man
would
venture
his
person
or
his
purse
,
on
no
better
security
?
Yet
such
security
as
this
,
if
it
were
true
is
all
that
such
moderate
men
as
O.
N.
or
his
Brethren
can
give
as
to
the
Roman
Church
;
for
they
dare
not
deny
the
bad
consequence
of
the
Doctrines
and
practices
charged
upon
them
,
but
only
say
,
the
Church
hath
not
decreed
them
.
So
much
I
thought
necessary
to
say
to
this
newest
and
most
plausible
pretence
,
which
is
made
use
of
by
the
best
Advocates
for
the
Roman
Church
.
And
now
farewel
to
Moderation
;
for
the
two
next
which
appeared
on
the
Stage
against
me
,
were
two
Jesuits
;
the
one
sent
over
a
Book
,
which
if
we
look
only
at
the
bulk
and
thickness
was
a
very
substantial
one
,
called
by
an
odd
Antiphrasis
,
Reason
and
Religion
:
I
have
endeavoured
to
draw
off
all
the
Spirit
I
could
find
in
it
,
in
the
following
discourses
,
but
I
am
forced
to
leave
a
vast
quantity
of
Phlegm
and
Caput
Mortuum
behind
.
I
shall
say
no
more
of
him
here
,
having
occasion
to
speak
so
much
of
him
in
the
Discourses
about
the
Principles
of
faith
,
which
will
in
a
little
time
be
ready
to
appear
.
The
other
is
the
stout
Defender
of
lgnatius
Loyola
and
the
whole
Order
of
Jesuits
;
What
,
one
man
undertake
to
defend
the
Jesuits
as
to
their
Principles
and
Practices
!
and
that
in
this
Age
,
which
so
well
understands
their
Maxims
and
Conduct
!
and
in
England
too
,
where
those
of
other
Orders
and
the
Secular
Priests
love
them
so
dearly
!
But
nothing
is
too
brave
or
difficult
,
for
a
Jesuit
to
attempt
,
however
he
comes
off
in
it
.
As
to
Ignatius
Loyola
,
I
will
come
to
terms
with
him
;
if
what
he
confesses
as
to
his
ignorant
zeal
,
pious
simplicity
,
frequent
visions
and
extasies
,
extravagant
preaching
,
unmannerly
contempt
of
Superiours
do
not
prove
him
a
Fanatick
,
I
am
content
to
let
him
go
.
But
what
if
Ignatius
himself
being
grown
old
,
did
suspect
such
frequent
extasies
and
visions
for
illusions
?
I
desire
him
to
look
Ribadineira
,
in
his
larger
life
to
that
purpose
.
But
this
matter
of
Fanaticism
must
be
referred
to
another
place
.
I
shall
now
only
give
a
tast
of
the
Jesuits
excellent
way
of
defending
the
principles
destructive
to
Government
which
I
charged
his
Order
with
.
The
first
was
,
that
Government
was
so
originally
in
the
People
,
that
they
by
their
Representatives
may
call
their
Soveraign
to
an
account
and
alter
the
form
of
Government
.
Now
mark
this
Answer
.
This
principle
(
whatsoever
truth
it
may
have
in
speculation
)
is
by
no
means
to
be
preached
to
the
People
,
who
are
apt
enough
of
themselves
to
stretch
cases
and
pick
quarrels
with
their
best
Governours
,
yet
was
it
taught
many
Ages
before
the
Jesuits
were
so
much
as
thought
of
.
Welfare
the
man
for
his
plain-dealing
;
the
Doctrine
it
seems
is
true
enough
,
but
the
people
are
not
fit
to
be
trusted
with
the
management
of
it
,
no
,
not
in
their
places
and
callings
;
no
,
no
,
let
the
Jesuits
alone
with
these
things
,
they
know
just
the
very
nick
of
time
,
when
to
be
Iudges
and
Executioners
too
.
The
next
principle
is
,
the
Popes
power
of
deposing
Princes
,
to
which
he
again
answers
roundly
.
You
are
then
to
know
,
Sir
,
that
the
Doctrine
was
long
ago
taught
by
almost
all
Orders
and
Professions
,
Seculars
,
Regulars
,
Divines
,
Lawyers
,
before
the
Jesuits
were
in
Being
.
A
very
Catholick
Doctrine
it
seems
it
is
!
What
a
stirr
do
other
people
make
with
mincing
this
matter
,
I
know
not
how
;
give
me
a
man
that
speaks
out
,
and
lets
Princes
understand
what
their
general
Doctrine
is
in
this
matter
,
lest
they
may
possibly
be
deceived
,
as
though
it
were
only
the
bold
assertion
of
some
few
Persons
among
them
.
What
wonder
then
saith
he
,
if
Bellarmin
and
3.
or
4.
more
Jesuits
were
carried
away
with
such
a
Torrent
of
Doctors
who
went
before
them
?
Nay
,
in
my
opinion
the
only
wonder
is
,
how
any
Persons
among
them
dare
think
otherwise
,
this
Doctrin
having
as
he
tells
us
,
so
Catholick
a
consent
to
the
truth
of
it
.
But
in
earnest
Sir
,
is
the
Doctrine
true
,
or
false
Nay
,
Sir
,
I
beseech
you
to
excuse
me
in
that
:
for
as
he
saith
,
afterwards
about
the
Popes
power
〈◊〉
absolving
Subjects
,
I
beg
leave
to
wave
such
curious
controversie●
:
What
,
a
Jesuit
beg
leave
to
wave
curious
controversies
!
What
is
become
〈◊〉
all
their
vast
Tomes
of
Scholastical
an●
Casuistical
Divinity
?
Are
no
curious
controversies
handled
in
them
?
An●
were
you
bred
up
among
them
and
yet
ha●●
controversies
meerly
because
curious
▪
No
,
no
,
We
understand
you
better
than
so
That
is
only
a
curious
controversies
with
you
which
endangers
your
safety
,
if
you
speak
out
,
for
it
is
a
needless
kind
of
curiosity
for
a
man
to
betray
himself
.
Here
in
these
practical
Countries
it
is
sometimes
dangerous
speaking
Truth
in
their
sense
;
but
at
such
a
speculative
place
as
Rome
is
,
there
those
may
be
wholesome
and
Catholick
Truths
,
which
●ere
are
but
niceties
and
curiosities
.
But
doth
he
not
say
,
the
Jesuits
have
solemnly
renounced
the
Doctrine
?
Yes
,
but
have
a
care
how
far
you
believe
him
:
we
poor
simple
Islanders
might
understand
by
this
,
that
they
had
declared
it
to
be
false
and
pernicious
.
There
is
no
such
matter
I
will
assure
you
,
but
upon
the
stirrs
in
France
they
renounced
the
publishing
it
,
they
renounced
it
as
they
were
in
France
,
but
thought
it
good
Doctrine
at
Rome
:
they
are
forbidden
to
treat
any
more
of
it
,
because
of
the
odiousness
of
it
to
Princes
,
and
that
is
all
the
renouncing
they
ever
meant
.
The
third
Principle
is
,
the
lawfulness
of
killing
Kings
,
as
to
which
,
he
saith
,
he
cannot
name
the
person
that
ever
taught
it
in
those
Terms
:
a
good
reason
for
that
,
because
when
they
would
have
them
killed
they
call
them
Tyrants
.
And
so
grants
Dominicus
Soto
and
Marian
have
asserted
it
,
he
might
have
namse
more
if
he
had
pleased
.
I
could
not
des●
a
more
pleasant
task
than
to
pursue
〈◊〉
through
the
remainder
of
his
discourse
wherein
he
undertakes
to
vindicate
the
Jesuits
practices
,
but
these
have
been
much
exposed
by
men
of
their
own
Region
,
that
I
may
spare
my
pains
in
th●
Preface
;
and
we
may
easily
guess
h●
hard
he
was
put
to
it
,
when
he
mak●
the
letter
of
the
Bishop
of
Angelopol
to
be
forged
at
Port-Royal
by
the
Ja●
senists
.
And
thus
he
hath
shifted
〈◊〉
fault
from
the
Indies
to
Europe
,
〈◊〉
to
vindicate
some
Papists
there
fre●
Idolatry
,
he
charges
others
here
with
forge●
▪
And
●et
to
this
as
a
full
Answer
,
the
〈◊〉
Ans●erer
of
the
Seasonable
Discour●
doth
referr
us
.
And
out
of
his
admiral
learning
and
skill
in
History
desires
〈◊〉
Adversary
,
for
his
satisfaction
that
the
can
be
no
danger
of
Resuming
Abby
Lan●
of
Popery
should
return
,
to
go
into
Germany
where
there
are
so
many
Papist
and
Protestant
Princes
,
Noble
men
and
Gentlemen
,
that
have
(
especially
since
the
Treaty
at
Munster
)
either
Bishopricks
,
Abbeys
or
the
like
confirmed
to
them
by
the
Pope
.
How
!
confirmed
to
them
by
the
Pope
!
what
will
not
these
men
dare
to
say
?
I
perceive
Ignorance
serves
them
for
other
purposes
than
meerly
to
be
the
Mother
of
Devotion
.
If
at
least
this
worthy
Author
could
be
Ignorant
of
so
notorious
a
thing
as
Pope
Innocents
Bull
published
on
purpose
to
Null
the
Treaty
at
Munster
,
as
prejudicial
to
the
Catholick
Religion
,
to
the
Apostolical
See
,
to
Churches
and
other
Holy
Places
and
Persons
and
Ecclesiastical
Rights
.
In
the
body
of
the
Bull
he
saith
,
that
his
Nuncio
there
(
who
was
afterwards
Pope
Alexander
the
seveth
)
did
protest
against
these
Articles
,
as
void
,
null
,
unjust
,
and
agreed
upon
by
persons
that
had
no
power
,
and
that
they
were
to
be
so
looked
on
by
all
.
But
the
Pope
did
not
think
this
sufficient
,
but
declares
all
those
Articles
that
related
to
liberty
of
Religion
,
Church-lands
,
or
any
Ecclesiastical
Rights
,
or
brought
any
the
least
prejudice
to
them
or
might
be
thought
or
pretended
so
to
do
,
to
be
null
,
void
,
invalid
,
unjust
,
damned
,
reprobate
,
vain
,
and
without
any
force
or
power
,
and
that
they
shall
remain
so
for
ever
;
and
that
no
person
,
though
never
so
much
sworn
to
observe
those
articles
shall
be
bound
by
such
oath
;
no
right
,
title
,
plea
,
prescription
,
shall
accrue
to
any
by
vertue
of
them
:
and
therefore
out
of
the
Plenitude
of
Apostolical
power
he
doth
absolutely
damn
,
reprobate
,
null
and
cassate
all
those
articles
and
protests
before
God
of
the
nullity
of
them
;
and
restores
all
persons
and
places
to
their
ancient
possessions
notwithstanding
them
,
with
very
much
more
to
the
same
purpose
.
This
was
dated
at
Rome
apud
Sanctam
Mariam
Majorem
sub
Annulo
Piscatoris
die
26
Novemb.
and
solemnly
published
there
the
third
of
Jan.
1651.
in
the
eighth
year
of
his
Pontificat
.
Call
you
this
,
Sir
,
the
Popes
confirming
them
!
Is
it
credible
that
he
who
in
the
beginning
of
his
Answer
had
charged
the
late
Protestant
Books
,
(
which
he
most
ingeniously
calls
Libels
)
to
be
crammed
with
nothing
else
but
what
we
know
to
be
false
,
should
within
a
few
Pages
have
the
confidence
to
affirm
in
the
face
of
the
world
so
notorious
an
untruth
?
But
I
leave
this
ingenious
Author
,
to
be
Chastised
for
this
and
other
his
extravagancies
,
by
his
worthy
Adversary
,
and
return
to
my
own
.
After
all
these
unsuccessful
attempts
at
last
the
Knight
himself
resolves
to
encounter
the
Dragon
;
and
accordingly
he
buckles
on
his
armour
,
mounts
his
stead
,
and
,
according
to
all
ancient
and
modern
Pictures
of
the
combat
,
directs
his
lance
into
the
very
mouth
of
it
;
wisely
considering
,
if
the
head
were
mortally
wounded
,
the
whole
Body
would
fall
to
the
ground
.
After
him
at
a
convenient
distance
follows
his
Squire
I.
S.
who
had
a
particular
spight
at
the
Dragons
Tayl
,
and
without
fear
or
wit
falls
unmercifully
upon
it
,
and
in
his
own
opinion
,
hath
chopt
it
into
a
thousand
pieces
.
But
such
mischievous
creatures
whose
strength
lies
scattered
in
all
their
parts
,
do
often
rise
up
when
they
are
triumphed
over
as
dead
,
and
give
their
most
deadly
wounds
,
when
they
are
thought
to
lye
gasping
for
breath
.
It
happened
that
when
T.
G's
.
Answer
to
the
first
part
of
my
Book
came
out
,
I
was
before
engaged
in
the
Defence
of
the
Protestant
principles
of
faith
against
the
Guide
in
Controversies
and
E.
W.
(
the
Author
of
those
two
learned
Treatises
as
T.
G.
calls
them
,
Protestancy
without
Principles
,
and
Religion
and
Reason
)
part
of
which
being
then
in
the
Press
,
I
was
forced
to
go
through
with
that
,
before
I
could
take
his
Book
into
consideration
.
And
thereupon
I
resolved
to
dispatch
all
those
which
relate
to
the
Principles
of
Faith
together
;
and
then
to
proceed
to
the
Principles
of
Worship
in
answer
to
him
,
which
(
God
willing
)
I
intend
as
soon
as
the
former
part
is
finished
.
All
that
I
shall
take
notice
of
him
here
,
is
to
represent
the
ingenuity
of
his
dealing
with
me
in
his
Preface
,
wherein
he
charges
me
with
dissenting
from
the
Doctrine
of
the
Church
of
England
in
accusing
the
Church
of
Rome
of
Idolatry
.
And
by
this
one
Instance
I
desire
the
Reader
to
judge
what
Candour
and
sincerity
he
is
to
expect
in
his
Book
.
For
the
sense
of
the
Church
of
England
I
appealed
to
the
Book
of
Homilies
:
not
to
any
doubtful
,
or
general
or
single
passage
therein
,
but
to
the
design
of
one
of
the
largest
and
most
elaborat●
Homilies
in
the
whole
Book
;
consisting
of
three
several
parts
,
the
last
of
which
i●
said
not
to
be
meerly
for
the
People
but
for
the
instruction
of
those
who
were
t●
teach
them
.
The
design
of
that
last
part
is
thus
set
down
.
1.
That
Popish
Images
and
the
Idols
of
the
Gentils
are
all
one
concerning
themselves
.
2.
That
they
have
been
and
be
worshipped
in
our
time
in
like
form
and
manner
as
were
the
Idols
of
the
Gentils
.
And
for
that
Idolatry
standeth
chiefly
in
the
mind
,
it
shall
in
this
part
first
be
proved
that
our
Image-maintainers
,
have
had
and
have
the
same
opinions
and
judgement
of
Saints
whose
Images
they
have
made
and
worshipped
as
the
Gentils
Idolaters
had
of
their
Gods
;
and
afterwards
shall
be
declared
that
our
Image-maintainers
and
worshippers
have
used
and
use
the
same
outward
rites
,
and
manner
of
honouring
,
and
worshipping
their
Images
,
as
the
Gentils
did
use
before
their
Idols
,
and
that
therefore
they
commit
Idolatry
,
as
well
inwardly
as
outwardly
,
as
did
the
wicked
Gentils
Idolaters
;
and
this
that
Homily
is
intended
for
the
proof
of
:
which
it
doth
very
fully
.
But
,
saith
T.
G.
,
why
did
I
not
appeal
for
the
sense
of
our
Church
to
the
39.
Articles
?
As
though
the
approbation
of
the
Book
of
Homilies
were
not
one
of
them
,
viz
the
35.
The
second
Book
of
Homilies
the
several
Titles
whereof
we
have
joyned
under
this
Article
(
among
which
Titles
the
second
is
this
of
the
Peril
of
Idolatry
)
doth
contain
a
godly
and
wholesome
Doctrine
and
necessary
for
these
times
.
Which
Articles
were
not
only
allowed
and
approved
by
the
Queen
,
but
confirmed
by
the
subscription
of
the
hand
of
the
Arch-bishop
and
Bishops
of
the
upper
House
,
and
by
the
subscription
of
the
whole
Clergy
in
the
nether
House
of
Convocation
A.
D.
1571.
Now
I
desire
T.
G.
to
resolve
me
whether
men
of
any
common
understanding
would
have
subscribed
to
this
Book
of
Homilies
in
this
manner
,
if
they
had
believed
the
main
Doctrine
and
design
of
one
of
them
had
been
false
and
pernicious
?
as
they
must
have
done
if
they
had
thought
the
practice
of
the
Roman
Church
to
be
free
from
Idolatry
.
I
will
put
th●
case
that
any
of
the
Bishops
then
had
thought
the
charge
of
Idolatry
had
been
unjust
,
and
that
it
had
subverted
the
foundation
of
Ecclesiastical
Authority
,
that
there
could
have
been
no
Church
,
or
right
ordination
if
the
Roman
Church
had
been
guilty
of
Idolatry
;
would
they
have
inserted
this
into
the
Articles
,
when
it
was
in
their
power
to
have
left
it
out
?
and
that
the
Homilies
contained
a
wholesome
and
Godly
Doctrine
,
which
in
their
consciences
they
believed
to
be
false
and
pernicious
?
I
might
as
well
think
that
the
Council
of
Trent
would
have
allowed
Calvins
Institutions
,
as
containing
a
wholesome
and
Godly
Doctrine
;
as
that
men
so
perswaded
would
have
allowed
it
the
Homily
against
the
Peril
of
Idolatry
.
And
how
is
it
possible
to
understand
the
sense
of
our
Church
better
,
than
by
such
publick
and
authentick
acts
of
it
,
which
all
Persons
who
are
in
any
place
of
trust
in
the
Church
must
subscribe
,
and
d●clare
their
approbation
of
them
?
This
Homily
hath
still
continued
the
same
,
the
Article
the
very
same
,
and
if
so
they
must
acknowledge
this
hath
been
,
and
is
to
this
day
the
sense
of
our
Church
.
But
saith
T.
C.
the
subscribing
the
Book
of
Homilies
,
as
containing
a
godly
and
wholesome
Doctrine
,
doth
not
evince
that
every
particular
Doctrine
contained
in
it
is
such
.
Be
it
so
:
but
I
hope
it
doth
evince
that
the
Subscribers
did
not
think
the
main
Doctrine
of
any
one
Homily
to
be
false
?
Surely
there
is
a
great
deal
of
difference
between
some
particular
passages
and
expressions
in
these
Homilies
,
and
that
which
is
the
main
design
and
Foundation
of
any
one
of
them
.
But
in
this
case
we
are
to
observe
,
that
they
who
deny
the
Church
of
Rome
to
be
guilty
of
Idolatry
,
do
not
only
look
on
the
Charge
as
false
,
but
as
of
dangerous
Consequence
;
and
therefore
although
men
may
subscribe
to
a
Book
in
general
as
containing
wholesome
and
godly
Doctrine
,
though
they
be
not
so
certain
of
the
Truth
of
every
passage
in
it
,
yet
they
can
never
do
it
with
a
good
conscience
if
they
believe
any
great
and
considerable
part
of
the
Doctrine
therein
contained
to
be
false
and
dangerous
.
Such
a
subscription
would
be
as
apparently
shuffling
and
dishonest
as
is
the
evasion
of
this
Testimony
which
T.
G.
makes
use
of
for
want
of
a
better
.
I
shall
in
the
next
place
shew
the
current
Doctrine
of
the
Church
ever
since
the
Reformation
to
have
been
agreeable
to
this
Homily
of
the
Peril
of
Idolatry
.
In
the
Injunctions
published
by
K.
Edward
VI.
A.
D.
1547.
the
extirpation
of
Popery
is
called
the
suppression
of
Idolatry
and
Superstition
.
In
the
second
year
of
Edward
VI.
Arch-bishop
Cranmer
published
his
Articles
of
Visitation
,
whereof
the
6.
and
the
last
are
about
the
taking
away
Images
,
Pictures
,
and
all
other
Monuments
of
feigned
miracles
,
Pilgrimages
,
Idolatry
and
Superstition
.
In
the
second
Liturgy
by
Edward
VI.
after
the
Communion
,
was
a
Rubrick
annexed
,
in
which
the
Adoration
of
the
Host
is
expresly
called
Idolatry
.
This
is
that
very
Rubrick
,
of
which
T.
G.
,
according
to
his
excellent
skill
in
the
offices
of
our
Church
,
saith
it
is
not
yet
more
then
a
dozen
years
since
it
was
inserted
into
the
Communion
Book
;
which
he
might
have
found
above
a
100.
years
before
in
the
Book
of
Edward
VI.
In
the
Injunctions
of
Queen
Elizabeth
,
A.
D.
1559.
Art.
2.
and
23.
all
Shrines
,
Tables
,
Pictures
,
&c.
are
commanded
to
be
taken
away
and
destroyed
and
all
other
Monuments
of
feigned
miracles
,
Idolatry
and
Superstition
.
And
that
〈◊〉
may
not
think
it
was
only
a
sudden
hea●
at
the
first
Reformation
which
made
the●
charge
the
Church
of
Rome
with
Idolatry
,
long
after
in
A
form
of
Thanksgiving
in
the
37.
of
Queen
Elizabeth
A.
D.
1594.
Popery
is
called
that
Idolatrous
Religion
:
as
it
was
in
the
Beginning
of
her
Reign
in
the
excellen●
Apology
for
the
Church
of
England
And
I
desire
him
,
or
any
one
else
,
〈◊〉
produce
any
one
Bishop
or
Divine
of
not●
in
the
Church
of
England
,
who
during
all
h●r
Reign
did
deny
the
Church
of
Rome
to
be
guilty
of
Idolatry
.
But
why
then
was
it
not
inserted
in
the
39.
Articles
?
in
which
T.
G.
observes
,
the
Adoration
of
Images
is
not
rejected
as
Idolatry
,
but
only
as
a
fond
thing
,
vainly
invented
,
nor
as
repugnant
to
the
plain
words
of
Scripture
,
but
as
being
rather
repugnant
to
the
word
of
God
,
which
plainly
gives
us
to
understand
,
that
they
had
done
their
endeavours
to
find
a
command
but
could
not
.
A
most
ingenious
Criticism
!
when
himself
and
all
others
of
their
Divines
yield
that
adoration
of
images
,
which
our
Church
charges
them
with
,
Art.
22.
(
viz.
not
barely
worshipping
but
adoration
of
images
)
to
be
Idolatry
and
plainly
repugnant
to
Scripture
.
Were
the
composers
of
our
Articles
so
sensless
as
not
to
think
Idolatry
repugnant
to
Scripture
;
or
not
to
think
adoration
of
images
to
be
Idolatry
;
or
not
to
think
the
Church
of
Rome
guilty
of
it
,
when
the
Article
saith
The
Romish
Doctrine
concerning
worshipping
and
adoration
as
well
of
Images
as
of
Reliques
,
&
c
?
It
is
not
meerly
the
practice
used
in
the
Church
of
Rome
,
but
their
very
Doctrine
concerning
adoration
of
images
which
is
here
charged
;
and
can
any
Church
teach
adoration
of
images
and
not
be
guilty
of
Idolatry
?
And
for
his
Criticism
about
being
rather
repugnant
,
it
had
been
utterly
lost
if
he
had
looked
into
the
Latin
Articles
where
the
words
are
,
immo
verbo
Dei
contradicit
;
whereby
it
appears
that
rather
is
not
used
as
a
term
of
diminution
,
but
of
a
more
vehement
affirmation
.
I
now
come
to
the
exceptions
he
takes
to
the
particular
Testimonies
I
produced
of
the
most
eminent
Bishops
and
Divines
of
our
Church
,
ever
since
the
Reformation
,
who
have
all
concurred
in
this
charge
of
Idolatry
.
Two
parts
in
three
he
excepts
against
as
incompetent
witnesses
in
the
case
:
how
few
of
the
Iury
would
any
Malefactor
allow
if
such
frivolous
exceptions
might
serve
his
turn
?
The
two
first
he
excepts
against
are
the
two
Arch-Bishops
Whitgift
and
Abbot
as
Puritanically
inclined
.
But
as
it
unhappily
falls
out
,
one
of
them
was
never
mentioned
by
me
,
and
the
other
never
till
now
suspected
for
a
Puritan
.
The
Abbot
I
mentioned
was
not
George
Abbot
Arch-Bishop
of
Canterbury
,
but
Robert
Abbot
Bishop
of
Salisbury
;
and
it
is
the
first
time
we
ever
heard
that
a
Bishop
of
Salisbury
was
suspended
from
his
Metropolitical
jurisdiction
.
But
they
of
the
Church
of
Rome
have
a
faculty
of
doing
greater
wonders
with
five
words
,
than
Changing
a
Bishop
into
an
Arch-Bishop
.
I
hope
he
understands
the
Church
he
is
of
,
better
than
that
he
hath
left
,
or
else
we
are
like
to
have
a
sad
account
of
History
from
him
.
But
why
I
beseech
you
,
after
all
his
zeal
and
indefatigable
pains
for
the
Church
of
England
,
must
Arch-Bishop
Whitgift
be
thrown
away
to
the
Puritans
?
If
he
had
proved
T.
C.
at
the
same
time
Arch-Bishop
of
Canterbury
,
there
might
have
been
some
reason
to
suspect
Whitgift
to
have
been
of
the
Puritan
side
;
for
all
the
world
know
they
were
grea●
adversaries
on
that
very
account
of
th●
Puritan
cause
.
But
was
not
Whitgi●●
for
the
Lambeth
Articles
?
And
wh●
then
?
Are
the
Dominicans
Puritans
and
no
Papists
?
If
your
Church
may
hav●
liberty
not
to
determin
those
nice
points
why
may
not
ours
?
and
so
both
parties
remain
of
our
Church
,
as
long
as
they
contradict
no
received
Articles
among
us
.
But
the
Lambeth-Articles
were
neve●
intended
for
any
more
than
as
Respons●
Prudentum
to
silence
disputes
in
the
university
.
And
I
believe
none
of
the
Puritan
party
after
that
,
took
Arch-Bishop
Whitgift
to
be
a
Patron
of
thei●
cause
.
But
if
these
will
not
serve
his
turn
,
〈◊〉
have
others
ready
,
whom
for
meer
sham●
he
will
not
say
were
Puritans
,
or
Puritanically
inclined
.
And
the
first
of
these
is
an
Arch-Bishop
too
,
and
that
is
Arch-Bishop
Bancroft
;
and
if
he
be
cast
out
for
a
Puritan
,
surely
there
never
was
any
Bishop
of
the
Church
of
England
.
In
his
Sermon
preached
at
Pauls
Cross
on
1
John
4.
1.
he
hath
these
words
speaking
of
the
Papists
.
The
Popish
false
Prophets
will
suffer
the
people
to
try
nothing
,
but
do
teach
them
wholly
to
depend
on
them
;
and
to
that
purpose
they
have
indeed
three
notable
sleights
.
First
they
forbid
them
the
reading
of
the
Scriptures
.
And
the
better
to
be
obeyed
therein
they
will
not
permit
the
Scriptures
to
be
Translated
into
the
Vulgar
Tongue
.
Whereof
it
came
to
pass
that
the
people
were
so
easily
seduced
,
and
drawn
from
Christ
to
the
Pope
;
from
his
merits
to
the
Saints
,
and
their
own
merits
;
from
his
bloody
sacrifice
,
whereby
only
sins
are
remitted
,
to
their
most
dry
and
fruitless
sacrifice
;
from
the
spiritual
food
of
his
Body
and
Blood
,
unto
a
carnal
and
Capernaitical
Transubstantiation
;
from
the
calling
upon
his
name
to
an
Invocation
of
Saints
:
and
from
their
sure
trust
and
confidence
in
his
death
to
a
vain
imagination
of
the
vertue
of
their
Masses
,
Pilgrimages
,
Pardons
,
and
I
know
not
what
intolerable
Superstition
and
Idolatry
.
I
hope
Arch-Bishop
Bancroft
may
for
once
pass
for
no
Puritan
with
T.
G.
But
what
will
he
say
,
if
the
only
persons
he
produces
as
most
partial
of
his
side
,
do
give
in
evidence
against
him
?
Bishop
Mountague
is
the
first
,
whose
words
are
these
in
the
Book
cited
by
him
.
Our
predecessors
and
Fathers
coming
late
out
of
Popery
,
living
near
unto
Papists
and
Popish
times
,
conversing
with
them
,
having
been
nuzzled
and
brought
up
amongst
them
and
knowing
that
Images
used
to
be
crept
unto
,
incensed
,
worshipped
,
and
adored
among
them
,
&c.
What
thinks
he
,
is
not
this
all
one
as
to
charge
them
with
Idolatry
?
And
more
plainly
in
his
former
Book
,
But
whatsoever
you
say
,
however
you
qualify
the
thing
with
gentle
words
,
we
say
in
your
practice
you
far
exceed
;
and
give
them
that
honour
which
is
Latria
a
part
of
Divine
respect
and
worship
.
And
afterwards
saith
,
the
people
go
to
it
with
downright
adoration
,
and
your
new
Schools
defend
that
the
same
respect
is
due
to
the
representer
,
as
must
be
given
to
the
representee
.
So
that
the
Crucifix
is
to
be
reverenced
with
the
the
self-same
honour
that
Christ
Jesus
is
.
Ablasphemy
not
heard
of
till
Thomas
Aquinas
set
it
on
foot
.
Clear
these
enormities
,
and
others
like
these
,
then
come
and
we
may
talk
and
soon
agree
concerning
honour
and
respect
unto
Reliques
or
Images
of
Saints
,
or
Christ
;
till
then
we
cannot
answer
it
unto
our
Maker
,
to
give
his
honour
unto
a
Creature
.
His
next
is
Pet.
Heylin
;
And
now
I
hope
we
have
at
last
hit
upon
a
man
far
enough
from
being
a
Puritan
;
yet
this
very
Person
gives
plain
evidence
against
him
.
For
i●
his
4th
.
Sermon
on
the
Tares
preached
a●
White-Hall
Ianuary
27.
1638.
H●
hath
these
words
.
So
it
is
also
in
the
point
of
Images
,
first
introduced
into
the
Church
for
ornament
,
History
,
and
imitation
.
Had
they
staid
there
it
had
been
well
,
and
no
faul●
found
with
them
.
—
But
when
the
Schools
began
to
State
it
,
that
the
same
Veneration
was
to
be
afforded
to
the
Type
and
Prototype
,
then
came
the
Doctrine
to
the
growth
.
When
and
by
whom
,
and
where
it
was
first
so
stated
is
not
easie
to
determine
,
and
indeed
not
necessary
.
It
is
enough
that
we
behold
it
in
the
fruits
.
And
what
fruits
think
you
could
it
bear
,
but
most
gross
Idolatry
,
greater
than
which
was
never
known
among
the
Gentils
?
Witness
their
praying
not
before
,
but
to
the
Crucifix
,
and
calling
on
the
very
Cross
,
the
wooden
and
material
Cross
,
both
to
increase
their
righteousness
and
remit
their
sins
.
And
for
the
Images
of
the
Saints
,
they
that
observe
with
what
laborious
Pilgrimages
,
magnificent
processions
,
solemn
offerings
,
and
in
a
word
,
with
what
affections
,
prayers
,
and
humble
bendings
of
the
body
,
they
have
been
and
are
worshipped
in
the
Church
of
Rome
,
might
very
easily
conceive
that
She
was
once
again
relapsed
into
her
ancient
Paganism
.
With
much
more
to
the
same
purpose
.
His
only
person
remaining
,
is
Mr.
Thorndike
,
a
man
of
excellent
Learning
and
great
piety
,
but
if
we
should
grant
,
that
he
held
some
thing
singular
in
this
matter
;
what
is
that
to
the
constant
opinion
of
our
Church
?
and
yet
even
Mr.
Thorndike
himself
in
a
paper
sent
by
him
〈◊〉
some
whom
T.
G.
know's
,
not
long
before
his
death
,
saith
,
That
,
to
pray
to
Saints
for
those
things
which
only
God
can
give
(
as
all
Papist
do
is
by
the
proper
sense
of
the
word●
down-right
Idolatry
.
If
they
say
▪
their
meaning
is
by
a
figure
only
to
desire
them
to
procure
their
requests
of
God
:
How
dare
any
Christian
trust
his
soul
with
that
Church
which
teaches
that
which
must
needs
be
Idolatry
in
all
that
understand
not
the
figure
?
So
that
upon
the
whole
matter
T.
G.
cannot
produce
any
on●
Person
of
our
Church
that
hath
clearly
an●
wholly
acquitted
the
Church
of
Rome
from
the
charge
of
Idolatry
.
It
seems
then
〈◊〉
Church
hath
been
made
up
of
Puritans
i●
T.
G's
.
sense
of
them
.
But
if
these
do
no●
satisfy
him
what
doth
he
think
of
the
Arch-Bishop
and
Bishops
and
Clergy
of
the
Convocation
.
A.
D.
1640.
Were
〈◊〉
these
Puritans
too
?
And
yet
in
the
sevent●
Canon
they
have
these
words
.
And
albeit
at
the
time
or
Reforming
this
Church
from
that
gross
Superstition
of
Popery
,
it
was
carefully
provided
that
all
means
should
be
used
to
root
out
of
the
minds
of
the
people
,
both
the
inclination
thereto
and
memory
thereof
;
especially
of
the
Idolatry
committed
in
the
Mass
,
for
which
cause
all
Popish
Altars
were
demolished
,
&c.
What
can
more
express
the
sense
of
our
Church
,
than
the
concurrent
opinion
of
Arch-Bishops
,
Bishops
and
Clergy
of
both
Provinces
met
in
Convocation
?
When
we
see
they
so
lately
,
charged
the
Church
of
Rome
with
Idolatry
.
Let
us
now
consider
what
exceptions
he
takes
against
the
other
witnesses
produced
by
me
.
Jewel
,
Bilson
,
Davenant
,
all
eminent
Bishops
of
our
Church
and
of
great
learning
,
are
cast
away
at
once
,
as
incompetent
Persons
.
But
why
so
?
Why
,
saith
T.
G.
they
were
all
excepted
against
by
our
late
Soveraign
K.
Charcles
I.
in
his
third
paper
to
Henderson
.
That
is
a
shrewd
prejudice
indeed
to
their
Authority
to
be
rejected
by
a
Prince
of
so
excellent
a
judgement
and
so
Cordial
a
friend
to
the
Church
of
England
.
But
it
is
good
to
be
sure
whether
it
be
so
or
no.
All
that
he
saith
of
Bishop
Iewel
is
this
,
and
though
I
much
reverence
Bishop
Iewel
'
s
memory
,
I
never
thought
him
infallible
.
So
then
,
he
must
he
Puritanically
inclined
;
but
whence
does
that
follow
?
not
surely
from
the
Kings
reverencing
his
memory
,
for
that
were
to
reflect
upon
the
King
himself
;
not
from
his
not
thinking
him
Infallible
.
For
I
dare
say
,
the
King
never
thought
the
Pope
infallible
;
must
be
needs
therefore
think
him
a
Puritan
?
Surely
never
man
was
such
a
Friend
to
the
Puritans
as
this
T.
G.
who
without
any
ground
gives
them
away
some
of
the
greatest
honours
of
our
Church
,
and
(
if
the
Testimony
last
cited
be
of
any
force
to
prove
one
a
Puritan
,
)
all
mankind
,
and
himself
too
:
for
I
plainly
perceive
by
this
Preface
that
he
is
not
infallible
.
Yet
for
all
this
we
will
not
let
go
Jewel
,
no
nor
Bilson
,
Davenant
,
White
,
Usher
,
Downam
,
what
ever
T.
G.
saith
against
them
.
Indeed
K.
Charles
excepts
against
Bilson
for
his
Principles
of
civil
Government
,
but
not
a
word
of
his
disaffection
to
the
Church
of
England
:
For
Bishop
Davenant
,
the
King
saith
he
is
none
of
those
to
whom
he
appealed
,
or
would
submit
unto
,
and
with
very
good
reason
,
for
the
King
had
appealed
to
the
practice
of
the
primitive
Church
,
and
the
Universal
consent
of
Fathers
;
therefore
Bishop
Davenant
was
a
Puritan
.
It
seems
they
have
been
all
Puritans
since
the
Primitive
times
;
and
I
hope
the
Church
of
Rome
then
hath
good
store
of
them
,
for
that
is
far
enough
from
the
Fathers
or
the
Primitive
Church
.
But
how
comes
Bishop
White
in
for
a
Puritan
,
being
so
great
a
Friend
of
Arch-Bishop
Laud
;
why
,
forsooth
,
Heylin
reports
that
for
licensing
Bishop
Mountagu's
Appello
Caesarem
,
it
was
said
,
that
White
was
turned
Black.
And
canst
thou
for
thy
heart
,
good
Reader
,
expect
a
more
pregnant
proof
?
It
was
a
notable
saying
,
and
it
is
great
pity
,
the
Historian
did
not
preserve
the
memory
of
the
Author
of
it
;
but
by
whom
was
it
said
?
that
must
be
supposed
by
the
Puritans
;
and
could
none
but
they
be
the
Authors
of
so
witty
a
saying
?
But
suppose
they
were
the
Puritans
that
said
it
?
it
is
plain
then
,
they
thought
him
no
sound
Puritan
,
for
they
hold
no
falling
from
Grace
.
All
then
that
can
be
inferred
from
this
witty
saying
is
,
that
White
sunk
in
his
esteem
among
them
by
this
Act.
And
is
it
not
possible
for
them
to
have
an
esteem
for
those
who
are
not
of
their
own
Party
?
Concerning
Arch-Bishop
Usher
,
Dr.
Heylin
was
known
to
be
too
much
his
enemy
,
to
be
allowed
to
give
a
Character
of
him
:
and
his
name
will
not
want
a
due
veneration
as
long
as
Learning
and
piety
have
any
esteem
among
us
.
But
he
is
most
troubled
what
to
do
with
six
that
remain
,
viz.
King
James
,
Bishop
Andrews
,
Arch-Bishop
Laud
,
Isaac
Casaubon
,
Doct.
Field
,
and
Doct.
Jackson
;
these
he
could
not
for
shame
fasten
the
name
of
Puritans
upon
(
as
he
doth
with
scorn
on
Bishop
Downam
,
Reynolds
,
Whitaker
,
and
Fulk
;
whose
testimonies
I
said
to
prevent
cavils
,
I
need
not
to
produce
although
they
are
all
capable
of
sufficient
vindication
.
)
For
King
James
,
he
saith
,
that
in
the
place
cited
by
me
he
saith
expresly
,
that
what
he
condemns
is
adoring
of
Images
,
praying
to
them
,
and
imagining
a
kind
of
Sanctity
in
them
,
all
which
are
detested
by
Catholicks
.
Was
ever
man
put
to
such
miserable
shifts
?
Are
not
these
King
James
his
words
.
But
for
worshipping
either
them
,
(
Reliques
)
or
Images
,
I
must
account
it
damnable
Idolatry
.
And
doth
not
King
James
a
little
after
take
off
their
distinctions
and
evasions
in
these
words
,
and
they
worship
(
forsooth
)
the
Images
of
things
in
Being
,
and
the
Image
of
the
true
God.
But
Scripture
forbiddeth
to
worship
the
Image
of
any
thing
that
God
created
.
Yea
the
Image
of
God
himself
is
not
only
expresly
forbidden
to
be
worshipped
but
even
to
be
made
.
Let
them
therefore
that
maintain
this
doctrine
,
answer
it
to
Christ
at
the
latter
day
,
when
he
shall
accuse
them
of
Idolatry
;
And
then
I
doubt
if
he
will
be
paid
with
such
nice
Sophistical
distinctions
.
Is
all
this
nothing
but
to
charge
them
with
such
practices
which
they
detest
?
Doth
he
not
mention
their
Doctrine
,
and
their
distinctions
?
Did
not
King
James
understand
what
he
said
,
and
what
they
did
?
It
is
plain
he
charges
them
with
Idolatry
in
what
they
did
,
which
was
that
I
brought
his
Testimony
for
.
The
like
answer
he
gives
to
the
rest
of
them
,
viz.
that
they
charged
them
,
with
what
they
thought
they
did
,
but
the
Papists
deny
that
they
do
any
such
thing
:
i.
e.
in
plain
Terms
,
they
charge
them
with
Idolatry
,
but
the
Papists
deny
they
commit
it
.
And
so
they
do
when
I
charge
them
with
it
;
so
that
T.
G.
by
the
very
same
reason
might
have
acquitted
me
from
charging
them
with
it
,
and
have
spared
his
Book
.
Is
not
this
now
an
Admirable
way
of
proving
,
that
they
do
not
charge
them
with
Idolatry
,
because
the
Papists
deny
they
commit
it
?
Who
meddles
with
what
they
profess
they
do
,
or
do
not
?
I
was
to
shew
what
these
Persons
charged
them
with
.
And
do
any
of
these
excuse
them
by
saying
any
doctrine
of
theirs
was
contrary
to
these
particulars
?
do
they
not
expresly
set
themselves
to
disprove
their
distinctions
upon
which
their
doctrine
is
founded
?
and
shew
the
vanity
of
them
because
their
open
and
allowed
practices
do
plainly
contradict
them
;
and
shew
that
they
do
give
divine
honour
to
Images
however
in
words
they
deny
it
.
But
this
way
of
defending
them
is
,
as
if
those
whom
St.
Paul
charges
that
they
professed
that
they
knew
God
but
in
works
they
denied
him
,
should
reply
to
him
,
how
can
we
deny
him
in
our
Works
,
since
we
profess
him
in
our
Words
?
Iust
so
saith
T.
G.
how
can
they
be
charged
with
Idolatry
,
since
they
profess
to
do
no
such
thing
?
A●though
such
persons
,
as
those
I
mentioned
,
did
not
understand
both
what
the
Papists
said
for
themselves
and
what
they
did
notwithstanding
.
And
now
I
joy●
with
T.
G.
in
desiring
the
Reader
may
be
judge
between
us
,
whether
I
have
betrayed
my
trust
in
pretending
to
defend
the
Church
of
England
;
and
whether
in
charging
the
Church
of
Rome
with
Idolatry
I
have
contradicted
the
sense
of
it
?
since
I
have
made
it
appear
that
her
most
true
and
Genuin
sons
,
the
most
remote
from
all
suspicion
of
disaffection
to
her
,
or
inclination
to
Puritanism
,
have
concurred
in
the
same
charge
which
I
undertook
to
make
good
.
But
there
is
one
blow
yet
remaining
in
his
Preface
,
which
I
must
endeavour
to
ward
off
,
otherwise
it
will
be
a
terrible
one
to
the
Church
of
England
;
for
by
this
charge
of
Idolatry
,
he
makes
me
to
subvert
the
very
foundation
of
Ecclesiastical
Authority
in
it
.
This
it
is
to
charge
home
.
For
,
saith
he
,
it
being
a
received
Maxime
and
not
being
denyable
by
any
man
of
common
sense
,
that
no
man
can
give
to
another
that
which
he
hath
not
himself
,
it
lies
open
to
the
Conscience
of
every
man
,
that
if
the
Church
of
Rome
be
guilty
of
Heresie
,
much
more
if
guilty
of
Idolatry
,
it
falls
under
the
Apostles
excommunication
.
(
Gal.
1.
8.
)
and
so
remains
deprived
of
the
Lawful
Authority
to
use
and
exercise
the
power
of
Orders
;
and
consequently
the
Authority
of
Governing
,
preaching
and
Administring
the
Sacraments
,
which
those
of
the
Church
of
England
challenge
to
themselves
,
as
deriv'd
from
the
Church
of
Rome
,
can
be
no
true
and
lawful
Jurisdiction
,
but
usurped
and
Anti-Christian
.
And
so
farewel
to
the
Church
of
England
,
if
the
Church
of
Rome
were
not
more
kind
in
this
case
than
T.
G.
is
.
Hitherto
we
have
seen
his
skill
in
the
affairs
of
our
Church
,
and
now
we
shall
see
just
as
much
in
the
Doctrine
of
his
own
.
For
doth
not
the
Council
of
Trent
make
Orders
a
Sacrament
?
and
one
of
those
which
doth
imprint
an
indelible
character
?
and
doth
not
that
Council
pronounce
an
Anathema
against
those
,
that
denyed
the
validity
of
the
Sacrament
administred
by
one
in
mortal
sin
,
in
case
he
observes
the
essentials
of
it
▪
How
then
can
T.
G
▪
●scape
excommunication
from
his
own
Church
,
that
denies
the
validity
of
the
Sacrament
of
Orders
in
case
of
the
sin
of
the
Givers
of
it
?
If
the
validity
of
the
Sacrament
doth
not
d●pend
on
the
worth
or
quality
of
the
Ministers
of
it
but
upon
the
essentials
and
the
institution
of
Christ
,
how
can
the
fault
of
the
persons
hinder
the
conveyance
of
that
Authority
,
which
they
are
only
the
bare
instruments
to
convey
?
Doth
T.
G.
think
so
in
all
other
Sacraments
?
as
in
case
of
Baptism
;
that
supposing
the
Ministers
of
it
have
been
guilty
of
Heresie
or
Idolatry
,
the
Sacrament
loses
its
effect
?
Well
fare
then
the
Donatists
,
whose
opinion
this
was
,
and
in
whom
it
hath
been
condemned
by
the
Church
.
If
it
be
not
so
in
other
Sacraments
how
comes
it
to
be
thus
in
Orders
?
which
he
must
acknowledge
,
to
be
as
much
a
Sacrament
as
Baptism
;
or
else
he
must
renounce
the
Council
of
Trent
.
And
it
is
observable
,
that
the
very
argument
used
by
the
Donatists
and
others
,
was
the
same
which
T.
G.
here
produces
,
viz.
his
common
maxim
of
Reason
,
and
not
denyable
by
any
man
of
common
sense
that
no
man
can
give
to
another
,
that
which
he
hath
not
himself
;
to
which
this
answer
was
given
,
that
the
Instrument
was
not
the
giver
,
but
the
first
Institutor
,
and
in
case
the
Minister
keep
to
the
Institution
,
the
Grace
of
the
Sacrament
may
be
conveyed
by
him
though
he
hath
it
not
himself
.
But
,
methinks
,
if
T.
G.
had
forgotten
the
Doctrine
of
the
Council
of
Trent
,
he
might
have
looked
into
some
one
or
other
of
their
own
Authors
to
have
informed
himself
better
of
their
Doctrine
in
this
matter
.
Vasquez
hath
a
Chapter
on
purpose
to
prove
that
an
Heretical
,
excommunicated
,
suspended
Bishop
is
a
sufficient
Minister
of
Ordination
;
and
saith
that
all
the
Schoolmen
and
Summists
are
agreed
in
it
,
and
that
there
can
be
no
doubt
at
all
made
of
it
.
And
did
none
of
these
men
understand
the
principle
that
is
undenyable
by
any
man
of
common
sense
?
what
a
back-blow
is
this
to
those
of
his
own
Church
?
for
Vasquez
saith
this
is
determined
as
a
matter
of
faith
among
them
,
that
the
validity
of
a
Sacrament
doth
not
depend
on
the
probity
or
faith
of
the
Minister
.
And
he
denies
it
to
be
in
the
power
of
the
Church
to
hinder
the
effect
of
ordination
in
an
excommunicated
Bishop
,
because
it
cannot
blot
out
his
Character
,
or
take
away
his
power
.
Estius
saith
,
that
no
Crime
how
great
soever
,
whether
haeresie
,
Schism
,
or
Apostasie
,
no
censure
how
heavy
soever
,
as
excommunication
,
can
hinder
the
validity
of
ordination
by
a
Bishop
,
although
it
be
of
those
who
are
not
subject
to
his
jurisdiction
,
in
case
he
observes
the
lawful
rites
of
ordination
as
to
the
essence
of
the
Sacrament
;
for
this
reason
,
because
ordination
belongs
to
the
power
of
Order
,
which
being
once
received
can
never
be
lost
;
but
those
things
which
belong
to
Jurisdiction
,
as
absolution
and
excommunication
,
have
no
effect
,
where
that
Jurisdiction
is
taken
away
.
And
this
Doctrine
they
all
ground
upon
St
Augustins
discourse
against
the
Donatists
;
and
upon
the
practice
of
the
Church
at
that
time
which
did
receive
those
who
were
ordained
among
the
Donatists
,
without
scrupling
their
Orders
;
as
not
only
appears
by
the
testimony
of
St.
Augustin
but
by
the
decree
of
an
African
Council
to
that
purpose
;
and
that
not
only
at
first
,
but
when
the
Schism
was
Grown
inveterate
.
And
yet
Francis
Hallier
a
late
Doctor
of
the
Sorbon
,
tells
us
,
that
the
Donatists
were
not
barely
Schismaticks
,
but
they
were
adjudged
hereticks
,
for
asserting
that
the
efficacy
of
Sacraments
did
depend
upon
the
quality
of
the
persons
,
and
not
upon
the
merits
of
Christ.
The
same
Author
vehemently
disputes
against
those
,
who
assert
that
the
power
of
Order
can
be
lost
by
the
sin
of
the
person
,
and
shews
that
Doctrine
hath
been
condemned
by
several
Councils
before
that
of
Trent
;
as
of
Arles
,
of
Orleans
and
Constance
:
and
undertakes
to
answer
all
the
instances
brought
from
Antiquity
to
the
contrary
;
as
either
understood
of
such
hereticks
,
which
did
not
retain
the
essentials
of
the
Sacrament
or
only
implying
the
fault
committed
in
giving
or
receiving
them
at
the
hands
of
such
persons
,
but
not
any
invalidity
in
the
Sacrament
it self
.
And
afterwards
he
proves
that
Hereticks
are
capable
of
ordination
.
But
if
these
,
and
many
others
of
their
later
Writers
will
not
satisfy
him
,
I
desire
him
to
consult
their
more
ancient
Authors
,
Thom.
Aquinas
determins
that
Hereticks
and
those
who
are
cut
off
from
the
Church
,
may
give
orders
as
well
as
administer
other
Sacraments
,
the
reason
he
gives
is
,
that
a
power
in
Consecration
is
given
to
a
Bishop
,
which
can
never
be
taken
from
him
,
although
he
will
not
allow
it
to
be
called
a
Character
.
For
several
,
especially
of
the
ancient
Schoolmen
would
not
have
consecration
to
imprint
a
new
Character
;
but
they
were
never
able
to
give
an
intelligible
account
of
what
they
meant
by
the
Character
as
distinct
from
that
Sacramental
power
which
was
conveyed
by
consecration
and
they
granted
to
be
indelible
as
the
other
was
,
some
making
it
an
extension
of
the
Character
of
Priesthood
,
others
a
bare
extrinsecal
denomination
added
to
it
;
but
however
they
held
it
such
as
could
no
more
be
taken
away
than
the
Character
of
Priesthood
.
Cardinal
Bonaventure
saith
,
that
the
validity
of
Sacraments
among
Hereticks
,
was
a
Question
much
in
dispute
among
the
ancient
Doctors
,
but
that
it
hath
been
determined
by
St.
Augustin
,
that
they
are
valid
if
they
preserve
the
essentials
of
them
:
and
in
the
matter
of
ordination
he
saith
,
that
the
power
of
Orders
,
although
it
be
not
a
distinct
Character
,
yet
because
it
is
built
upon
,
it
can
no
more
be
taken
away
than
the
Character
it self
:
but
whatever
is
founded
upon
Jurisdiction
as
the
power
of
excommunication
and
absolution
may
be
taken
away
.
But
I
need
not
mention
any
more
particular
Writers
,
since
Morinus
acknowledges
,
that
for
400.
years
the
opinion
of
the
validity
of
Orders
conferred
by
Hereticks
,
hath
only
obtained
in
the
Roman
Church
.
Before
that
time
,
he
proves
at
large
that
it
was
more
disputable
,
as
appears
by
the
Master
of
the
Sentences
,
who
accounts
it
a
perplexed
and
almost
insoluble
difficulty
because
of
the
different
opinions
of
Doctors
about
it
;
but
afterwards
St.
Augustins
opinion
was
generally
received
both
among
the
Schoolmen
and
Canonists
;
and
is
now
become
a
matter
of
faith
in
the
Roman
Church
at
least
by
consequence
,
since
the
Decrees
of
Councils
.
And
although
Morinus
will
not
allow
that
any
decree
of
their
Church
hath
passed
in
this
matter
,
yet
he
saith
,
there
hath
been
so
long
and
so
universal
a
consent
of
Doctors
in
this
point
,
that
it
ought
to
be
instead
of
a
Law
,
which
they
ought
not
to
violate
.
By
this
we
may
judge
of
the
learning
and
skill
of
T.
G.
in
the
Doctrine
of
his
own
Church
.
But
if
he
would
not
look
into
the
Controversal
Writers
of
their
Church
,
yet
if
he
had
but
searched
into
the
practice
of
the
Church
either
in
ancient
or
modern
times
he
would
have
been
ashamed
to
have
made
use
of
such
an
Argument
to
overthrow
all
Ecclesiastical
Authority
among
us
.
I
grant
that
in
some
tumultuous
Ages
of
the
Church
,
Ordinations
have
been
adjudged
null
through
the
defaults
of
the
Persons
,
but
then
it
was
meerly
for
breaking
the
Canons
of
the
Church
;
so
it
was
in
the
case
of
Formosus
,
for
breaking
the
Canons
against
the
Translations
of
Bishops
;
in
the
case
of
Ebbo
Arch-Bishop
of
Rhemes
,
whose
ordinations
were
nulled
by
Hincmarus
and
the
Council
of
Soissons
,
for
not
being
Canonically
restored
after
deposition
but
upon
appeal
to
the
Pope
they
were
pronounced
valid
:
in
the
Case
of
Pope
Constantine
for
precepitating
Orders
to
secure
the
Popedom
;
in
the
famous
case
of
Photius
,
whose
ordination
was
declared
Null
by
the
opposite
faction
on
the
same
grounds
;
but
all
these
things
were
done
in
troublesome
times
,
when
one
party
sought
a
pretence
against
the
other
.
But
if
we
regard
the
more
general
practice
of
the
Church
,
we
shall
find
when
far
greater
objections
than
these
were
made
,
yet
Ordinations
have
been
allowed
;
although
made
by
Hereticks
.
I
shall
offer
him
the
fairest
terms
he
can
desire
,
and
for
the
practice
of
the
Church
referr
him
to
his
own
dear
second
Council
of
Nice
,
and
the
modern
practice
of
the
Roman
Church
.
The
Question
of
the
validity
of
Ordination
by
Hereticks
was
at
large
debated
in
the
first
action
of
the
second
Council
of
Nice
,
upon
the
submission
of
Basilius
,
Theodorus
,
and
Theodosius
,
Hypatius
and
others
who
had
been
Bishops
of
the
opposite
party
,
which
John
the
Vicar
of
the
Orient
there
declared
to
be
worse
than
any
former
heresie
:
upon
which
the
Question
was
proposed
,
whether
upon
renouncing
their
heresie
they
might
be
received
as
Bishops
,
and
the
orders
be
allowed
of
those
who
were
ordained
by
them
during
their
Heresie
?
Hypatius
appealed
to
the
custom
of
the
Church
;
then
the
Canons
of
Councils
and
writings
of
the
Fathers
were
brought
into
Council
:
Tarasius
produced
the
Canon
of
the
Council
of
Nice
,
allowing
the
Ordinations
of
the
Cathari
,
and
the
imposition
of
hands
there
mentioned
he
understands
only
for
benediction
,
and
not
for
ordination
:
and
the
Council
of
Ephesus
making
no
distinction
between
those
ordained
by
Nestorians
and
others
;
(
for
therein
the
force
of
that
third
Canon
must
lye
which
Tarasius
thought
so
plain
)
from
St.
Basil
,
allowing
those
Bishops
which
communicated
with
Isoes
or
Zoius
and
Saturninus
;
from
the
Council
of
Ephesus
allowing
the
Orders
of
the
Messaliani
or
Euchitae
;
from
the
Council
of
Chalcedon
allowing
the
Bishops
upon
their
repentance
,
which
had
joyned
with
Dioscorus
:
and
more
particularly
,
for
those
which
had
been
ordained
by
Heretical
Bishops
,
it
was
there
shewed
,
that
Anatolius
the
President
of
the
fourth
Council
was
ordained
by
Dioscorus
in
the
presence
of
Eutyches
;
that
John
Bishop
of
Hierusalem
after
he
had
renounced
the
Acephalists
by
whom
he
was
ordained
,
was
received
and
submitted
to
as
Bishop
by
the
Orthodox
;
that
many
of
those
who
sat
in
the
sixth
Council
were
ordained
by
Sergius
,
Pyrrhus
,
Paulus
,
and
Petrus
,
who
were
in
that
Council
declared
to
be
Hereticks
;
and
for
50.
years
together
Tarasius
saith
,
they
had
no
other
ordinations
:
upon
these
evidences
of
the
practice
of
the
Church
,
this
Council
of
Nice
declared
likewise
,
that
the
ordination
of
Heretical
Bishops
was
valid
.
For
the
modern
practice
of
the
Church
of
Rome
,
I
appeal
to
the
allowance
therein
given
to
the
Ordinations
of
the
Greek
Church
,
although
the
Greek
Church
be
charged
with
Heresie
;
and
that
ever
since
the
notorious
Schism
in
the
time
of
Michael
Cerularius
A.
D.
1053.
In
the
time
of
Innocent
the
third
some
Greek
Clergy-men
living
in
the
Dioceses
of
Latin
Bishops
,
yet
received
ordination
from
Greek
Bishops
,
which
made
the
Latin
Bishops
suspend
them
from
the
execution
of
their
Office
,
the
Pope
,
hearing
of
it
,
sends
to
his
Legat
,
wherein
he
consents
to
the
suspension
in
case
it
were
done
without
leave
from
the
Latin
Bishop
;
but
if
leave
were
obtained
he
takes
off
the
suspension
;
because
this
custom
is
allowed
in
the
Church
▪
I
need
not
produce
more
particular
instances
in
this
kind
,
which
may
be
seen
at
large
in
Morinus
;
because
in
all
the
attempts
of
reconciliation
in
the
several
Councils
held
to
that
purpose
,
as
at
Lyons
,
and
Florence
,
where
all
the
matters
in
difference
were
most
fully
handed
,
there
was
never
any
objection
made
to
the
Greek
Ordinations
.
But
most
remarkable
to
this
purpose
is
the
Bull
of
Clement
the
seventh
containing
in
it
a
former
Bull
of
Leo
the
tenth
,
published
by
Leo
Allatius
,
by
Isaacius
Habertus
,
and
by
Morinus
,
wherein
their
Ordinations
and
other
rites
and
customs
are
expresly
allowed
.
And
to
this
day
saith
Morinus
they
are
allowed
in
Rome
not
only
to
perform
other
parts
of
divine
service
according
to
their
customs
in
the
Church
of
St.
Athanasius
,
but
to
ordain
Priests
after
their
own
manner
;
for
which
they
had
a
Bull
of
Urban
the
eighth
.
And
now
I
desire
T.
G.
to
consider
a
little
his
undeniable
maxim
,
that
no
man
can
give
to
another
that
which
he
hath
not
himself
,
whether
he
doth
in
earnest
think
that
his
own
Church
is
so
bereft
of
all
common
sense
,
as
not
to
understand
the
force
of
this
Maxim
?
and
if
it
thought
it
of
any
weight
in
this
matter
,
how
it
could
ever
approve
the
Ordinations
of
Hereticks
,
or
decree
that
the
Sacraments
retain
their
efficacy
,
where
the
essentials
of
them
are
observed
,
whatever
the
faith
or
manners
of
the
Instruments
be
?
And
this
was
all
I
intended
in
this
Preface
;
of
the
rest
of
his
Book
,
the
Reader
may
expect
an
account
as
God
gives
health
and
opportunity
.
The
Contents
.
PReface
to
the
two
first
Answers
.
p.
1.
A
particular
examination
of
the
Pamphlet
entitled
Doct.
Stillingfleet
against
Doct.
Stillingfleet
.
Of
the
insufficiency
of
J.
W.'s
way
of
answering
.
p.
13.
No
contradiction
about
the
charge
of
Idolatry
.
p.
18.
A
distinct
answer
to
his
propositions
.
p.
26.
In
what
sense
the
Church
of
Rome
is
owned
by
us
as
a
true
Church
.
p.
29.
His
Appendix
about
Idolatry
considered
.
p.
34.
The
second
contradiction
examined
.
p.
39.
The
charge
of
Fanaticism
defended
.
p.
50.
No
contradiction
in
the
charge
of
divisions
p.
65.
The
conclusion
.
p.
71.
An
Answer
to
the
Book
entitled
Doct.
Stillingfleets
Principles
considered
.
The
occasion
of
annexing
those
principles
.
p.
75.
Of
the
notion
of
Infallibility
.
p.
79.
N.
O's
concessions
.
p.
85.
His
principles
laid
down
.
p.
95.
His
exceptions
answered
.
p.
98.
His
proofs
of
Infallibility
examined
.
p.
110.
Of
the
Arguments
from
Scripture
for
Infallibility
.
p.
116.
Of
the
argument
from
Tradition
for
it
.
p.
123.
Of
the
argument
from
parity
of
Reason
.
p.
137.
Of
the
Authority
of
the
Guides
of
the
Church
in
ten
Propositions
.
p.
142.
The
case
of
Vigilius
and
Honorius
at
large
discussed
p.
154
,
159.
The
different
case
of
the
separation
of
dissenters
from
our
Church
,
and
our
separation
from
the
Church
of
Rome
.
p.
180.
Of
the
means
to
attain
the
sense
of
Scripture
without
an
infallible
Guide
.
p.
186.
Of
the
necessity
of
a
Iudge
in
controversies
.
p.
191.
The
way
used
in
the
Primitive
Church
for
finding
the
sense
of
Scripture
through
several
Ages
of
the
Christian
Church
from
the
most
authentick
Writers
of
them
.
p.
198.
Church
Authority
not
destroyed
by
my
principles
.
p.
260.
What
Authority
we
allow
to
Governors
of
the
Church
.
p.
267.
The
Roman
Churches
way
of
suppressing
Sects
compared
with
ours
.
p.
286.
ERRATA
.
PAge
20.
line
13.
read
the
Church
.
p.
26.
l.
14
for
and
r.
that
p.
49.
l.
●
for
here
r.
wh●re
p
176
▪
l
▪
23.
r.
Eutychianism
.
p.
177.
l.
8.
r.
followed
.
p.
17.
l.
5.
r.
Patriarchal
.
p.
182.
l.
14.
for
by
r.
●e
.
p.
189.
l.
22.
r.
Apocalyptic●
p.
209.
l.
30.
for
Boo
r.
Book
.
p.
225.
marg
r.
Vales.
not
.
ad
Eusch.
p.
273.
〈◊〉
r.
Euclid
.
p.
271.
l.
7.
for
he
makes
this
,
r.
this
is
made
.
p.
280.
l.
5.
blot
●
.
one
the.
The
Preface
.
WHen
I
Published
the
late
Book
,
which
hath
so
much
enraged
those
of
the
Church
of
Rome
against
me
,
I
thought
I
had
reason
to
expect
that
a
just
Answer
should
be
made
to
it
;
but
they
have
taken
an
effectual
course
to
undeceive
me
;
for
by
this
new
way
I
perceive
,
their
utmost
ambition
is
to
have
something
abroad
which
among
themselves
may
pass
for
an
Answer
.
Which
put
me
in
mind
of
what
I
have
heard
a
great
Person
said
,
when
he
had
undertaken
to
manage
an
ill
cause
before
a
publick
Audience
,
and
one
of
his
Friends
asked
him
what
he
meant
by
it
,
trouble
not
your self
,
said
he
,
our
own
side
will
be
sure
to
believe
me
.
It
was
surely
some
such
presumption
as
this
,
which
made
the
learned
Authors
of
these
two
elaborate
Pamphlets
to
appear
in
such
a
manner
in
Print
,
as
if
it
were
no
great
matter
what
they
said
,
so
their
people
might
have
this
to
say
,
and
(
if
they
can
)
believe
it
too
,
that
my
book
is
answered
.
If
this
be
all
their
cause
will
afford
,
it
deserves
rather
to
be
pittied
than
confuted
;
if
it
will
bear
more
,
they
are
as
bad
managers
of
it
as
their
enemies
could
wish
.
For
however
I
was
threatned
before
hand
that
such
answers
were
coming
abroad
,
every
line
of
which
would
fetch
blood
;
yet
,
as
cruel
as
they
are
when
we
are
under
their
lash
,
I
found
that
which
they
designed
for
my
punishment
to
give
me
no
small
pleasure
:
and
I
never
had
so
good
an
opinion
of
the
mercifulness
of
their
Church
as
when
I
saw
with
what
feeble
hands
they
chastised
me
.
I
had
heard
so
much
of
their
rage
,
that
I
expected
their
greatest
strength
would
be
employ'd
upon
me
;
and
I
could
not
tell
what
Zamzummims
they
might
hitherto
keep
in
the
dark
,
whose
arms
were
not
to
be
made
use
of
,
but
upon
some
special
occasion
when
an
Adversary
was
to
be
dispatch'd
all
at
once
and
so
perfectly
subdued
as
never
to
appear
more
.
While
I
was
preparing
my self
for
this
kind
of
Martyrdome
,
out
come
these
mighty
men
of
valour
,
who
have
beaten
nothing
that
I
know
of
,
but
the
air
and
themselves
;
for
they
have
neither
tyed
my
tongue
,
nor
broke
my
heart
,
nor
fetched
one
drop
of
blood
that
I
can
yet
find
;
all
which
were
things
I
was
told
would
be
done
,
when
these
answers
came
abroad
;
which
threatnings
made
so
loud
a
noise
,
that
I
heard
the
report
of
them
not
only
nearer
home
,
but
from
very
distant
persons
and
places
.
But
lest
I
should
be
thought
only
to
despise
my
Adversaries
(
which
I
confess
they
have
given
me
no
small
occasion
to
do
)
I
shall
bestow
a
particular
examination
upon
what
they
have
offered
by
way
of
Answer
to
my
Book
.
Only
I
think
it
reasonable
in
the
first
place
to
take
notice
of
their
present
way
and
method
of
Answering
,
wherein
they
make
use
of
as
many
artifices
,
as
they
do
in
gaining
Proselytes
.
When
we
set
our selves
to
Answer
their
Books
,
we
endeavour
to
state
the
Controversie
plainly
,
to
examine
their
proofs
,
to
apply
distinct
Answers
to
their
Arguments
fairly
represented
in
their
own
words
,
and
to
render
the
whole
Discourse
as
clear
and
perspicuous
as
may
be
,
that
all
persons
may
be
capable
of
judging
on
which
side
the
greatest
strength
and
evidence
lyes
.
This
is
the
mighty
advantage
which
a
good
cause
gives
us
;
we
make
use
of
no
tricks
to
deceive
men
,
nor
Sophistical
cavils
to
confound
and
perplex
things
;
we
dare
appeal
to
the
judgement
of
any
impartial
person
,
who
will
take
the
pains
to
examin
the
matters
in
difference
between
us
.
But
in
their
late
dealings
with
us
,
they
seek
to
avoid
the
main
things
in
dispute
,
and
abhor
any
methodical
proceeding
;
one
man
picks
out
a
sentence
here
and
there
to
answer
,
another
a
page
or
two
together
,
a
third
leaps
from
one
thing
to
another
,
as
if
resolv'd
to
pass
by
the
greatest
difficulties
;
but
he
is
a
man
of
courage
indeed
,
that
dares
fall
upon
the
reer
,
and
begin
to
confute
a
Book
at
the
end
of
it
,
so
that
if
he
lives
long
enough
,
and
get
heart
,
he
may
in
time
come
to
the
beginning
:
And
if
we
observe
them
all
,
they
look
for
nothing
so
much
as
some
cleanly
way
of
escape
,
and
if
they
can
but
raise
such
a
dust
as
to
fly
away
without
being
openly
discerned
to
do
so
,
this
they
hope
those
of
their
own
side
will
be
so
kind
and
partial
as
to
call
a
Victory
.
These
are
no
general
accusations
,
but
such
as
are
easie
to
observe
in
their
dealings
with
me
as
to
my
former
Book
,
and
that
lately
published
.
But
to
judicious
men
,
all
these
little
arts
and
shifts
are
either
plain
acknowledgements
of
a
baffled
Cause
,
or
an
Argument
of
a
weak
and
unskilful
management
.
If
the
Book
it self
be
a
little
too
troublesome
to
be
medled
with
,
it
is
best
to
fall
upon
the
Author
,
and
it
is
a
hard
case
if
by
false
and
ridiculous
stories
,
or
open
calumnies
,
or
at
least
base
and
ugly
insinuations
,
they
cannot
diminish
his
reputation
;
and
then
they
hope
the
Book
will
sink
with
its
Author
.
But
we
are
not
Ignorant
whose
cause
is
wont
to
be
managed
by
such
devices
as
these
are
,
and
from
whom
they
have
learnt
this
method
of
confuting
Adversaries
.
As
for
all
their
railing
accusations
against
me
;
I
shall
not
so
much
as
desire
God
to
rebuke
them
,
but
only
pray
that
he
would
pardon
them
;
and
if
I
must
thank
them
for
any
thing
,
it
is
for
giving
me
the
occasion
for
exercising
so
great
a
charity
.
I
have
learnt
of
him
who
when
he
was
reviled
,
reviled
not
again
,
not
only
to
forbear
reproaching
them
in
the
same
manner
,
but
to
return
them
good
for
evil
,
and
to
pray
for
them
while
they
calumniate
me
.
I
have
so
much
the
less
reason
to
wonder
that
my
Book
should
be
charged
by
them
with
no
less
than
Blasphemy
,
since
the
Author
of
our
Religion
himself
was
so
,
and
suffered
under
that
accusation
.
But
wherein
I
pray
doth
this
blasphemy
lye
?
have
I
uttered
any
thing
that
tends
to
the
reproach
of
God
or
true
Religion
?
have
I
the
least
word
which
malice
it self
can
stretch
to
the
dishonour
of
Iesus
Christ
,
the
Prophets
and
Apostles
,
or
the
Holy
Scriptures
written
by
divine
Inspiration
?
no
;
I
challenge
the
boldest
of
them
,
and
most
malicious
,
to
produce
any
thing
I
ever
said
or
writ
that
doth
but
seem
to
look
that
way
.
Have
I
made
the
practice
of
true
devotion
ridiculous
,
and
the
real
expressions
of
piety
the
subject
of
scorn
and
derision
?
No
,
so
far
from
it
,
that
it
was
only
a
just
zeal
for
the
Honour
and
practise
of
true
Religion
made
me
willing
to
lay
open
the
ridiculous
Fanaticisms
of
some
pretended
Saints
in
the
Roman
Church
.
And
must
they
be
allowed
to
charge
Fanaticism
on
us
,
and
think
it
far
from
Blasphemy
to
represent
the
Enthusiastick
Follies
of
the
Sectaries
among
us
;
and
when
they
are
guilty
of
the
very
same
,
or
greater
,
may
not
we
shew
their
unjustice
and
partiality
,
without
being
accused
of
Blasphemy
?
But
some
of
these
are
Canonized
Saints
,
as
S.
Brigitt
,
S.
Catharine
,
S.
Francis
,
and
S.
Ignatius
;
which
is
so
far
from
making
the
Cause
of
their
Church
better
,
that
to
my
understanding
it
makes
it
much
worse
.
For
although
Fanaticism
be
disowned
by
our
Church
,
it
seems
it
is
not
barely
countenanced
and
allowed
in
the
Church
of
Rome
,
but
Canonized
and
adored
.
That
which
I
insist
upon
,
is
this
;
either
we
have
no
Fanaticks
,
or
theirs
are
so
;
for
by
the
very
same
rule
that
ours
are
so
,
theirs
must
be
too
;
for
our
Fanaticks
do
pretend
as
high
to
the
Spirit
and
divine
Revelation
as
any
of
theirs
;
only
there
is
this
remarkable
difference
between
their
Fanaticks
and
ours
,
that
ours
are
among
us
but
not
of
us
,
but
theirs
are
both
.
Now
if
any
one
who
pretends
to
Inspiration
and
Enthusiasm
cannot
be
charged
with
Fanaticism
without
blasphemy
,
we
must
be
exposed
to
all
follies
and
contradictions
imaginable
;
and
to
what
purpose
are
we
bid
to
try
the
Spirits
whether
they
be
of
God
or
no
,
i.
e.
whether
their
pretence
to
divine
revelation
be
true
or
false
?
If
there
may
be
false
pretences
to
Inspiration
,
we
are
to
examine
the
grounds
of
them
,
and
to
judge
accordingly
;
and
all
false
pretenders
to
Inspiration
,
let
them
be
Canonized
by
whom
they
will
,
are
the
highest
sort
of
Fanaticks
;
and
the
greater
honour
is
given
them
,
the
greater
dishonour
it
is
to
the
Christian
Religion
.
But
these
things
shall
be
more
largely
discussed
in
their
proper
place
:
I
now
only
take
notice
of
the
injustice
of
their
calumny
with
which
they
have
made
so
much
noise
among
injudicious
people
:
and
I
should
not
have
been
so
much
concerned
about
it
,
had
I
not
found
suggestions
to
the
same
purpose
in
the
Authors
of
the
two
Pamphlets
.
The
one
of
them
very
kindly
makes
no
difference
between
Lucian
,
Porphyrius
and
me
,
but
only
some
interest
which
doth
byass
me
another
way
;
and
verily
believes
,
good
man
,
that
were
it
not
for
that
,
I
could
flurt
with
as
much
piquancy
and
railery
at
Christian
Religion
,
as
I
do
at
the
Roman
.
In
which
base
suggestion
there
is
no
colour
of
truth
,
but
only
that
he
very
honestly
distinguisheth
the
Christian
,
Religion
and
the
Roman
from
each
other
;
as
indeed
they
are
in
many
things
as
different
from
each
other
as
truth
from
falshood
,
wisdom
from
folly
,
and
true
piety
from
gross
Superstition
.
If
he
had
called
me
an
Atheist
in
plain
terms
,
the
grossness
of
the
calumny
might
have
abated
the
force
of
it
;
but
there
is
no
such
way
to
do
a
man
mischief
,
as
by
fly
insinuations
and
shrewd
suggestions
introduced
with
I
verily
believe
,
and
expressed
with
some
gravity
and
zeal
.
But
you
who
are
so
good
at
resolving
faith
,
what
is
this
verily
believe
of
yours
founded
upon
?
Have
you
the
authority
of
your
Church
for
it
?
have
you
any
evidence
of
reason
?
or
rather
,
have
you
it
by
some
vision
or
revelation
made
by
some
of
those
Saints
,
whose
Fanaticism
is
exposed
?
or
do
you
verily
believe
it
,
as
you
verily
believe
many
other
things
,
for
no
reason
in
the
world
?
If
I
should
tell
you
I
have
made
it
my
business
to
assert
the
truth
of
the
Scriptures
,
and
Christian
Religion
therein
contained
,
in
a
large
Discourse
several
years
since
published
;
such
is
your
charity
,
that
you
would
tell
me
,
so
did
Vaninus
write
for
Providence
,
when
he
denyed
a
Deity
.
If
I
should
make
large
Apologies
for
my
innocency
,
and
publish
a
confession
of
my
faith
,
with
protestations
that
no
interest
in
the
world
could
remove
me
from
it
;
you
might
tell
me
,
where
there
is
no
guilt
what
need
so
much
ado
?
In
plain
terms
,
I
know
but
one
way
to
satisfie
such
as
you
are
,
but
I
will
keep
from
it
as
long
as
I
can
,
and
that
is
to
go
to
Rome
and
be
burnt
for
my
faith
;
for
that
is
the
kindness
there
shewed
to
those
who
contend
for
the
purity
of
the
Christian
Religion
against
the
corruptions
of
the
Roman
.
But
such
calumnies
as
these
,
as
they
are
not
fit
to
be
passed
by
,
so
are
they
too
gross
to
need
any
further
answer
.
I
shall
however
declare
my
mind
freely
to
you
;
if
I
had
no
other
notion
of
the
Christian
doctrine
,
than
what
I
have
from
the
Doctrines
of
your
Church
as
contrary
to
ours
;
no
other
measures
of
Christian
piety
than
from
your
mystical
Theology
;
no
better
way
to
Worship
God
than
what
is
practised
among
you
;
no
greater
certainty
of
Inspiration
from
God
than
of
the
Visions
and
Revelations
of
your
late
Saints
;
no
other
miracles
to
confirm
the
Christian
doctrine
than
what
are
wrought
by
your
Images
and
Saints
,
I
should
sooner
choose
to
be
a
Philosopher
,
than
a
Christian
upon
those
terms
.
And
I
verily
believe
(
to
answer
yours
with
another
)
that
the
frauds
and
impostures
of
the
Roman
Church
have
made
more
Atheists
in
Christendom
,
than
any
one
cause
whatsoever
besides
:
for
when
men
resolve
all
their
faith
into
the
testimony
of
a
Church
whose
frauds
are
so
manifest
,
and
confessed
by
your
best
Writers
,
such
as
Melchior
Canus
,
and
Ludov.
Vives
;
what
can
they
who
know
no
better
,
but
suspect
the
Inspirations
and
Miracles
of
former
Ages
,
who
see
such
false
pretences
to
them
so
much
magnified
,
and
the
Fanatick
pretenders
Canonized
on
that
account
?
And
I
am
so
far
from
thinking
it
any
disservice
to
the
Christian
Religion
to
expose
these
Fanaticisms
,
that
I
again
verily
believe
that
Christianity
will
never
obtain
as
it
ought
to
do
among
men
,
till
all
those
hypocritical
cheats
be
yet
more
laid
open
to
the
view
of
the
World
;
which
if
any
one
have
but
the
courage
and
patience
to
undertake
,
it
would
be
as
great
,
and
a
much
more
useful
labour
than
the
cleansing
of
the
Augean
Stable
.
This
is
not
to
make
sport
and
recreation
for
the
Atheist
and
debauched
,
nor
to
give
occasion
to
such
persons
to
turn
the
Inspirations
of
Holy-Scripture
into
matter
of
Drollery
and
Buffonry
,
as
the
author
of
the
second
Pamphlet
tragically
declaims
;
any
more
than
our
Saviours
unmasking
the
hypocrisie
of
the
Scribes
and
Pharisees
was
the
destroying
the
Law
of
Moses
;
or
the
discovery
of
cheats
and
impostors
doth
give
occasion
to
suspect
the
honesty
of
all
mankind
:
Nay
so
far
is
it
from
that
,
that
we
think
the
separating
of
Fanaticism
from
true
inspiration
to
be
one
of
the
best
Services
that
can
be
done
to
the
Christian
Religion
,
which
otherwise
is
in
danger
of
being
despised
or
rejected
by
the
considerate
part
of
mankind
.
But
I
would
fain
know
of
these
men
,
whether
they
do
in
earnest
make
no
difference
between
the
Writings
of
such
as
Mother
Iuliana
and
the
Books
of
Scripture
;
between
the
Revelations
of
S.
Brigitt
,
S.
Catharine
,
&c.
and
those
of
the
Prophets
;
between
the
actions
of
S.
Francis
and
Ignatius
Loyola
and
those
of
the
Apostles
?
if
they
do
not
,
I
know
who
they
are
that
expose
our
Religion
to
purpose
;
if
they
do
make
a
difference
,
how
can
the
representing
their
visions
and
practices
reflect
dishonour
upon
the
other
,
so
infinitely
above
them
,
so
much
more
certainly
conveyed
down
to
us
with
the
consent
of
the
whole
Christian
World
?
Thus
much
may
here
suffice
to
represent
the
arts
our
Adversaries
are
driven
to
,
to
defend
themselves
;
I
cannot
blame
them
that
they
would
engage
Religion
on
their
side
,
but
so
have
all
Fanaticks
in
the
World
as
well
as
they
;
and
I
cannot
for
my
heart
see
,
but
this
heavy
charge
of
Blasphemy
and
undermining
Religion
does
as
justly
lye
on
them
,
who
deride
the
Fanaticks
among
us
,
as
on
those
who
have
discovered
the
Fanaticism
of
the
Church
of
Rome
.
AN
EXAMINATION
OF
THE
PAMPHLET
,
Entituled
,
Dr.
Stillingfleet
against
Dr.
Stillingfleet
.
HAving
thus
far
laid
open
their
present
way
of
dealing
with
their
Adversaries
,
I
now
come
to
a
particular
consideration
of
these
two
Pamphlets
;
and
begin
with
that
called
Dr.
Stillingfleet
against
Dr.
Stillingfleet
,
&c.
The
Author
of
which
is
to
be
commended
for
so
noble
an
enterprise
(
which
few
of
the
Champions
of
former
Ages
could
accomplish
)
viz.
to
make
his
Adversary
fall
by
his
own
sword
.
But
the
mischief
of
it
is
,
these
Romantick
Knights
do
hurt
no
where
but
in
Paper
and
their
own
imagination
.
But
I
forget
his
grave
admonition
,
that
I
would
treat
these
matters
seriously
,
and
lay
aside
drollery
.
To
be
then
as
grave
as
he
can
desire
,
there
are
these
two
things
which
I
design
to
prov●●
against
him
.
1.
That
on
supposition
I
di●●
contradict
my self
,
in
the
way
he
insists
upo●n
it
,
that
were
no
sufficient
answer
to
my
Book
.
2.
That
I
am
far
enough
from
contradicting
my self
in
any
one
of
the
things
which
〈◊〉
insists
upon
.
1.
Supposing
what
he
contends
for
were
true
,
yet
my
Book
remains
unanswered
;
the
design
of
which
was
to
shew
that
no
man
can
joyn
in
the
Communion
of
the
Roman
Church
without
great
hazard
of
his
salvation
.
If
I
had
any
where
said
the
contrary
,
this
indeed
would
have
made
it
evident
that
I
had
contradicted
my self
.
But
what
then
?
doth
the
force
of
all
the
arguments
used
by
me
in
this
last
Discourse
fall
to
the
ground
,
because
I
was
formerly
of
another
opinion
?
Let
me
ask
these
revolters
from
the
Church
of
England
one
question
;
whether
they
do
not
now
more
plainly
contradict
themselves
as
to
their
former
opinions
,
than
they
can
pretend
that
I
have
ever
done
?
I
desire
to
know
,
whether
this
makes
all
their
present
arguments
for
the
Roman
Church
of
no
force
?
If
they
think
their
present
reasons
ought
to
be
answered
whatever
contrary
opinion
they
had
before
;
why
,
on
supposition
I
had
contradicted
in
a
a
former
Book
what
I
say
in
this
,
must
this
render
all
that
I
have
said
,
or
can
hereafter
say
in
this
matter
,
invalid
?
Doth
the
strength
of
all
lye
upon
my
bare
affirming
or
denying
?
was
it
ever
true
because
I
said
it
?
if
not
,
how
comes
it
to
be
untrue
now
,
because
I
deny
it
?
I
do
not
remember
I
was
ever
so
vain
,
to
make
use
of
my
own
authority
to
prove
a
thing
to
be
true
,
because
I
believed
it
;
and
if
I
had
,
the
world
is
not
so
vain
to
believe
a
man
one
jot
the
sooner
for
it
.
If
my
authority
in
saying
or
denying
be
of
no
importance
to
the
truth
of
the
thing
,
then
he
may
prove
that
I
contradict
my self
,
and
yet
all
the
arguments
of
my
Book
be
as
strong
as
ever
.
I
do
not
desire
any
one
to
follow
my
opinion
because
it
is
mine
,
but
I
offer
reason
and
authority
for
the
proof
of
what
I
say
;
if
those
be
good
in
themselves
,
they
do
not
therefore
cease
to
be
so
,
because
they
are
,
or
seem
to
he
inconsistent
with
what
I
have
said
elsewhere
.
So
that
self-contradiction
being
proved
,
overthrows
not
the
reason
of
the
thing
,
but
the
authority
of
the
person
;
and
where
things
depend
meerly
upon
authority
,
it
is
a
good
argument
,
and
no
where
else
.
If
a
witness
in
a
Court
contradicts
himself
,
his
testimony
signifies
nothing
;
because
there
is
nothing
else
but
his
authority
that
makes
his
testimony
valid
;
but
if
a
Lawyer
at
the
Bar
chance
to
speak
inconsistently
,
if
afterwards
he
speaks
plain
and
evident
reason
,
does
that
take
off
the
force
of
it
,
because
he
said
something
before
which
contradicted
that
plain
reason
?
If
the
Pope
,
or
those
who
pretend
to
be
infallible
,
contradict
themselves
,
that
sufficiently
overthrows
their
pretence
of
infallibility
;
for
he
that
changeth
his
mind
,
must
be
deceived
once
;
but
for
us
fallible
mortals
,
if
we
once
hit
upon
reason
and
truth
,
and
manage
the
evidence
of
it
clearly
,
that
reason
doth
not
lose
its
former
evidence
,
because
the
same
persons
may
afterwards
oppose
it
.
Suppose
I
should
be
able
to
prove
that
Bellarmine
in
his
Recognitions
contradicts
what
he
had
said
in
his
former
Books
;
doth
this
presently
make
all
his
arguments
useless
,
and
him
uncapable
of
ever
appearing
in
controversie
more
?
Doth
this
make
all
his
authorities
false
and
his
reasons
unconcluding
?
doth
it
hence
follow
that
he
spake
no
where
consistently
,
because
once
or
twice
,
or
perhaps
as
often
as
his
neighbours
,
he
contradicted
himself
?
But
my
grave
Adversary
,
I.
W.
imagines
that
we
Writers
of
Controversies
are
like
Witnesses
in
Chancery
,
and
are
bound
to
make
Affidavits
before
the
Masters
of
this
Court
of
Controversie
;
and
that
whatever
we
say
is
to
be
taken
as
upon
our
oath
;
this
indeed
would
be
an
excellent
way
of
bringing
Controversies
to
an
issue
,
if
we
were
to
be
sworn
whether
such
a
thing
as
Transubstantiation
were
true
or
false
;
and
I
cannot
tell
whether
this
,
or
laying
wagers
,
or
the
Popes
infallibility
be
the
best
way
to
end
such
Controversies
;
for
any
one
of
them
would
do
it
,
if
people
could
but
agree
about
it
.
But
now
my
Adversary
says
,
that
if
a
man
once
contradict
himself
he
is
to
be
looked
on
as
a
perjured
person
,
and
whatever
he
saith
,
his
word
is
not
to
be
taken
.
This
he
not
only
begins
with
,
but
very
triumphantly
concludes
with
it
in
these
words
,
and
this
alone
may
suffice
to
annul
▪
whatever
he
has
hitherto
,
or
shall
hereafter
object
against
us
;
for
a
witness
,
who
has
been
once
palpably
conuinced
to
have
forsworn
or
contradicted
himself
in
matters
of
moment
,
besides
the
condign
punishment
he
is
lyable
unto
,
he
does
vacate
all
evidences
produced
by
him
,
against
his
Adversary
,
and
deserves
never
more
to
be
heard
against
him
in
any
Tribunal
.
I
see
now
what
it
is
they
would
be
at
,
no
less
than
perpetual
silence
and
being
set
in
the
Pillory
with
that
Pamphlet
on
my
forehead
Dr.
Still
.
against
Dr.
Still
.
for
being
guilty
of
contradicting
my self
,
would
satisfie
I.
W.
and
his
Friends
;
This
I
suppose
was
the
meaning
of
stopping
my
mouth
for
ever
,
when
this
Answer
was
to
come
out
.
But
now
I
perceive
it
is
so
dangerous
a
thing
,
I
had
best
stand
upon
my
defence
,
and
utterly
deny
that
I
have
contradicted
my self
in
any
thing
,
in
which
I.
W.
hath
charged
me
.
2.
To
make
it
then
out
that
this
is
a
groundless
charge
,
I
must
go
through
the
several
particulars
insisted
on
.
The
first
is
in
the
charge
of
Idolatry
;
but
how
do
I
contradict
my self
about
this
?
had
I
vindicated
the
Church
of
Rome
from
Idolatry
in
my
Defence
of
Arch-bishop
Laud
,
this
had
been
indeed
to
contradict
my self
:
but
this
is
not
so
much
as
pretended
;
and
if
it
were
,
nothing
could
be
more
easily
confuted
;
for
in
that
very
Book
,
as
it
falls
out
very
happily
,
there
is
a
discourse
to
the
same
purpose
,
proving
the
Church
of
Rome
guilty
of
Idolatry
,
in
Invocation
of
Saints
and
the
worship
of
Images
,
and
that
the
Heathen
,
in
the
worship
of
inferiour
Deities
and
Images
,
might
be
excused
on
the
same
grounds
that
those
of
the
Church
of
Rome
do
excuse
themselves
.
Here
is
then
no
appearance
of
a
contradiction
in
terms
;
and
it
is
only
pretended
to
be
by
consequence
,
viz.
from
yielding
that
the
Church
of
Rome
and
we
do
not
differ
in
Fundamental
points
,
and
that
the
Church
of
Rome
is
therefore
a
true
Church
;
from
whence
he
inferrs
,
that
it
cannot
be
guilty
of
Idolatry
:
because
to
teach
that
,
would
be
a
Fundamental
errour
,
and
inconsistent
with
the
Being
of
a
true
Church
:
and
therefore
to
charge
the
Church
of
Rome
with
Idolatry
,
and
to
allow
it
to
be
a
true
Church
is
a
contradiction
.
This
is
the
substance
of
what
he
saith
upon
this
head
:
to
which
I
shall
answer
by
shewing
,
1.
That
this
way
of
answering
is
very
disingenuous
.
2.
That
it
is
Sophistical
,
and
proves
not
the
thing
which
he
intends
.
1.
That
it
is
a
disingenuous
way
;
because
he
barely
opposes
a
judgement
of
charity
concerning
their
Church
,
to
a
judgement
of
reason
concerning
the
nature
of
actions
,
without
at
all
examining
the
force
of
those
reasons
which
are
produced
in
the
Book
he
pretends
to
answer
.
Can
I.
W.
imagine
,
that
any
one
who
enquires
into
the
safest
way
for
his
salvation
,
and
hears
the
Church
of
Rome
charged
with
Idolatry
in
her
worship
,
by
arguments
drawn
from
the
plain
Law
of
God
,
the
common
sense
of
mankind
,
the
repugnancy
of
their
way
of
worship
to
the
conceptions
we
ought
to
have
of
the
divine
nature
,
the
consent
of
the
ancient
Christian
Church
,
the
parity
of
the
case
in
many
respects
with
the
Heathen
Idolaters
,
should
presently
conclude
,
that
all
these
arguments
are
of
no
force
,
meerly
because
the
person
who
made
use
of
them
,
had
upon
another
occasion
judged
so
charitably
of
that
Church
,
as
to
suppose
it
still
to
retain
the
essentials
of
a
true
Church
?
I
will
put
a
case
paralled
to
this
;
suppose
one
of
the
Church
of
Iudah
should
have
call'd
the
Church
of
Israel
in
the
time
of
Ieroboam
a
true
Church
,
because
they
acknowledged
the
true
God
,
and
did
believe
an
agreement
in
that
common
acknowledgement
to
be
sufficient
to
preserve
the
essentials
of
a
Church
among
them
;
and
afterwards
the
same
person
should
go
about
to
convince
the
ten
Tribes
of
their
Idolatry
in
worshipping
God
,
by
the
Calves
of
Dan
and
Bethel
:
would
this
be
thought
a
sufficient
way
of
answering
him
,
to
say
,
that
he
contradicted
himself
,
by
granting
them
a
true
Church
and
yet
charging
them
with
Idolatry
?
whereas
the
only
true
consequence
would
be
,
that
he
thought
some
kind
of
Idolatry
consistent
with
the
Being
of
a
Church
.
Might
not
such
a
person
justly
say
,
that
they
made
a
very
ill
use
of
his
charity
,
when
he
supposed
only
that
kind
of
Idolatry
which
implyes
more
Gods
than
one
,
to
unchurch
a
people
;
but
however
,
those
persons
were
more
concerned
to
vindicate
themselves
from
Idolatry
of
any
kind
,
than
he
was
to
defend
his
charitable
opinion
of
them
;
and
if
they
could
prove
to
him
,
that
this
inferiour
sort
of
Idolatry
does
unchurch
them
as
well
as
the
grosser
,
the
consequence
of
it
would
be
that
his
charity
must
be
so
much
the
less
,
but
their
danger
would
be
the
same
.
This
is
just
our
case
with
the
Church
of
Rome
;
we
acknowledge
that
they
still
retain
the
Fundamental
articles
of
the
Christian
faith
,
that
there
is
no
dispute
between
them
and
us
about
the
true
God
and
his
Son
Iesus
Christ
,
as
to
his
death
,
resurrection
,
glory
,
and
being
the
proper
object
of
divine
worship
;
we
yield
that
they
have
true
Baptism
among
them
,
in
the
name
of
the
Father
,
Son
,
and
Holy
Ghost
;
and
we
looking
upon
these
as
the
essentials
of
a
true
Church
,
do
upon
that
account
own
that
Church
to
be
so
:
but
then
we
charge
the
Roman
Church
,
with
gross
corrupting
that
Worship
which
is
proper
to
the
divine
nature
,
by
her
worship
of
Images
,
adoration
of
the
Host
,
and
Invocation
of
Saints
;
which
being
done
,
not
in
express
terms
against
the
worship
of
the
true
God
,
but
by
consequence
,
we
do
not
think
this
doth
destroy
the
Being
of
a
Church
among
them
;
although
it
makes
the
salvation
of
persons
in
her
communion
extreamly
hazardous
:
and
after
we
have
gone
about
to
prove
this
by
many
and
weighty
arguments
,
is
it
reasonable
for
any
one
to
tell
us
that
we
contradict
our selves
,
and
therefore
our
arguments
do
signifie
nothing
?
whereas
in
truth
,
here
is
no
appearance
of
a
contradiction
to
that
which
is
our
own
sense
in
this
matter
.
For
what
shadow
of
a
contradiction
is
it
,
to
say
,
that
the
Roman
Church
is
a
true
Church
,
and
yet
is
guilty
of
Idolatry
;
supposing
that
we
believe
some
sort
of
Idolatry
which
is
very
sinful
,
not
to
be
yet
of
so
high
a
nature
as
to
unchurch
those
who
practise
it
;
And
we
choose
the
Instance
of
the
ten
Tribes
for
the
ground
of
this
charity
.
If
they
can
prove
that
all
sorts
of
Idolatry
do
necessarily
destroy
the
essentials
of
a
Church
,
the
consequence
is
,
we
must
have
less
charity
for
them
,
than
we
had
before
;
And
such
a
concession
from
us
doth
not
shew
their
guilt
to
be
less
,
but
only
our
charity
to
be
greater
.
Suppose
a
man
should
exceed
in
his
charity
towards
a
person
guilty
of
some
grievous
faults
,
and
say
,
he
believes
he
may
be
a
pious
man
for
all
this
;
but
withall
severely
reproves
him
for
his
faults
,
and
tells
him
the
danger
he
continually
runs
by
such
actions
;
would
it
be
fair
for
such
a
man
to
answer
him
,
that
his
reproofs
were
not
to
be
regarded
,
because
he
contradicted
himself
,
for
he
told
him
he
believed
him
to
be
a
pious
man
,
and
yet
upbraided
him
with
those
faults
which
were
inconsistent
with
piety
?
what
would
the
consequence
of
this
be
to
the
thing
it self
?
would
this
make
those
faults
ever
the
less
,
because
he
judged
so
charitably
of
the
person
notwithstanding
his
committing
them
?
But
when
we
allow
the
Church
of
Rome
to
be
a
true
Church
,
we
are
far
from
understanding
by
that
a
sound
or
a
good
Church
free
from
corruptions
,
which
would
be
the
most
proper
sense
to
found
a
contradiction
upon
,
in
this
matter
of
Idolatry
;
but
we
mean
no
more
by
it
,
than
as
a
man
is
a
true
man
though
he
hath
the
plague
upon
him
;
those
which
we
account
the
essentials
of
a
Church
we
deny
not
to
it
,
but
withall
,
we
contend
that
it
is
over-run
with
such
corruptions
in
worship
,
as
do
mightily
endanger
the
salvation
of
those
who
live
in
the
communion
of
it
.
2.
Having
thus
discovered
the
disingenuity
of
making
so
bad
a
use
of
our
charity
against
us
,
I
now
come
to
shew
how
Sophistical
this
way
of
answering
is
,
by
a
closer
examination
of
it
.
First
,
The
starting
of
a
new
objection
answers
no
argument
,
and
all
that
this
amounts
to
is
only
raising
a
new
difficulty
;
whereas
he
ought
in
the
first
place
to
have
answered
all
the
arguments
I
had
brought
to
prove
them
guilty
of
Idolatry
;
and
when
he
had
done
this
fairly
and
plainly
(
which
for
some
good
reasons
he
had
no
mind
to
do
)
he
might
then
have
insisted
on
the
inconsistency
of
it
with
principles
owned
by
me
;
but
to
do
this
without
giving
an
answer
,
so
much
as
to
any
one
argument
,
is
a
clear
evidence
of
a
sophistical
and
cavilling
humour
,
rather
than
of
any
intention
to
satisfie
an
inquisitive
mind
.
2.
The
force
of
this
objection
lyes
in
the
different
sense
and
meaning
of
several
expressions
made
use
of
by
him
,
which
being
explained
,
the
objection
will
signifie
nothing
.
For
if
we
rightly
understand
the
notion
of
Idolatry
,
the
manner
of
teaching
it
,
the
sense
of
Fundamental
errours
and
a
true
Church
,
as
it
is
owned
by
me
,
the
very
appearance
of
any
contradiction
vanisheth
.
I
agree
in
the
general
,
that
the
true
notion
of
Idolatry
is
,
giving
the
honour
due
only
to
God
to
a
meer
creature
;
and
I
desire
no
greater
advantage
against
the
Church
of
Rome
,
than
from
such
a
concession
;
but
then
we
are
to
understand
,
that
this
may
be
done
several
ways
.
1.
When
the
worship
proper
to
the
true
God
is
given
to
a
false
God.
2.
When
the
true
God
is
acknowledged
and
worshipped
,
but
the
unity
of
the
God-head
is
denyed
,
and
many
false
Gods
are
joyned
with
him
in
the
same
worship
.
In
these
two
sorts
of
Idolatry
,
I
acknowledge
that
the
true
God
is
rejected
,
either
wholly
in
the
first
way
,
or
by
consequence
in
the
second
.
But
withall
I
say
,
that
the
giving
the
Worship
to
a
creature
which
is
due
only
to
God
may
be
consistent
with
the
acknowledgement
of
one
Supream
God
,
and
that
these
ways
.
1.
When
one
Supream
God
is
acknowledged
,
but
no
difference
is
put
between
the
external
Worship
of
him
and
creatures
.
This
was
the
Idolatry
of
the
wiser
Heathen
,
who
did
in
their
consciences
acknowledge
that
there
was
but
one
true
and
supream
God
,
but
yet
gave
the
same
worship
to
inferiour
Deities
,
that
they
did
to
him
.
These
men
might
have
pleaded
for
themselves
,
for
all
that
I
know
,
as
much
to
their
advantage
,
as
those
of
the
Church
of
Rome
do
against
me
.
2.
When
the
worship
proper
to
the
true
God
is
given
to
an
Image
:
or
the
supposing
of
God
to
be
truly
honoured
by
us
,
by
prostrating
our selves
before
any
corporeal
representation
of
him
.
This
likewise
the
Heathen
were
guilty
of
.
St.
Paul
hath
long
since
told
us
of
some
,
who
profess
that
they
know
God
,
but
in
works
they
deny
him
;
so
there
may
be
some
who
may
profess
a
worship
due
only
to
God
,
but
in
their
actions
may
contradict
it
.
As
suppose
a
company
of
rebellious
men
,
should
declare
over
and
over
that
they
acknowledge
but
one
Soveraign
Power
of
this
Nation
,
invested
in
the
person
of
the
King
;
but
yet
,
should
take
upon
themselves
to
raise
forces
,
to
appoint
great
Officers
of
State
,
and
require
that
the
very
same
outward
reverence
and
honour
be
given
to
them
,
which
is
given
to
the
King
himself
;
would
any
man
in
his
sense
say
,
that
because
these
men
still
declared
the
supream
Authority
to
be
in
the
King
,
that
there
was
no
Treason
in
such
actions
?
or
that
those
persons
contradicted
themselves
,
who
allowed
that
their
profession
was
such
as
became
good
subjects
,
but
their
actions
made
them
guilty
of
Treason
.
The
same
we
say
of
the
Church
of
Rome
;
we
confess
they
own
the
supream
Power
of
the
world
to
be
in
one
true
God
,
and
we
have
no
controversie
with
them
about
the
essential
Doctrines
of
Religion
(
which
is
,
that
we
mean
by
their
being
a
true
Church
)
but
withal
we
say
,
they
overthrow
what
they
say
in
their
own
practice
,
they
rob
God
of
the
honour
due
only
to
him
,
by
giving
it
to
Angels
,
and
Saints
,
and
Images
and
other
creatures
.
And
what
contradiction
now
is
there
in
all
this
,
and
a
Church
agreeing
with
us
in
the
object
of
worship
in
general
,
should
act
contrary
to
its
own
profession
,
by
requiring
those
things
to
be
done
,
which
take
away
from
God
that
honour
which
is
due
only
to
him
,
and
giving
it
to
creatures
?
And
this
,
if
I
understand
it
,
is
all
that
this
first
contradiction
in
the
charge
of
Idolatry
doth
amount
to
.
To
appply
this
now
to
his
own
propositions
,
for
the
greater
clearness
and
satisfaction
of
all
indifferent
persons
▪
His
first
Proposition
I
agree
to
,
viz.
That
't
is
an
article
of
faith
,
and
a
Fundamental
point
of
Religion
,
that
the
honour
which
is
due
only
to
God
is
not
to
be
given
to
a
meer
creature
.
But
I
desire
it
may
be
taken
notice
of
,
that
this
proposition
is
Sophistically
expressed
;
for
although
it
be
no
dispute
between
us
,
whether
that
honour
which
is
due
only
to
God
,
may
be
given
to
a
creature
,
yet
it
is
a
very
great
one
,
and
the
foundation
of
the
charge
of
Idolatry
,
what
that
honour
is
which
is
due
only
to
God
:
and
in
case
we
can
prove
that
they
do
give
to
meer
Creatures
any
part
of
that
honour
which
is
due
to
God
,
it
cannot
at
all
excuse
them
to
say
,
that
they
acknowledge
it
to
be
Idolatry
to
give
that
honour
,
which
they
suppose
to
be
due
only
to
God
,
to
a
meer
creature
.
This
proposition
therefore
,
though
in
it self
true
,
is
captiously
set
down
,
and
with
an
intention
only
to
deceive
unwary
readers
,
as
will
appear
by
the
next
proposition
.
2.
To
teach
Idolatry
is
to
err
against
the
formentioned
article
of
faith
and
Fundamental
point
of
Religion
;
i.
e.
to
teach
Idolatry
,
is
to
teach
that
the
honour
which
is
due
only
to
God
is
to
be
given
to
a
meer
creature
.
That
this
is
to
teach
Idolatry
,
no
one
questions
;
but
our
question
is
,
Whether
they
who
do
not
teach
this
Proposition
,
may
not
teach
men
to
do
those
things
,
whereby
the
worship
due
only
to
God
will
be
given
to
a
meer
creature
?
If
he
can
prove
,
that
they
who
do
not
in
terms
declare
that
they
do
not
dishonour
God
cannot
dishonour
him
;
if
he
can
demonstrate
,
that
those
who
do
not
teach
that
the
honour
which
is
due
only
to
God
is
to
be
given
to
a
creature
,
cannot
possibly
by
any
actions
of
theirs
rob
him
of
that
honour
which
is
due
to
him
:
this
will
be
much
more
to
his
purpose
than
any
thing
he
hath
yet
said
.
And
this
proposition
,
if
he
had
proceeded
as
he
ought
to
have
done
,
should
not
have
been
a
particular
affirmative
but
an
Universal
Negative
;
For
it
is
not
enough
to
say
,
that
to
teach
Idolatry
is
to
teach
that
the
honour
which
is
due
only
to
God
is
to
be
given
to
a
creature
,
but
that
No
Church
which
doth
not
teach
this
can
be
guilty
of
Idolatry
;
for
his
design
being
to
clear
the
Roman
Church
,
his
Proposition
ought
to
be
so
framed
that
all
particulars
may
be
comprehended
under
it
.
But
because
he
may
say
,
his
immediate
intention
was
,
not
to
clear
their
Church
from
Idolatry
,
but
to
accuse
me
of
a
contradiction
,
I
proceed
to
the
next
Proposition
.
3.
A
Church
that
does
not
err
against
any
article
of
faith
,
nor
against
any
Fundamental
point
of
Religion
,
does
not
teach
Idolatry
.
This
proposition
is
likewise
very
Sophistical
and
captious
;
for
by
article
of
faith
and
fundamental
point
of
Religion
is
either
understood
,
the
main
fundamental
points
of
doctrine
contained
in
the
Apostles
Creed
,
and
then
I
affirm
,
that
a
Church
which
doth
own
all
the
Fundamentals
of
doctrine
,
may
be
guilty
of
Idolatry
,
and
teach
those
things
,
wherein
it
lyes
;
but
if
by
not
erring
against
any
article
of
faith
,
be
meant
,
that
a
Church
which
doth
not
err
at
all
in
matters
of
Religion
cannot
teach
Idolatry
,
the
Proposition
is
true
,
but
impertinent
.
4.
That
the
Church
of
Rome
doth
teach
Veneration
of
Images
,
adoration
of
the
Host
,
and
Invocation
of
Saints
,
is
agreed
on
both
sides
.
5.
That
the
Roman
Church
does
not
err
against
any
article
of
faith
or
Fundamental
point
of
Religion
;
This
being
that
concession
of
ours
,
from
whence
all
the
force
of
his
argument
is
taken
,
must
be
explained
according
to
our
own
sense
of
it
,
and
not
according
to
that
which
he
puts
upon
it
;
which
that
it
may
be
better
understood
,
I
shall
both
shew
in
what
sense
this
concession
is
made
by
us
,
as
to
the
Church
of
Rome
,
and
of
what
force
it
is
in
this
present
debate
.
For
the
clearer
understanding
in
what
sense
it
is
made
by
us
,
we
are
to
consider
the
occasion
of
the
Controversie
about
Fundamentals
between
us
and
the
Church
of
Rome
:
which
ought
to
be
taken
from
that
Book
to
which
he
referrs
.
There
we
find
the
occasion
of
it
to
be
,
the
Romanists
contending
that
all
points
defined
by
the
Church
are
Fundamental
,
or
necessary
to
salvation
,
on
the
account
of
such
a
Definition
;
upon
this
the
controversie
about
Fundamentals
was
managed
against
them
,
with
a
design
to
prove
that
all
things
defined
by
the
Church
of
Rome
are
not
Fundamental
,
or
necessary
to
be
believed
by
all
persons
in
order
to
their
salvation
,
because
they
were
so
defined
.
To
this
purpose
I
enquired
.
1.
What
the
grounds
are
,
on
which
any
thing
doth
become
necessary
to
salvation
?
2.
Whether
any
thing
whose
matter
is
not
necessary
,
and
is
not
required
by
an
absolute
command
in
Scripture
,
can
by
any
means
whatsoever
afterwards
become
necessary
?
3.
Whether
the
Church
hath
power
,
by
any
proposition
or
definition
,
to
make
anything
become
necessary
to
salvation
,
and
to
be
believed
as
such
,
which
was
not
so
before
?
For
the
first
,
I
proposed
two
things
.
1.
What
things
are
necessary
to
the
salvation
of
men
as
such
,
or
considered
in
their
single
or
private
capacities
?
2.
What
things
are
necessary
to
be
owned
in
order
to
salvation
by
Christian
Societies
,
or
as
the
bonds
and
conditions
of
Ecclesiastical
communion
?
For
the
resolving
of
this
I
laid
down
these
three
Propositions
.
1.
That
the
very
being
of
a
Church
,
doth
suppose
the
necessity
of
what
is
required
to
be
believed
in
order
to
salvation
.
2.
Whatever
Church
owns
those
things
,
which
are
antecedently
necessary
to
the
Being
of
a
Church
,
cannot
so
long
cease
to
be
a
true
Church
.
And
here
I
expresly
distinguished
between
the
essentials
of
a
Church
,
and
those
things
which
were
required
to
the
Integrity
or
soundness
of
it
,
among
which
latter
I
reckoned
the
worship
of
God
in
the
way
prescribed
by
him
.
3.
That
the
Union
of
the
Catholick
Church
depended
upon
the
agreement
of
it
in
things
antecedently
necessary
to
its
being
.
From
hence
I
proceeded
to
shew
,
that
nothing
ought
to
be
owned
as
necessary
to
Salvation
by
Christian
Societies
,
but
such
things
which
by
all
those
Societies
are
acknowledged
antecedently
necessary
to
the
Being
of
the
Catholick
Church
.
And
here
I
distinguished
between
necessary
articles
of
faith
,
and
particular
agreements
for
the
Churches
peace
.
I
did
not
therefore
deny
,
but
that
it
was
in
the
power
of
particular
Churches
,
to
require
a
Subscription
to
articles
of
Religion
,
opposite
to
the
errours
and
abuses
which
they
reformed
;
but
I
denyed
it
to
be
in
the
power
of
any
Church
to
make
those
things
necessary
articles
of
faith
,
which
were
not
so
before
.
And
here
it
was
I
shewed
the
moderation
of
the
Church
of
England
above
that
of
Rome
;
in
that
our
Church
makes
no
articles
of
faith
,
but
such
as
have
the
testimony
and
approbation
of
the
whole
Christian
world
of
all
Ages
,
and
are
acknowledged
to
be
such
by
Rome
it self
:
but
the
Church
of
Rome
imposeth
new
articles
of
faith
,
to
be
believed
as
necessary
to
salvation
;
as
appears
by
the
Bull
of
Pius
4.
This
is
my
plain
meaning
,
which
half-witted
men
have
stretched
and
abused
to
several
ill
purposes
:
but
not
to
wander
from
my
present
subject
,
what
is
it
that
I.
W.
can
hence
infer
to
his
purpose
?
viz.
that
from
hence
it
follows
that
the
Church
of
Rome
does
not
erre
against
any
article
of
faith
,
or
any
point
necessary
to
salvation
;
which
if
it
be
only
meant
of
those
essential
points
of
faith
,
which
I
suppose
antecedently
necessary
to
the
Being
of
a
Church
,
I
deny
it
not
,
but
do
not
see
of
what
use
this
concession
can
be
to
them
in
the
present
debate
:
since
in
the
following
Discourse
I
made
the
ancient
Creeds
of
the
Catholick
Church
the
best
measure
of
those
things
,
which
were
believed
to
be
necessary
to
salvation
:
so
that
the
force
of
the
argument
comes
to
this
,
whatsoever
Church
does
embrace
the
ancient
Creeds
cannot
be
guilty
of
Idolatry
;
but
the
Church
of
Rome
doth
embrace
all
the
ancient
Creeds
by
my
own
concession
,
therefore
it
is
a
contradiction
for
me
to
grant
that
they
hold
the
ancient
Creeds
,
and
yet
to
charge
them
with
Idolatry
.
And
these
matters
being
thus
made
plain
,
there
is
no
great
difficulty
to
answer
,
by
denying
the
major
Proposition
,
and
asserting
that
a
Church
which
does
own
all
the
articles
of
faith
which
are
contained
in
them
,
may
yet
teach
and
practise
those
things
,
which
take
away
from
that
worship
which
is
proper
only
to
God
,
and
give
it
to
meer
creatures
;
as
I
have
proved
the
Church
of
Rome
doth
in
the
worship
of
Images
,
adoration
of
the
Host
,
and
Invocation
of
Saints
.
But
to
make
this
yet
more
plain
,
there
are
two
things
we
consider
in
a
Church
,
the
essence
,
and
the
soundness
of
it
;
as
in
a
man
,
we
consider
his
being
a
man
and
his
health
:
when
we
discourse
of
his
meer
Being
,
we
enquire
into
no
more
than
those
things
which
make
him
a
man
,
whether
he
be
sound
or
not
:
so
in
a
Church
,
when
we
enquire
into
the
essentials
of
it
,
we
think
it
not
necessary
to
go
any
farther
than
the
doctrinal
points
of
faith
;
the
reason
is
,
because
Baptism
admits
men
into
the
Church
upon
the
profession
of
the
true
faith
in
the
Father
,
Son
,
and
Holy
Ghost
;
and
whatever
is
sufficient
to
make
a
member
of
the
Church
,
that
is
in
it self
sufficient
,
being
embraced
,
to
make
a
Church
;
but
when
we
enquire
farther
into
the
moral
integrity
,
or
soundness
of
a
Church
,
then
we
think
our selves
bound
,
not
barely
to
know
what
is
acknowledged
and
received
,
but
how
far
it
is
so
;
and
whether
that
Church
which
owns
the
Fundamentals
of
Christian
faith
,
doth
not
by
gross
and
damnable
errours
corrupt
the
Worship
of
God
,
and
debauch
those
very
Principles
which
they
profess
to
own
.
And
in
this
respect
none
of
us
ever
said
,
That
the
Church
of
Rome
did
not
err
;
nay
we
do
say
and
have
manifestly
proved
,
that
she
hath
erred
against
the
Christian
faith
,
by
introducing
palpable
errours
in
doctrine
,
and
manifold
Superstitions
and
Idolatries
in
practice
.
From
hence
it
plainly
appears
,
that
the
concession
I.
W.
urges
me
with
of
the
Church
of
Rome
being
a
true
Church
signifies
nothing
,
in
the
sense
by
me
intended
,
which
contradicts
the
charge
of
Idolatry
;
unless
they
can
prove
that
none
who
own
the
Apostles
Creed
,
or
their
Baptism
,
can
so
long
as
they
so
do
,
teach
Idolatry
,
or
be
guilty
of
giving
the
honour
due
only
to
God
to
meer
creatures
.
These
things
being
thus
explained
,
I
hope
the
Sophistry
of
this
way
of
arguing
is
made
so
evident
,
that
no
man
of
understanding
,
that
resolves
not
before
hand
what
to
believe
,
is
capable
of
being
deceived
by
it
.
Before
I
come
to
the
next
contradiction
charged
upon
me
,
I
shall
for
the
diversion
of
the
Reader
,
and
the
suitableness
of
the
matter
,
take
notice
of
his
Appendix
,
wherein
I.
W.
goes
about
so
pleasantly
to
prove
me
an
Idolater
,
by
a
notable
trick
,
which
it
seems
came
into
his
head
a
little
too
late
,
after
he
had
finisht
this
worthy
Treatise
.
I
should
have
suspected
it
had
been
intended
only
for
a
piece
of
Drollery
,
but
that
the
man
so
severely
rebukes
me
for
it
,
and
withall
talks
of
nothing
less
than
demonstration
in
the
case
.
What
?
(
thought
I
)
is
it
come
to
this
at
last
?
and
am
I
become
an
Idolater
too
,
who
was
never
apt
to
think
my self
enclined
so
much
as
to
superstition
?
but
what
can
not
the
controverting
Wit
of
man
do
,
upon
second
and
serious
thoughts
?
All
the
comfort
I
found
left
was
towards
the
conclusion
,
wherein
he
confesses
that
the
same
argument
proves
the
Prophets
,
Evangelists
and
Holy
Ghost
himself
to
be
Idolaters
;
Nay
then
,
I
hoped
there
was
no
great
harm
to
be
feared
in
so
good
company
;
and
by
that
consideration
armed
my self
against
this
terrible
assault
.
But
at
last
as
he
made
nearer
approaches
to
me
,
I
found
no
mischief
was
like
to
come
,
but
what
I
brought
upon
my self
;
for
he
charged
me
with
nothing
but
my
own
Artillery
,
and
the
train
that
was
laid
to
blow
me
up
was
fetched
from
my
own
stores
;
only
he
had
disposed
it
in
a
way
fittest
for
this
deep
design
.
But
the
best
of
it
was
,
his
plot
went
no
farther
than
my
Idolatry
,
and
both
lay
only
in
Imagination
.
For
there
he
makes
the
seat
of
my
Idolatry
,
which
he
demonstratively
proves
must
be
so
by
my
own
argument
.
I
shall
therefore
conside●
what
that
was
,
and
with
what
great
art
he
imploys
it
against
me
.
Among
other
arguments
to
shew
that
the
prohibition
of
worshipping
Images
was
not
peculiar
to
the
Iews
,
but
of
an
unalterable
nature
,
I
insisted
upon
Gods
declaring
the
unsuitableness
of
it
to
his
own
infinite
and
incomprehensible
nature
,
which
could
not
be
represented
to
men
,
but
in
a
way
which
must
be
an
infinite
disparagement
to
it
.
To
whom
will
ye
liken
God
?
or
what
likeness
will
ye
compare
to
him
?
It
is
he
that
sitteth
upon
the
circle
of
the
earth
,
&c.
and
the
reason
given
of
the
Law
it self
was
,
because
they
saw
no
s●militude
of
God
;
from
hence
I
shewed
,
that
the
wisest
Nations
and
Persons
among
the
Heathen
looked
on
the
Worship
of
God
by
Images
,
as
unsuitable
to
a
Divine
and
Infinite
Being
,
and
that
the
Gospel
still
more
discovered
Gods
Spiritual
nature
,
and
the
agreeableness
of
Spiritual
Worship
to
him
;
that
the
Apostles
urged
this
Argument
against
the
Heathen
Idolatry
;
and
the
Fathers
of
the
Church
thought
the
reason
of
this
Law
did
equally
oblige
us
with
the
Iews
;
now
by
what
art
doth
he
from
hence
prove
me
necessarily
to
be
an
Idolater
,
as
well
as
they
of
the
Church
of
Rome
,
who
Worship
God
by
Images
against
the
very
words
and
reason
of
this
Law
?
The
argument
is
briefly
summed
up
by
himself
thus
:
Whoever
Worships
God
represented
in
a
way
far
inferiour
to
his
greatness
is
an
Idolater
;
but
whosoever
Worships
God
represented
to
him
without
the
Beatifical
vision
,
either
by
words
or
by
imaginations
as
well
as
Images
,
he
Worships
God
in
a
way
far
inferiour
to
his
greatness
;
ergo
,
whoever
worships
God
represented
unto
him
without
the
Beatifical
vision
is
an
Idolater
:
but
Dr.
St.
Worships
God
without
the
Beatifical
vision
(
no
doubt
of
it
)
ergo
,
Dr.
St.
is
an
Idolater
:
there
is
no
help
for
it
.
Nay
,
from
hence
he
proves
,
that
I
cannot
so
much
as
think
of
God
without
Idolatry
my self
,
nor
Preach
of
him
without
provoking
others
to
it
.
O
the
insuperable
force
of
reason
,
and
the
dint
of
demonstration
!
but
the
mischief
is
,
all
this
subtilty
is
used
against
the
Law-maker
and
not
against
me
.
Did
I
not
cite
the
words
of
God
himself
,
who
therefore
did
forbid
the
making
any
likeness
of
him
,
because
nothing
could
be
like
him
?
Is
there
no
difference
between
having
imperfect
conceptions
of
God
in
our
minds
,
and
making
unworthy
representations
of
him
to
our
senses
,
with
a
design
to
worship
them
?
Why
did
not
God
as
well
forbid
the
one
as
he
did
the
other
?
Were
the
Israelites
then
in
the
Beatifical
vision
?
were
their
conceptions
of
God
suitable
to
his
incomprehensible
nature
?
if
not
,
why
were
they
not
forbidden
as
well
to
think
of
God
as
to
make
any
Images
of
him
?
Is
God
as
much
disparaged
by
the
necessary
weakness
of
our
understandings
,
as
by
voluntarily
false
and
corporeal
Images
of
him
?
Nay
doth
not
God
design
to
prevent
the
errour
of
our
Imaginations
by
such
prohibitions
as
those
are
?
and
thereby
commands
us
to
think
worthily
of
him
,
and
when
we
pray
to
him
,
to
consider
him
only
as
an
Infinite
Being
in
his
Nature
and
Attributes
?
I
do
not
know
what
Imaginations
others
have
of
God
;
it
may
be
those
in
the
Church
of
Rome
measure
all
by
themselves
,
and
God
by
their
Images
of
him
,
and
thence
conclude
,
that
no
men
can
think
of
God
,
but
as
they
picture
him
,
like
an
Old
man
sitting
in
Heaven
;
but
I
assure
them
,
I
never
had
such
an
Imagination
of
him
,
and
if
I
had
,
should
think
it
very
unworthy
of
him
.
I
know
no
other
conception
of
God
,
but
of
a
Being
infinitely
perfect
;
and
this
is
rather
an
intellectual
apprehension
,
than
a
material
imagination
of
him
.
I
am
assured
that
he
is
,
by
mighty
and
convincing
arguments
,
but
to
bring
him
down
to
my
Imagination
,
is
to
contradict
the
evidence
that
I
have
of
his
Being
;
for
the
same
reasons
which
convince
me
that
he
is
,
do
likewise
convince
me
that
he
is
infinite
in
power
,
and
wisdom
,
and
goodness
.
If
I
thought
otherwise
of
him
,
I
should
know
no
reason
to
give
him
the
Worship
of
my
mind
and
soul.
Although
my
conceptions
cannot
reach
his
greatness
,
yet
they
do
not
confine
it
,
nor
willfully
debase
it
;
they
do
not
bring
him
down
to
the
meanness
of
a
Corporeal
Image
.
But
because
we
cannot
think
highly
enough
of
God
,
must
we
therefore
devise
ways
to
expose
him
to
contempt
and
scorn
?
And
we
cannot
but
despise
a
Deity
to
whom
any
Image
can
be
like
.
But
such
absurd
and
silly
arguments
deserve
no
farther
confutation
.
They
indeed
may
take
more
liberty
,
who
write
to
those
who
are
bound
not
to
judge
of
what
is
writ
,
but
only
to
cry
it
up
.
As
for
us
,
who
think
it
not
fit
to
have
our
People
in
such
slavery
,
we
dare
not
venture
such
idle
stuff
among
them
.
I
come
therefore
to
the
second
contradiction
he
charges
me
with
,
which
is
,
concerning
the
danger
of
salvation
which
they
are
lyable
to
who
communicate
with
the
Roman
Church
,
when
yet
I
acknowledge
that
Church
to
be
a
true
Church
,
and
therefore
to
be
a
true
way
to
salvation
:
and
withall
Arch
B.
Laud
,
whom
I
defend
,
doth
grant
a
possibility
of
salvation
to
those
in
the
Church
of
Rome
.
The
force
of
this
contradiction
depending
on
these
concessions
,
I
shall
,
1.
Shew
in
what
sense
they
are
granted
by
us
.
2.
Examin
the
strength
of
the
propositions
he
draws
from
hence
,
towards
the
making
this
a
contradiction
.
1.
Concerning
the
Roman
Church
being
a
true
Church
:
The
Arch-bishops
Adversary
having
falsely
charged
him
with
granting
the
Roman
Church
to
be
a
right
Church
,
he
complains
of
his
injustice
in
it
;
and
saith
,
that
it
is
a
Church
and
a
true
Church
he
granted
,
but
not
a
right
Church
;
for
Truth
only
imports
the
Being
;
right
,
perfection
in
conditions
;
thus
a
Thief
is
a
true
man
,
though
not
an
upright
man.
So
a
corrupt
Church
may
be
true
,
as
a
Church
is
a
company
of
men
which
profess
the
faith
of
Christ
,
and
are
baptized
into
his
name
;
but
it
is
not
therefore
a
right
Church
either
in
Doctrine
or
Manners
;
and
again
saith
,
It
is
true
in
that
sense
,
as
ens
and
verum
,
being
and
true
,
are
convertible
one
with
another
;
and
every
thing
that
hath
a
Being
is
truly
that
Being
which
it
is
in
truth
of
subtance
.
The
Replyer
to
him
,
saith
,
that
the
notion
of
a
Church
implyes
Integrity
and
Perfection
of
conditions
;
upon
which
I
gave
him
this
Answer
,
That
he
did
herein
betray
his
weak
or
willful
mistakes
of
a
Church
morally
for
Metaphysically
true
.
If
he
could
prove
it
impossible
for
a
Church
to
retain
its
Being
that
hath
any
errours
in
doctrine
,
or
corruptions
in
practice
,
he
would
therein
do
something
to
the
purpose
;
but
when
he
had
done
it
,
all
that
he
would
get
by
it
was
,
that
then
we
should
not
so
much
as
acknowledge
the
Roman
Church
to
be
Metaphysically
a
true
Church
;
and
therefore
the
Reader
is
left
to
judge
,
whether
his
Lordships
Charity
for
,
or
his
Testimony
against
their
Church
was
built
upon
better
grounds
.
By
this
it
is
evident
in
what
sense
it
was
granted
,
that
the
Roman
Church
was
a
true
Church
.
2.
Concerning
possibility
of
salvation
in
that
Church
;
To
the
question
that
was
asked
my
Lord
of
Canterbury
,
whether
a
person
might
be
saved
in
the
Roman
faith
?
he
gives
this
Answer
,
that
the
Ignorant
that
could
not
discern
the
errours
of
that
Church
,
so
they
held
the
Foundation
and
conformed
themselves
to
a
Religious
life
might
be
saved
:
and
after
explains
himself
more
fully
,
that
might
be
saved
grants
but
a
possibility
,
no
sure
or
safe
way
of
salvation
;
the
possibility
,
I
think
,
saith
he
,
cannot
be
denyed
to
the
Ignorants
,
especially
because
they
hold
the
Foundation
and
cannot
survey
the
building
.
And
the
Foundation
can
deceive
no
man
that
rests
upon
it
:
But
a
secure
way
they
cannot
go
,
that
hold
with
such
corruptions
when
they
know
them
.
And
again
,
Many
Protestants
indeed
confess
,
there
is
salvation
possible
to
be
attained
in
the
Roman
Church
;
but
yet
they
say
withall
,
that
the
errours
of
that
Church
are
so
many
,
(
and
some
so
great
,
as
weaken
the
Foundation
)
that
it
is
very
hard
to
go
that
way
to
Heaven
,
especially
to
them
that
have
had
the
truth
manifested
.
And
in
another
place
,
I
do
indeed
for
my
part
(
leaving
other
men
free
to
their
own
judgement
)
acknowledge
a
possibility
of
salvation
in
the
Roman
Church
:
but
so
as
that
which
I
grant
to
Romanists
,
is
not
as
they
are
Romanists
,
but
as
they
are
Christians
,
that
is
,
as
they
believe
the
Creed
,
and
hold
the
Foundation
Christ
himself
,
not
as
they
associate
themselves
wittingly
and
knowingly
to
the
gross
Superstitions
of
the
Roman
Church
.
And
I
am
willing
to
hope
there
are
many
among
them
,
which
keep
within
that
Church
,
and
yet
wish
the
Superstitions
abolished
which
they
know
,
and
which
pray
to
God
to
forgive
their
errours
in
what
they
know
not
,
and
which
hold
the
Foundation
firm
and
live
accordingly
,
and
would
have
all
things
amended
that
are
amiss
,
were
it
in
their
power
.
And
to
such
I
dare
not
deny
a
possibility
of
salvation
,
for
that
which
is
Christs
in
them
,
though
they
hazard
themselves
extreamly
,
by
keeping
so
close
to
that
which
is
Superstition
,
and
in
the
case
of
Images
comes
too
near
Idolatry
.
These
are
my
Lord
of
Canterburies
own
words
,
and
laid
together
in
my
Defence
of
him
,
which
I.
W.
ought
to
have
represented
,
if
he
had
designed
any
thing
but
Sophistry
and
trifling
.
But
his
game
had
been
then
quite
spoiled
;
the
fine
sport
of
making
contradictions
had
been
lost
,
and
his
cross
purposes
had
come
to
nothing
.
I
now
come
to
see
what
contradictions
he
wire-draws
from
hence
by
the
help
of
his
Propositions
.
1.
Whoever
is
in
a
condition
,
wherein
he
is
certainly
saved
,
is
in
no
danger
or
probability
of
being
damned
.
If
by
he
is
certainly
saved
,
he
speaks
of
the
event
,
then
he
were
a
hard
hearted
man
that
would
not
grant
,
that
he
that
is
actually
saved
is
in
no
danger
or
probability
of
being
damned
;
if
he
means
it
of
a
certain
way
to
salvation
,
then
it
is
yet
capable
of
several
meanings
.
For
to
be
in
a
certain
way
may
imply
one
of
these
three
things
.
1.
That
the
way
it self
is
so
plain
that
a
man
cannot
miss
of
it
.
2.
Or
that
the
way
is
in
it self
certain
,
but
there
are
so
many
by-paths
and
turnings
lying
hard
by
it
,
that
it
is
a
very
hard
matter
for
any
man
to
keep
in
it
.
3.
To
be
in
a
certain
way
,
is
,
when
not
only
the
way
it self
is
certain
,
but
a
man
keeps
constantly
in
that
way
.
According
to
these
several
senses
this
Proposition
may
be
understood
;
if
by
it
be
meant
.
1.
He
that
is
in
a
certain
way
to
salvation
,
is
in
no
danger
or
probability
of
being
damned
,
i.
e.
he
that
keeps
constantly
in
that
way
which
will
certainly
lead
him
to
Heaven
,
the
Proposition
is
true
,
but
impertinent
;
but
if
by
it
be
meant
no
more
but
this
,
that
he
is
in
a
way
which
in
it self
leads
to
Heaven
,
but
there
are
so
many
cross
and
by-paths
near
it
,
that
though
it
be
possible
for
him
to
hit
it
,
yet
it
is
extreamly
hazardous
,
no
one
can
imagine
that
such
a
one
is
in
no
probability
of
miscarrying
,
for
we
say
he
is
in
very
great
danger
of
it
,
notwithstanding
the
tendency
of
the
way
it self
.
2.
Prop.
Whoever
lives
and
dyes
in
a
true
way
to
salvation
,
having
conformed
to
its
directions
,
or
whoever
has
done
all
that
was
necessary
to
attain
unto
salvation
is
in
a
condition
,
wherein
he
is
certainly
saved
.
The
Sophistry
of
this
is
so
palpable
,
that
the
weakest
eye
may
discern
it
;
for
it
supposes
that
true
way
to
salvation
wherein
he
lives
to
be
a
very
safe
and
secure
way
,
i.
e.
that
it
be
not
only
true
in
it self
,
but
free
from
such
errours
and
corruptions
which
may
endanger
salvation
;
and
in
that
sense
it
is
true
,
but
very
far
from
the
purpose
.
For
none
of
us
did
ever
yield
that
the
Roman
Church
is
a
safe
way
to
salvation
;
nay
it
is
expresly
denyed
by
my
Lord
of
Canterbury
,
as
well
as
by
me
.
But
here
lyes
still
another
piece
of
Sophistry
to
be
taken
notice
of
,
whoever
hath
done
all
that
was
necessary
to
attain
salvation
,
is
in
a
condition
wherein
he
is
certainly
saved
;
no
doubt
of
it
;
but
the
doing
all
that
is
necessary
to
salvation
is
not
bare
believing
the
necessary
articles
of
faith
,
contained
in
the
Creed
,
but
obeying
the
Will
of
God
;
which
cannot
be
done
by
those
who
wilfully
adhere
to
gross
and
open
violations
of
it
;
as
I
have
charged
the
Church
of
Rome
to
do
,
in
her
solemn
acts
of
Worship
.
Their
cause
certainly
is
at
a
very
low
ebb
when
such
pittiful
Sophistry
,
must
pass
for
reasoning
and
demonstration
among
them
.
Never
men
had
more
need
of
a
self-evidencing
cause
,
as
well
as
propositions
,
than
they
;
so
little
help
do
they
contribute
to
it
by
their
Writings
.
3
Prop.
The
Roman
Church
is
a
true
way
to
salvation
,
and
teaches
all
that
is
necessary
to
attain
unto
it
.
This
is
granted
,
he
saith
,
by
me
and
other
Protestants
,
when
we
acknowledge
the
Roman
Church
to
be
a
true
Church
;
but
in
what
sense
,
I
have
already
explained
,
so
far
as
to
leave
no
colour
of
arguing
from
hence
to
any
contradiction
in
me
.
For
this
true
way
to
salvation
in
our
sense
is
no
more
,
but
that
the
Church
of
Rome
doth
acknowledge
so
much
of
Christian
faith
,
as
is
sufficient
to
save
men
,
on
condition
they
live
accordingly
,
and
do
not
by
gross
corruptions
in
doctrine
or
practice
render
that
faith
ineffectual
to
them
:
but
withall
we
assert
and
maintain
,
that
to
these
necessary
articles
of
Christian
faith
,
the
Church
of
Rome
hath
added
such
errours
and
corruptions
,
as
make
the
salvation
of
any
person
extreamly
hazardous
,
who
lives
in
the
communion
of
it
.
And
let
them
have
all
the
comfort
from
hence
which
they
can
,
I
am
sure
they
have
not
this
,
that
they
have
brought
me
to
contradict
my self
by
such
concessions
as
these
.
By
this
,
his
last
Proposition
comes
to
nothing
;
whoever
lives
and
dyes
in
the
communion
of
the
Roman
Church
,
having
conformed
to
her
doctrine
,
lives
and
dyes
in
a
true
way
to
salvation
having
conformed
to
its
directions
,
and
has
done
all
that
was
necessary
to
attain
to
it
.
Which
evidently
supposes
that
we
yield
that
the
doctrine
of
the
Roman
Church
,
is
a
safe
way
to
salvation
,
which
we
utterly
deny
;
all
that
we
assert
is
,
that
so
much
of
the
common
Principles
of
Christianity
,
as
is
retained
in
the
Roman
Church
is
sufficient
for
the
salvation
of
those
,
who
do
not
wilfully
corrupt
them
by
bad
opinions
and
practices
,
or
if
they
have
,
do
repent
sincerely
.
But
for
those
who
conform
themselvs
to
the
doctrine
and
directions
of
the
Roman
Church
as
such
,
we
are
far
from
ever
saying
that
such
live
and
dye
in
a
true
way
to
salvation
;
for
this
were
to
make
those
doctrines
and
directions
to
be
as
holy
and
innocent
as
we
believe
them
to
be
false
and
pernicious
.
See
now
what
a
contradiction
here
is
;
for
me
to
assert
the
Church
of
Rome
to
be
a
true
Church
,
because
it
retains
the
Fundamentals
of
Christianity
;
and
yet
to
make
the
condition
of
those
who
live
in
it
so
hazardous
in
point
of
salvation
,
by
reason
of
the
gross
errours
,
which
men
are
bound
to
believe
as
necessary
points
of
faith
;
and
horrible
Superstitions
which
they
must
conform
to
,
if
they
follow
her
directions
.
Surely
he
could
not
but
know
this
to
be
our
meaning
,
and
consequently
to
have
no
shadow
of
contradiction
in
it
,
no
more
than
is
in
this
plain
Proposition
,
That
a
possible
way
to
salvation
may
yet
be
very
dangerous
.
But
though
Iugglers
know
their
own
cheats
,
they
would
lose
their
trade
if
they
made
them
known
to
the
people
.
Something
must
be
said
to
amuse
them
,
and
this
seemed
the
prettiest
way
,
to
confound
them
,
by
dazeling
their
eyes
with
such
appearances
of
contradictions
:
and
thereby
to
perswade
their
own
party
,
that
they
need
not
fear
the
the
attaque
of
such
an
enemy
who
falls
foul
upon
himself
.
But
it
is
nothing
but
the
mist
he
casts
before
their
eyes
,
can
make
any
have
such
an
imagination
;
it
is
but
making
things
clear
,
and
then
nothing
but
order
and
agreement
appears
.
But
yet
he
quarrels
with
me
,
for
making
the
case
of
living
in
willful
sin
and
in
the
corruptions
of
the
Roman
Church
parallel
with
each
other
;
1.
because
I
will
not
grant
that
a
willful
sin
,
such
as
adultery
,
to
be
a
true
way
to
Heaven
;
and
doth
he
think
that
I
ever
imagined
Idolatry
and
gross
superstition
to
be
so
;
If
I
grant
that
in
the
Church
of
Rome
they
have
a
true
way
to
Heaven
,
it
is
as
other
debauched
Christians
have
,
who
own
faith
enough
to
save
them
,
but
their
destruction
comes
from
not
living
agreeably
to
it
.
2.
Because
I
grant
more
to
them
than
to
Iews
or
Pagans
,
yet
they
may
be
saved
if
they
do
repent
.
True
,
but
they
are
not
in
so
great
likelyhood
of
repenting
,
as
those
who
own
the
Fundamental
articles
of
the
Christian
faith
,
and
have
a
sincere
desire
in
general
to
serve
God
according
to
his
will
;
the
Grace
of
God
being
more
plentiful
,
where
the
Christian
faith
is
owned
,
than
where
it
is
rejected
;
upon
which
account
Iews
and
Heathens
are
in
more
danger
of
not
repenting
,
and
consequently
of
salvation
than
those
that
live
in
the
Roman
Church
.
3.
Because
I
grant
a
greater
capacity
of
salvation
to
Roman
Catholicks
than
they
do
to
Protestants
;
but
they
do
not
d●ny
it
to
Protestants
if
they
repent
.
But
the
difference
lyes
in
the
nature
and
acts
of
the
rep●●tance
required
;
We
say
a
〈◊〉
repentanced
and
a
vertuous
sincere
mind
,
which
desires
to
know
&
do
the
will
of
God
may
be
sufficient
,
together
with
a
particular
repentance
of
all
known
miscarriages
;
but
they
say
such
a
repentacne
is
necessary
for
us
,
as
does
imply
a
disowning
our
Church
,
as
such
wherein
no
salvation
is
to
be
had
,
and
a
joyning
with
the
Communion
of
the
Church
of
Rome
:
therefore
the
question
about
their
charity
and
ours
,
is
about
the
possibility
of
the
salvation
of
persons
living
and
dying
in
the
communion
of
either
Church
;
We
say
on
the
conditions
before
mentioned
,
men
may
be
saved
,
though
they
do
not
in
terms
renounce
their
communion
,
but
they
say
that
none
who
do
not
return
to
their
communion
can
be
saved
;
and
in
this
we
justly
charge
them
with
horrible
uncharitableness
,
when
many
of
their
Writers
allow
a
greater
possibility
of
salvation
to
meer
Heathens
.
4.
Because
Arch-bishop
Laud
grants
a
greater
capacity
of
salvation
than
other
Protestants
;
but
in
what
sense
I
have
already
shewed
.
5.
That
this
is
in
effect
to
say
,
that
it
is
a
true
way
to
Heaven
if
they
go
out
of
it
.
Not
if
they
go
out
of
it
so
far
as
it
is
true
,
but
so
far
only
as
it
is
false
and
dangerous
.
If
a
man
were
going
the
right
way
from
London
to
York
,
as
far
as
Stamford
,
and
there
went
quite
out
of
his
way
into
the
Fens
,
here
his
life
is
in
danger
;
if
I
should
tell
this
man
that
the
way
from
London
to
York
was
a
certain
way
,
that
the
way
he
went
in
as
far
as
Stamford
was
a
true
way
,
and
if
he
had
kept
in
it
,
would
have
brought
him
to
York
,
but
the
way
he
is
now
in
is
very
dangerous
,
and
if
he
does
not
return
,
his
life
is
in
perpetual
hazard
;
is
this
all
one
as
if
I
should
tell
him
,
while
you
were
in
the
true
way
,
you
must
go
out
of
it
?
No
such
sense
can
be
put
upon
such
words
,
by
any
man
that
hath
sense
;
and
for
others
,
we
give
them
leave
to
cry
nonsense
and
contradiction
.
All
his
other
petty
objections
run
upon
the
same
palpable
mistake
,
and
it
would
be
but
repeating
the
same
thing
to
answer
the
other
remaining
cavils
upon
this
Argument
.
I
come
therefore
to
the
sore
place
indeed
,
the
touching
whereof
hath
made
them
to
kick
and
wince
so
much
at
me
;
and
that
is
the
Fanaticism
of
the
Roman
Church
.
Which
made
them
complain
to
Caesar
,
that
it
was
a
new
crime
,
and
never
heard
of
before
.
What
?
they
;
the
sober
,
the
judicious
,
the
wise
people
of
the
Church
of
Rome
turned
Fanaticks
!
it's
false
,
it
's
impossible
;
nay
,
it
is
absolutely
and
utterly
impossible
to
be
true
;
and
none
but
Atheists
can
charge
them
with
it
.
This
hath
been
their
common
way
of
answering
to
this
new
charge
;
but
not
one
wise
word
hath
been
said
in
a
just
Vindication
of
themselves
,
by
giving
answer
to
those
many
plain
,
and
undenyable
Instances
I
have
produced
.
I
wished
for
no
other
tryal
than
to
be
bound
to
bring
forth
their
own
Authors
,
and
to
make
good
the
Authorities
I
had
cited
,
and
my
fidelity
therein
;
but
they
have
fairly
declined
this
way
of
tryal
.
But
how
then
can
they
free
themselves
from
this
imputation
?
we
have
men
of
art
to
deal
with
,
and
it
is
some
pleasure
to
observe
the
skill
they
use
in
warding
off
a
blow
they
did
not
look
for
.
But
if
they
have
nothing
more
to
say
then
I.
W.
can
help
them
to
,
the
charge
will
stick
the
faster
,
for
his
attempt
to
clear
them
of
it
.
He
begins
with
a
description
of
Fanaticism
,
which
,
he
saith
,
doth
necessarily
contain
a
resistance
of
authority
;
and
for
this
,
very
unhappily
quotes
my
own
words
.
By
Fanaticism
we
understand
either
an
Enthusiastick
way
af
Religion
,
or
resisting
authority
under
pretence
of
Religion
;
just
as
if
one
should
say
the
true
notion
of
Idolatry
implyes
the
renouncing
the
true
God
,
and
to
prove
it
should
quote
words
of
mine
to
this
purpose
,
That
Idolatry
is
either
renouncing
the
true
God
,
or
worshipping
the
true
God
by
an
Image
:
for
as
in
that
case
,
it
is
evident
,
I
make
two
sorts
of
Idolatry
;
so
it
is
as
plain
in
this
,
that
I
make
two
branches
of
Fanaticism
,
whereof
the
one
is
,
an
Enthusiastick
way
of
Religion
,
the
other
resistance
of
authority
under
the
pretence
of
Religion
.
But
if
this
be
the
true
notion
of
Fanaticism
,
why
doth
he
not
speak
one
word
in
vindication
of
them
,
from
that
very
kind
of
Fanaticism
,
which
I
had
charged
them
to
be
so
deeply
guilty
of
?
Had
I
not
proved
by
plain
testimonies
,
that
the
most
Fanatick
principles
of
Rebellion
were
owned
by
the
Jesuitical
party
among
them
?
viz.
the
Kings
deriving
his
power
from
the
people
,
and
the
peoples
authority
to
call
the
King
to
an
account
,
and
if
they
see
good
to
take
away
his
power
and
change
the
Government
:
and
not
only
so
but
to
take
away
his
life
too
?
Had
I
not
proved
by
clear
and
late
Instances
,
that
the
party
which
owns
these
principles
is
to
this
day
the
most
countenanced
and
encouraged
at
Rome
?
and
any
honest
men
among
them
,
as
to
these
principles
,
are
on
that
account
hated
and
persecuted
,
as
P.
W.
and
his
Brethren
.
But
why
no
answer
to
this
charge
?
These
are
things
they
cannot
deny
,
and
yet
dare
not
confess
them
to
be
true
.
If
I.
W.
answer
again
,
let
him
speak
out
like
a
man
,
and
either
confess
and
detest
these
Principles
,
or
we
shall
charge
them
farther
with
this
worst
and
most
dangerous
sort
of
Fanaticism
.
My
duty
and
just
zeal
for
his
Majesties
interest
and
security
,
will
not
suffer
me
to
let
go
this
part
of
the
charge
against
them
,
although
they
would
fain
have
it
passed
over
in
silence
,
as
though
never
a
word
had
been
said
concerning
it
.
This
is
one
of
the
best
arts
I
have
met
with
in
this
Pamphlet
;
for
unwary
Readers
will
not
remember
the
charge
,
when
they
find
no
answer
:
but
if
I.
W.
had
attempted
to
answer
it
,
his
shuffling
and
tricks
might
have
made
the
deeper
impression
in
the
Readers
minds
.
Remember
then
this
charge
stands
good
against
them
,
without
so
much
as
their
pretending
to
answer
it
.
To
come
now
to
the
other
part
of
Fanaticism
,
viz.
an
Enthusiastick
way
of
Religion
:
and
here
to
proceed
clearly
,
I
shall
lay
down
the
method
of
his
Defence
,
and
then
examine
it
.
The
strength
of
his
Defence
lyes
in
these
Propositions
.
1.
That
Fanaticism
does
necessarily
contain
a
resistance
against
authority
.
2.
No
particular
ways
of
Religion
,
countenanced
by
a
competent
authority
,
are
Fanaticism
.
3.
Those
things
which
concern
religious
Orders
and
Method
of
Devotion
,
which
I
charge
them
with
,
are
countenanced
by
a
competent
authority
,
viz.
The
Authority
of
that
Church
.
4.
That
Church
cannot
countenance
Fanatism
which
obligeth
all
persons
to
submit
to
her
judgement
.
So
that
here
are
two
Principles
by
which
I.
W.
thinks
to
vindicate
their
Church
from
Fanaticism
;
viz.
competent
authority
,
and
submission
of
judgement
to
the
Church
.
To
shew
the
invalidity
of
this
answer
,
I
shall
do
these
things
.
1.
Shew
the
insufficiency
of
it
.
2.
The
monstrous
absurdities
consequent
upon
it
.
1.
If
this
answer
were
sufficient
,
he
must
make
it
appear
,
that
there
have
been
none
charged
by
me
as
Fanaticks
in
their
Church
,
but
such
as
have
submitted
themselves
and
their
judgement
to
the
authority
of
their
Church
.
For
let
us
consider
the
occasion
of
this
charge
,
and
we
shall
presently
discern
the
insufficiency
of
this
way
of
answering
it
.
The
occasion
was
,
that
my
Adversary
made
all
the
Sects
and
Fanaticisms
among
us
to
be
the
effect
of
the
Reformation
;
what
answer
could
be
more
proper
in
this
case
,
than
to
shew
,
that
there
were
as
wild
and
extravagant
Fanaticisms
before
,
as
have
been
since
?
which
is
a
plain
evidence
that
cannot
be
the
cause
of
them
,
to
which
they
imputed
them
.
To
make
this
out
,
I
searched
into
the
several
sorts
of
Fanaticism
,
and
gave
instances
very
clear
of
as
great
Fanaticks
in
the
times
before
the
reformation
,
as
have
been
since
:
from
the
many
pretenders
to
immediate
Revelations
among
them
,
who
were
persons
allowed
and
approved
by
their
Church
,
and
some
of
them
Canonized
for
Saints
;
but
besides
these
,
I
gave
such
other
Instances
of
Fanaticism
among
the
Friers
,
and
others
of
their
Church
,
as
were
never
heard
of
in
the
world
before
;
as
the
broachers
and
maintainers
of
the
Friers
Gospel
,
which
was
to
put
out
of
doors
the
Gospel
of
Christ
;
the
Spiritual
Brethren
of
the
order
of
S.
Francis
called
by
several
names
,
but
especially
that
of
Fratricelli
,
who
continued
long
,
spread
far
,
and
more
distrubed
the
Church
than
any
since
have
done
,
the
Dulcinistae
in
Italy
,
the
Alumbrado's
in
Spain
,
&c.
What
doth
he
now
say
concerning
all
these
?
were
these
countenanced
by
a
competent
authority
among
them
?
did
they
submit
their
judgement
to
the
Church
?
if
neither
of
these
be
pretended
in
reference
to
them
,
then
this
answer
must
be
very
insufficient
,
because
it
doth
not
reach
to
the
matter
in
charge
.
2.
For
those
who
were
as
he
saith
,
countenanced
by
authority
,
and
did
submit
themselves
to
the
Church
,
yet
this
doth
not
clear
them
from
Fanaticism
;
but
draws
after
it
these
monstrous
absurdities
.
1.
That
prevailing
Fanaticism
ceases
to
be
Fanaticism
;
like
Treason
,
which
when
it
prospers
none
dare
call
it
Treason
;
an
excellent
way
,
this
,
to
vindicate
the
Fanaticism
of
the
late
times
,
which
because
countenanced
by
an
authority
,
supposed
competent
enough
by
some
who
then
writ
of
Obedience
and
Government
,
it
ceased
to
be
Fanaticism
;
and
all
the
wild
and
extravagant
heats
of
mens
brains
,
their
Enthusiasms
and
Revelations
were
Regular
and
orderly
things
,
because
countenanced
by
such
Authority
as
was
then
over
them
.
2.
By
this
rule
the
Prophets
and
Apostles
,
nay
our
Lord
himself
,
were
unavoidably
Fanaticks
;
for
what
competent
authority
had
they
to
countenance
them
?
The
Iewish
Church
was
not
yet
cast
off
while
our
Saviour
lived
,
but
utterly
opposed
his
doctrine
and
Revelation
,
as
coming
from
a
private
Spirit
of
his
own
;
according
therefore
to
these
excellent
Principles
,
our
B.
Saviour
is
made
a
meer
Fanatick
,
because
he
wanted
a
competent
Authority
of
the
present
Church
to
countenance
him
;
the
same
was
generally
the
case
of
the
Prophets
,
and
of
all
the
Apostles
.
But
what
rocks
and
Precipices
will
a
bad
cause
drive
men
upon
?
If
that
which
makes
Fanaticism
or
not
Fanaticism
,
be
the
being
countenanced
or
not
countenanced
by
this
competent
Authority
,
these
horrible
absurdities
are
unavoidable
;
and
all
Religion
must
be
resolved
into
the
will
and
pleasure
of
this
competent
Authority
.
But
I
need
not
take
such
pains
to
prove
this
,
for
my
brave
Answerer
I.
W.
sets
it
down
in
his
own
words
.
Moreover
,
otherwise
all
the
particular
manners
of
Preaching
or
Praying
practised
by
the
Prophets
,
and
all
their
extraordinary
visions
and
revelations
would
be
flat
Fanaticism
;
but
because
they
were
countenanced
by
a
competent
authority
,
they
could
not
deserve
that
character
.
Excellent
doctrine
for
a
Popish
Leviathan
!
are
you
in
earnest
sir
?
do
you
think
the
Prophets
had
been
Fanaticks
,
in
case
of
no
competent
authority
to
countenance
them
?
What
competent
authority
had
the
Prophet
Elijah
to
countenance
him
,
when
all
the
Authority
that
then
was
,
not
only
opposed
him
but
sought
his
life
?
What
competent
Authority
had
any
of
the
Prophets
who
were
sent
to
the
ten
Tribes
?
what
had
Ieremiah
,
Ezekiel
,
and
the
rest
of
them
?
It
seems
then
,
all
these
excellent
and
inspired
persons
are
cast
into
the
common
herd
of
Fanaticks
,
for
want
of
this
competent
Authority
to
countenance
them
.
And
yet
this
is
the
Man
(
meerly
because
I
lay
open
the
Fanaticism
of
some
their
pretended
Saints
,
such
as
Ignatius
Loyola
and
S.
Francis
)
who
ranks
me
with
Lucian
and
Porphyrie
:
hath
he
not
himself
a
great
zeal
for
Religion
the
mean
while
,
resolving
all
revelation
into
his
competent
authority
?
and
not
only
so
,
but
paralleling
the
expressions
and
practices
of
S.
Brigitt
,
and
Mother
Juliana
,
(
than
which
scarce
any
thing
was
ever
Printed
more
ridiculous
in
the
way
of
Revelations
)
with
those
of
the
holy
Prophets
and
Apostles
?
If
a
man
designed
to
speak
mischievously
against
the
Scriptures
and
Divine
Revelation
,
he
could
not
do
it
more
to
purpose
than
I.
W.
hath
done
in
these
words
?
when
he
compares
things
whose
folly
is
so
manifest
at
the
first
view
,
with
that
divine
Wisdom
,
which
Inspired
those
holy
persons
,
whom
God
sent
upon
particular
messages
to
his
people
,
and
gave
so
great
assurance
that
he
sent
them
;
and
who
delivered
matters
of
great
weight
and
moment
,
and
not
such
tittle
tattle
as
those
two
Womens
Books
are
fraught
withall
.
But
if
this
be
the
way
they
have
to
vindicate
them
from
being
Fanaticks
,
it
is
absolutely
the
worst
that
could
be
thought
of
;
for
it
cannot
discover
so
high
an
opinion
of
them
,
as
it
doth
a
very
mean
one
of
the
Books
of
Scripture
,
and
the
Divine
Revelations
therein
contained
.
I
could
here
earnestly
intreat
the
wiser
men
of
that
Church
,
for
the
honour
of
God
,
and
the
Christian
Religion
,
not
to
suffer
such
inconsiderate
persons
to
vindicate
their
cause
,
who
to
defend
the
extravagant
infirmities
of
some
Enthusiastical
women
among
them
,
are
so
forward
to
cast
dirt
and
reproach
upon
our
common
Religion
,
and
those
Revelations
from
whence
we
derive
it
.
But
I
forbear
;
only
it
is
a
shrewd
sign
,
if
this
way
be
allowed
,
of
a
wretched
cause
,
that
cannot
be
maintained
without
plunging
those
,
who
rely
upon
their
word
,
into
the
depths
of
Atheism
.
But
these
are
not
things
to
be
so
slightly
passed
over
,
they
deserve
a
fuller
and
severer
chastisement
.
For
the
present
,
this
is
enough
to
shew
,
what
monstrous
absurdities
this
way
of
vindicating
their
Church
from
Fanaticism
hath
brought
I.
W.
to
.
Yet
in
one
respect
he
deserves
some
pardon
,
for
they
are
wont
to
write
their
answers
upon
the
common
Themes
out
of
some
staunch
Authors
,
who
considered
a
little
better
what
they
writ
;
But
this
was
a
new
charge
,
and
neither
Bellarmin
,
Becanus
,
nor
any
of
their
old
beaten
souldiers
,
could
give
them
any
assistance
;
they
found
not
the
Title
of
the
Fanaticism
of
the
Roman
Church
in
any
of
their
common-place-Books
;
therefore
plain
Mother-wit
must
help
them
,
and
so
it
hath
bravely
.
But
before
they
again
attempt
this
matter
,
I
desire
them
to
consider
these
things
,
least
they
should
in
a
desperate
humour
utterly
give
up
the
cause
of
Religion
,
finding
themselves
unable
to
defend
that
of
their
Church
.
1.
Whether
there
can
be
any
greater
Fanaticism
,
than
a
false
pretence
to
immediate
divine
Revelation
?
For
what
can
more
expose
men
to
all
the
follies
and
delusions
imaginable
,
than
this
will
do
?
what
actions
can
be
so
wild
and
extravagant
but
men
may
do
,
under
such
a
pretence
of
immediate
Revelation
from
God
?
what
bounds
of
order
and
Government
can
be
preserved
?
some
may
pretend
a
Revelation
to
take
up
Arms
against
their
Prince
,
or
to
destroy
all
they
meet
(
which
is
no
unheard
of
thing
)
others
may
not
go
so
far
,
but
may
have
revelations
of
the
unlawfulness
of
Kingly
Government
;
others
may
pretend
revelations
of
a
new
Gospel
,
and
a
more
spiritual
dispensation
than
hath
been
yet
in
the
World
,
as
the
Mendicant
Friers
did
.
2.
Whether
we
are
bound
to
believe
all
such
who
say
,
They
have
divine
revelations
?
or
whether
persons
may
not
be
deceived
in
thinking
they
have
revelations
,
when
they
are
only
delusions
of
their
own
Fancies
or
the
Devil
?
if
not
;
then
every
one
is
to
be
believed
who
pretends
to
these
things
,
and
then
all
follies
and
contradictions
must
be
fwallowed
which
men
say
they
have
by
immediate
revelation
;
and
every
Fanatick
must
be
believed
,
to
have
divine
revelation
who
believes
himself
,
though
he
be
only
deluded
by
his
own
Imagination
,
or
become
Enthusiastical
by
the
power
of
a
disease
in
his
head
,
or
some
great
heat
in
his
blood
.
3.
Whether
there
must
not
be
some
certain
rules
established
whereby
all
persons
,
and
even
competent
authority
it self
,
must
proceed
in
judging
these
pretences
to
revelation
,
whether
they
be
true
or
false
?
for
if
they
proceed
without
rule
,
they
must
either
be
inspired
too
,
or
else
,
must
receive
all
who
pretend
to
divine
revelations
:
if
there
be
any
certain
rules
,
whereby
the
revelation
is
to
be
judged
;
then
if
any
persons
receive
any
revelation
against
those
rules
,
whether
are
other
persons
bound
to
follow
their
judgement
against
those
rules
?
4.
Whether
there
can
be
any
more
certain
rule
of
judging
,
than
that
two
things
evidently
contradictory
to
each
other
,
cannot
both
come
from
divine
revelation
?
For
then
God
must
contradict
himself
,
which
is
impossible
to
be
supposed
,
and
would
overthrow
the
faith
of
any
divine
revelation
.
And
this
is
the
plain
case
of
the
revelations
made
to
two
famous
Saints
in
the
Roman
Church
,
S.
Brigitt
and
S.
Catharine
;
to
one
it
was
revealed
,
that
the
B.
Virgin
was
conceived
with
Original
sin
;
to
the
other
,
that
she
was
not
:
both
these
have
competent
Authority
,
for
they
were
both
Canonized
for
Saints
by
the
Roman
Church
,
and
their
Revelations
approved
,
and
therefore
(
according
to
I.
W.
)
neither
of
them
were
Fanaticks
,
though
it
is
certain
that
one
of
their
Revelations
was
false
.
For
,
either
God
must
contradict
himself
,
or
one
of
these
must
be
deceived
,
or
go
about
to
deceive
,
and
what
greater
Fanaticism
can
there
be
,
than
that
is
?
if
one
of
these
had
only
some
Fanatick
Enthusiasm
,
and
the
other
divine
Revelation
,
then
competent
authority
and
submission
to
the
judgement
of
the
Church
,
is
not
a
rule
to
judge
Fanaticism
by
;
for
those
were
equal
in
both
of
them
.
5.
Whether
there
be
an
equal
reason
to
look
for
revelations
now
,
as
in
the
time
of
the
Prophets
,
and
our
Saviour
,
and
his
Apostles
?
or
whether
God
communicates
revelations
to
no
other
end
,
but
to
please
and
gratifie
some
Enthusiastical
tempers
?
and
what
should
be
the
reason
he
should
do
it
more
now
,
than
in
the
age
wherein
revelations
were
more
necessary
?
In
those
times
God
revealed
his
mind
to
men
,
but
it
was
for
the
benefit
of
others
;
when
he
sent
them
upon
particular
messages
,
as
the
Prophets
,
or
made
known
some
future
events
to
them
of
great
importance
to
the
Church
,
as
the
coming
of
the
Messias
,
&c.
or
Inspired
them
to
deliver
weighty
doctrines
to
the
world
,
as
he
did
both
the
Prophets
and
Apostles
:
why
should
we
think
,
that
God
now
,
when
the
revelations
of
these
holy
and
inspired
persons
are
upon
record
,
and
all
things
necessary
to
his
Church
are
contained
therein
,
should
vary
this
method
of
his
,
and
entertain
some
melancholy
and
retired
women
,
or
other
Enthusiastical
persons
with
visions
and
revelations
of
no
use
to
his
Church
?
6.
Whether
God
doth
ever
Inspire
persons
with
immediate
revelations
without
giving
sufficient
evidence
of
such
Inspiration
?
For
if
he
did
,
it
were
to
leave
men
under
a
temptation
to
Infidelity
without
means
to
withstand
it
;
if
he
doth
not
,
then
we
have
reason
to
examine
the
evidence
,
before
we
believe
the
revelation
.
The
evidence
God
gave
of
old
was
either
the
Prophecy
of
a
succession
of
Prophets
,
by
one
whose
commission
was
attested
by
great
miracles
,
as
Moses
,
who
told
the
Israelites
,
they
were
to
expect
Prophets
,
and
laid
down
rules
to
judge
of
them
by
;
or
else
by
miracles
wrought
by
themselves
as
by
the
Apostles
whom
our
Lord
sent
abroad
to
declare
his
will
to
the
world
.
And
where
these
are
not
,
what
reason
is
there
to
receive
any
new
Revelations
as
from
God
,
especially
when
the
main
predictions
of
the
New
Testament
are
of
false
Prophets
,
and
false
Miracles
?
7.
Whether
the
Revelations
of
their
pretended
Saints
being
countenanced
by
the
Authority
of
their
Church
,
be
equally
received
among
them
,
with
the
Revelations
contained
in
Scripture
?
if
they
be
,
then
they
ought
to
have
equal
reverence
paid
to
them
,
and
they
ought
to
read
them
as
Scripture
,
to
cite
their
Authority
as
divine
,
and
to
believe
them
as
infallible
as
Christ
and
his
Apostles
;
if
they
be
not
,
than
whatever
they
pretend
,
they
are
not
looked
on
as
divine
revelations
by
them
,
as
manifestly
appears
,
because
they
are
wholly
rejected
by
some
of
the
wisest
of
them
,
doubted
of
,
and
disputed
by
others
,
as
it
were
easie
to
prove
were
it
not
too
large
a
subject
for
this
discourse
,
but
by
none
received
as
writings
of
divine
authority
,
and
equal
with
the
Scriptures
,
which
they
must
be
if
they
came
from
the
same
Spirit
.
And
since
they
are
not
,
it
is
evident
that
they
are
no
otherwise
esteemed
among
themselves
,
than
as
the
Fanatick
heats
of
some
devout
persons
of
disturbed
and
deluded
Fancies
;
whom
notwithstanding
they
are
willing
to
cherish
,
partly
because
they
are
loth
to
discountenance
any
pretence
to
an
infallible
Spirit
in
their
Church
,
and
partly
that
there
may
never
be
wanting
matter
to
make
Saints
of
,
when
the
Pope
thinks
fit
,
and
good
consideration
is
offered
.
This
may
suffice
to
make
good
this
charge
of
Fanaticism
against
the
Roman
Church
;
and
to
shew
that
I
am
as
far
from
the
appearance
of
any
contradiction
therein
(
although
their
Revelations
are
not
from
a
real
one
)
as
I.
W's
vain
and
Sophistical
talk
is
from
any
appearance
of
reason
.
The
last
contradiction
charged
upon
me
,
is
,
about
the
Divisions
of
the
Roman
Church
.
The
occasion
of
which
discourse
was
,
that
divisions
were
objected
to
me
as
another
consequent
of
the
Reformation
;
upon
which
I
thought
my self
obliged
to
enquire
into
the
Vnity
of
their
Church
,
and
I
have
at
large
proved
from
undenyable
Instances
,
attested
by
their
own
Authors
,
that
they
have
no
reason
to
insult
over
other
Churches
on
account
of
their
divisions
,
nor
to
boast
of
their
own
Unity
and
Peace
.
For
I
have
there
proved
that
there
have
never
been
greater
disturbances
in
the
Christian
World
,
than
what
they
call
the
means
of
Unity
,
viz.
the
Popes
Authority
,
hath
procured
,
no
where
greater
or
more
lasting
Schisms
,
no
where
fiercer
disputes
about
matters
of
order
and
doctrine
,
than
among
them
.
I
considered
all
their
salvo's
and
from
them
shew'd
,
that
if
they
have
no
divisions
among
themselves
neither
have
we
;
nay
the
same
arguments
which
prove
they
do
not
differ
in
matters
of
faith
from
each
other
,
do
likewise
prove
that
they
and
we
do
not
differ
from
each
other
in
those
things
.
And
what
saith
I.
W.
to
all
this
?
Instead
of
healing
their
own
divisions
,
he
only
designs
to
prove
me
to
be
divided
against
my self
,
that
he
might
make
up
the
full
Tale
of
his
contradictions
.
But
I.
W.
had
so
much
forgot
himself
as
to
make
good
the
very
thing
I
designed
;
and
by
that
very
argument
he
uses
to
prove
that
I
contradict
my self
,
he
manifestly
proves
that
there
are
no
more
divisions
in
matters
of
faith
,
between
the
Roman
Church
and
us
than
there
are
among
themselves
.
This
I
shall
make
very
evident
,
but
I
must
proceed
as
he
doth
with
his
Propositions
.
1.
No
divisions
from
the
Roman
Church
are
divisions
of
the
Roman
Church
.
This
is
a
very
subtle
principle
of
unity
among
them
,
and
by
this
rule
there
would
be
an
admirable
Unity
in
the
Roman
Church
,
if
the
Pope
himself
were
left
alone
in
it
.
For
all
others
would
only
be
divided
from
it
,
and
I
would
allow
the
Pope
to
be
at
a
very
good
Agreement
with
himself
,
which
is
more
than
I.
W.
will
allow
me
:
In
this
case
indeed
there
would
be
Vnity
,
but
where
would
be
their
Church
?
Suppose
a
shepherd
should
boast
of
the
excellent
Government
of
a
great
Flock
he
had
under
his
command
,
and
the
Unity
and
peace
they
lived
in
;
and
a
by-stander
should
tell
him
that
he
saw
others
pretend
to
the
same
authority
over
that
flock
that
he
did
,
and
part
followed
one
and
part
another
,
he
saw
some
of
the
chief
of
the
Leaders
set
themselves
against
him
disputing
his
authority
,
he
saw
many
of
the
sheep
continually
fighting
with
each
other
,
and
some
had
wholly
forsaken
him
;
would
it
not
be
a
pleasant
thing
for
this
shepherd
to
say
that
notwithstanding
all
this
they
had
great
peace
and
Unity
,
because
as
many
as
did
not
quarrel
were
very
quiet
,
and
those
that
were
divided
from
his
Government
were
not
under
it
?
But
our
question
is
,
whether
such
authority
be
the
means
to
preserve
the
whole
flock
under
Government
,
when
we
see
it
prevents
no
divisions
but
causes
many
?
He
might
have
spoken
more
to
the
purpose
if
he
had
framed
his
Proposition
thus
,
there
can
be
no
divisions
in
the
Roman
Church
,
but
such
as
divide
men
from
it
;
and
in
that
case
the
Roman
Church
would
have
been
reduced
to
a
very
small
number
.
But
if
there
may
be
such
divisions
which
are
as
contrary
to
Unity
and
peace
as
divisions
in
matters
of
faith
are
,
to
what
purpose
is
it
to
shew
that
they
have
none
in
one
kind
if
they
have
very
great
in
all
others
?
But
although
this
be
not
sufficient
to
demonstrate
their
Vnity
,
yet
it
is
enough
for
his
purpose
,
if
it
doth
shew
that
I
contradict
my self
.
But
where
lyes
the
contradiction
?
The
force
of
it
lyes
here
.
I
charge
them
with
divisions
in
matters
of
faith
,
when
divisions
in
matters
of
faith
make
them
not
to
be
members
of
the
Roman
Church
;
therefore
there
can
be
no
divisions
in
the
Roman
Church
in
matters
of
faith
.
Again
(
for
in
these
two
arguments
the
substance
of
his
own
propositions
is
couched
by
himself
)
All
those
who
assent
unto
the
ancient
Creeds
are
undivided
in
matters
of
faith
;
but
all
Roman
Catholicks
assent
unto
the
ancient
Creeds
;
ergo
,
all
Roman
Catholicks
are
undivided
in
matters
of
faith
,
and
consequently
it
is
a
calumny
in
me
to
say
they
are
divided
in
these
matters
.
Now
,
what
an
easie
matter
is
it
to
disposses
me
of
this
Spirit
of
contradiction
,
which
he
imagines
me
possessed
with
?
I
need
no
holy
water
,
or
sacred
charms
and
exorcisms
to
do
it
with
.
There
needs
no
more
but
understanding
what
is
meant
by
matters
of
faith
;
when
matters
of
faith
are
spoken
of
by
me
in
the
place
he
refers
to
,
it
is
evident
to
every
one
that
reads
it
,
and
by
his
own
words
I
speak
only
of
the
Fundamental
and
necessary
articles
of
faith
,
which
are
necessary
to
the
salvation
of
all
and
to
the
very
being
of
a
Church
;
of
which
kind
I
say
none
ought
to
be
esteemed
,
that
were
not
admitted
into
the
ancient
Creeds
.
But
when
I
charge
them
with
divisions
in
matters
of
faith
,
I
do
not
mean
that
they
reject
the
ancient
Creeds
,
but
I
take
matters
of
faith
in
their
own
sense
for
things
defined
by
the
Church
;
and
if
I.
W.
had
sought
for
any
thing
but
words
to
raise
cavils
upon
,
he
might
have
found
it
so
explained
in
the
very
place
where
I
speak
of
this
.
For
that
discourse
is
to
answer
an
objection
of
theirs
,
that
they
do
not
differ
in
those
things
which
they
esteem
matters
of
faith
;
and
particularly
I
insisted
upon
that
,
that
they
cannot
be
sure
whether
they
differ
in
matters
of
faith
or
no
,
because
they
are
not
agreed
what
makes
things
to
become
matters
of
faith
.
Can
this
be
understood
any
other
way
than
of
their
own
sense
of
matters
of
faith
?
And
is
not
this
fair
dealing
to
make
me
contradict
my self
because
where
I
argue
against
them
I
take
matters
of
faith
in
their
sense
,
and
where
I
deliver
my
own
opinion
,
I
take
them
in
another
sense
?
And
this
being
the
sense
of
matters
of
faith
the
trifling
of
his
arguing
appears
;
for
do
all
these
cease
to
be
members
of
their
Church
who
dispute
any
thing
which
others
account
matter
of
faith
among
them
?
Are
the
Iesuits
all
out
of
the
Church
of
Rome
,
because
they
deny
the
efficacy
of
Grace
which
the
Domini●ans
account
a
matter
of
faith
?
Are
the
Iansenists
and
oral
Traditionists
divided
from
the
Church
of
Rome
because
they
deny
the
Popes
Infallibility
which
the
Iesuits
account
a
matter
of
faith
?
If
not
,
then
all
divisions
in
matters
and
articles
of
faith
,
are
not
divisions
from
the
true
Church
and
from
all
her
members
;
and
so
his
second
Proposition
comes
to
nothing
:
and
so
likewise
the
third
,
that
all
divisions
in
matters
of
faith
,
so
esteemed
by
them
,
are
divisions
from
the
Roman
Church
.
But
the
fourth
and
fifth
Propositions
are
the
most
healing
Principles
that
have
yet
been
thought
on
.
Fie
for
shame
!
why
should
we
and
they
of
the
Church
of
Rome
quarrel
thus
long
?
we
are
very
well
agreed
in
all
matters
of
faith
,
and
I
shall
demonstratively
prove
it
from
the
argument
of
I.
W.
drawn
from
his
two
last
Propositions
.
All
who
assent
unto
the
ancient
Creeds
are
undivided
in
matters
of
faith
,
by
Prop.
4.
but
both
Papists
and
Protestants
do
assent
unto
the
ancient
Creeds
;
ergo
,
they
are
undivided
in
matters
of
faith
And
hath
not
I.
W.
now
done
his
business
,
and
very
substantially
proved
the
thing
he
intended
?
But
I
hope
we
may
enjoy
the
benefit
of
it
,
as
well
as
those
of
the
Church
of
Rome
;
and
that
they
will
not
hence
forward
charge
us
with
dividing
from
their
Church
in
any
matters
of
faith
,
since
we
are
all
agreed
in
owning
the
ancient
Creeds
;
and
seeing
,
we
cannot
be
divided
from
the
Church
but
by
differing
in
matters
of
faith
according
to
his
Propos.
it
follows
that
we
are
still
members
of
the
true
Church
,
and
therefore
neither
guilty
of
heresie
nor
Schism
.
But
if
those
who
do
own
and
assent
to
the
ancient
Creeds
may
yet
be
divided
in
matters
of
faith
,
as
they
charge
us
by
rejecting
the
definitions
of
the
Roman
Church
,
then
there
is
no
shadow
of
a
contradiction
left
in
my
charging
them
with
differences
in
matters
of
faith
among
themselves
,
though
I
say
,
they
own
the
ancient
Creeds
.
And
now
,
Reader
,
thou
seest
what
all
these
pitiful
cavils
are
come
to
;
and
what
ground
there
hath
been
for
them
to
glory
in
this
Pusionello
,
that
with
a
sheet
and
a
half
hath
compelled
me
,
as
he
saith
,
to
be
my
own
Executioner
.
But
these
great
Heroes
must
be
allowed
to
relate
their
famous
adventures
,
with
some
advantage
to
themselves
:
it
might
have
been
enough
to
have
rescued
the
Lady
,
but
not
only
to
destroy
the
Giant
(
as
any
man
must
be
accounted
whom
such
Knights
encounter
)
but
to
leave
him
grovelling
in
the
ground
and
gasping
for
breath
,
and
that
by
wounds
he
forced
him
to
give
himself
,
this
is
beyond
measure
glorious
.
Go
thy
way
then
for
the
eighth
Champion
of
Christendom
,
enjoy
the
benefit
of
thy
illustrious
fame
,
sit
down
at
ease
,
and
relate
to
thy
immortal
honour
thy
mighty
exploits
;
only
when
thou
hast
done
,
remember
thou
hast
encountred
nothing
but
the
Wind-mills
of
thy
own
imagination
,
and
the
man
whom
thou
thought'st
to
have
executed
by
his
own
hands
,
stands
by
and
laughs
at
thy
ridiculous
attempts
.
But
I
forget
,
that
I
am
so
near
his
Conclusion
,
wherein
he
doth
so
gravely
advise
me
that
I
would
be
pleased
for
once
to
write
Controvesies
,
not
Play-Books
:
his
meaning
I
suppose
,
is
,
that
I
would
return
to
the
old
beaten
road
where
they
know
how
to
find
a
man
,
and
have
something
to
say
because
others
have
said
something
before
them
;
and
not
represent
the
ridiculous
passages
of
their
Fanaticks
;
for
the
defence
of
which
they
are
furnisht
with
no
Distinctions
out
of
their
usual
Magazines
,
their
present
Manuals
of
Controversie
.
I
shall
be
contented
to
wait
their
leisure
if
they
have
any
thing
material
to
say
;
as
I.
W.
gives
me
some
hopes
,
when
he
saith
,
that
other
more
learned
pens
(
I
shall
be
glad
to
see
them
)
will
give
me
a
more
particular
and
compleat
answer
.
I
hope
not
in
the
way
of
cavilling
;
if
they
do
,
I
shall
hereafter
only
contemn
them
;
but
I
am
afraid
of
their
good
intentions
by
the
Books
he
mentions
as
such
considerable
things
in
answer
to
my
Vindication
of
Arch-bishop
Laud
,
viz.
the
Guide
in
Controversies
,
and
Protestancy
without
Principles
;
if
others
write
as
they
have
done
,
I
shall
take
as
little
notice
of
them
as
I
have
done
of
those
.
Cannot
a
dull
Book
come
out
with
my
name
in
the
Title
,
but
I
must
be
obliged
to
answer
it
?
no
,
I
assure
them
I
know
better
how
to
spend
my
time
.
I
say
still
,
let
a
just
answer
come
forth
,
that
deals
by
me
as
I
did
by
the
Book
I
answered
,
and
then
let
them
blame
me
,
if
I
neglect
it
.
But
at
last
he
gives
one
general
reason
why
no
great
matter
is
to
be
expected
to
come
abroad
in
Print
:
not
,
but
that
they
have
men
of
learning
among
them
:
No
doubt
of
it
:
but
alas
for
them
!
they
are
so
persecuted
in
the
Printing
Houses
that
nothing
of
theirs
is
suffered
to
come
abroad
,
only
by
great
good
fortune
this
complaint
is
in
Print
and
comes
abroad
openly
enough
.
How
long
I
pray
have
these
days
of
persecution
been
?
For
,
whatever
you
imagine
I
was
so
far
from
having
any
hand
in
it
,
that
the
first
time
I
ever
heard
of
it
,
was
from
your
complaints
.
Have
you
not
formerly
complained
thus
,
when
Books
too
many
have
been
Printed
and
published
in
England
?
And
what
assurance
can
you
give
us
that
you
do
not
still
complain
without
cause
?
But
,
not
to
suffer
you
to
deceive
the
people
any
longer
in
this
kind
(
by
pretending
that
this
is
the
reason
why
you
do
not
answer
our
Books
,
because
you
have
no
liberty
of
the
Press
)
I
have
at
this
time
a
Catalogue
by
me
of
above
two
hundred
Popish
Books
Printed
in
our
own
language
(
which
I
shall
produce
on
a
just
occasion
)
a
considerable
part
whereof
have
been
published
within
the
compass
of
not
many
years
.
And
yet
all
possible
efforts
are
used
by
us
(
saith
I.
W.
)
to
hinder
their
Doctors
from
shewing
their
learning
;
this
of
late
we
must
needs
say
,
they
have
very
sparingly
done
;
but
all
the
arts
we
have
,
cannot
hinder
some
of
them
from
shewing
their
weakness
,
as
this
I.
W.
hath
very
prodigally
done
in
this
Pamphlet
.
Finis
.
AN
ANSWER
TO
THE
BOOK
,
Entituled
,
Dr.
Stillingfleet's
Principles
Considered
.
ALthough
I
write
no
Plays
,
yet
I
hope
I
may
have
leave
to
say
the
scene
is
changed
;
for
instead
of
the
former
Sophister
,
one
now
comes
forth
in
the
habit
of
a
grave
Divine
,
whom
I
shall
treat
with
the
respect
due
to
his
appearance
of
Modesty
and
Civility
.
I
pass
by
therefore
all
those
unhandsome
reflections
in
his
Preface
,
which
I
have
not
already
answered
in
mine
,
and
come
immediately
to
the
main
Controversie
between
us
,
which
I
acknowledge
to
be
of
so
great
importance
as
to
deserve
a
sober
debate
.
And
the
Controversie
in
short
is
this
,
Whether
Protestants
who
reject
the
Roman
Churches
Authority
and
Infallibility
,
can
have
any
sufficient
Foundation
to
build
their
faith
upon
?
This
we
affirm
,
and
those
of
the
Church
of
Rome
confidently
deny
;
and
on
this
account
do
charge
us
with
the
want
of
Principles
,
i.
e.
sufficient
grounds
for
our
faith
.
But
this
may
be
understood
two
ways
.
1.
That
we
can
have
no
certainty
of
our
faith
as
Christians
without
their
Infallibility
.
2.
Or
that
we
can
have
no
certainty
of
our
faith
as
Protestants
,
i.
e.
in
the
matters
in
debate
between
their
Church
and
ours
.
These
two
ought
carefully
to
be
distinguished
from
each
other
:
and
although
the
Principles
I
laid
down
,
do
reach
to
both
these
,
yet
that
they
were
chiefly
intended
for
the
former
,
will
appear
by
the
occasion
of
adding
them
to
the
end
of
the
Answer
there
given
.
The
occasion
was
,
my
Adversaries
calling
for
Grounds
and
Principles
;
upon
which
I
there
say
,
that
I
would
give
an
account
of
the
faith
of
Protestants
in
the
way
of
Principles
,
and
of
the
reason
of
our
rejecting
their
impositions
.
The
first
I
undertook
on
two
accounts
.
1.
To
shew
that
the
Roman
Churches
Authority
and
Infallibility
cannot
be
the
Foundation
of
Christian
faith
,
and
so
we
may
be
very
good
Christians
without
having
any
thing
to
do
with
the
Church
of
Rome
.
2.
That
this
might
serve
as
a
sufficient
answer
to
a
Book
entituled
Protestants
without
Principles
.
Which
being
in
some
part
of
it
directed
against
me
I
had
reason
,
not
only
to
lay
down
those
Principles
,
b●t
to
do
it
in
such
a
manner
as
did
most
directly
overthrow
the
principles
of
that
Book
.
Which
being
only
intimated
there
,
I
must
now
to
make
my
proceeding
more
clear
and
evident
,
produce
those
assertions
of
E.
W.
for
which
mine
were
intended
.
In
the
first
Chapter
he
designs
to
prove
,
That
all
men
must
be
infallible
in
the
assent
they
give
to
matters
of
faith
.
For
,
saith
he
,
If
they
disown
such
infallible
believers
,
they
must
joyntly
deny
all
infallible
faith
:
and
a
little
after
,
an
Infallible
verity
revealed
to
us
forcibly
requires
an
answerable
and
correspondent
infallible
faith
in
us
:
and
therefore
he
asserts
a
subjective
Infallibility
in
true
believers
.
And
from
hence
he
proves
the
necessity
of
Infallible
teachers
;
for
infallible
believers
and
infallible
teachers
,
he
saith
,
seem
neer
correlatives
.
In
the
second
Chapter
he
saith
,
he
that
hears
an
infallible
teacher
hath
the
Spirit
of
truth
,
and
he
that
hears
not
an
infallible
teacher
wants
this
Spirit
of
truth
;
by
which
he
does
not
mean
an
infallible
Revealer
of
the
doctrine
at
first
;
but
the
immediate
teachers
of
the
revealed
doctrine
,
for
,
saith
he
,
no
man
can
be
a
Heretick
that
denies
the
objective
verities
revealed
in
Gods
word
,
unless
he
be
sure
that
his
teacher
reveals
those
verities
infallibly
.
He
proposes
the
objection
of
a
Simplician
,
as
he
calls
him
,
that
he
builds
his
faith
and
Religion
,
not
on
any
Preachers
talk
but
on
the
objective
verities
revealed
in
Scripture
:
to
which
he
answers
,
that
unless
he
first
learn
of
some
infallible
Oracle
,
the
sense
of
Scripture
in
controverted
places
,
he
can
never
arrive
to
the
depth
of
Gods
true
meaning
,
or
derive
infallible
faith
from
those
objective
revealed
Verities
.
He
yet
farther
asserts
,
that
every
Catechist
,
or
Preacher
that
hath
a
lawful
mission
,
and
is
sent
by
the
infallible
Church
to
teach
Christs
Sacred
Doctrine
,
if
he
Preach
that
doctrine
which
Christ
and
his
Church
approves
of
,
is
then
under
that
notion
of
a
member
conjoyned
with
an
Infallible
Church
,
infallible
in
his
teaching
▪
and
thence
concludes
,
that
infallibility
doth
accompany
both
teachers
and
hearers
:
and
from
denying
this
Infallibility
,
he
saith
,
follows
an
utter
ruine
of
Christian
Religion
yea
and
of
Scripture
too
.
And
afterwards
he
goes
about
to
prove
that
no
man
can
have
any
divine
faith
without
infallibility
in
the
proponent
;
for
,
faith
he
,
as
long
as
the
Infallibility
of
a
Revelation
stands
remote
from
me
for
want
of
an
undoubted
application
made
by
an
infallible
Proponent
,
it
can
no
more
transfuse
Certainty
into
Faith
,
than
Fire
at
a
great
distance
,
warm
.
This
is
the
sum
of
the
Principles
of
that
Metaphysical
wit
;
but
sure
a
man
must
have
his
brains
well
confounded
by
School
Divinity
and
hard
words
,
before
he
can
have
common
sense
little
enough
to
think
he
understands
them
.
But
because
I
never
loved
to
spend
time
in
confuting
a
man
,
who
thinks
himself
the
wiser
for
speaking
things
,
which
neither
he
nor
any
one
else
can
understand
;
I
rather
chose
in
as
short
a
way
as
I
could
,
to
put
together
such
Propositions
,
as
might
give
an
account
of
Christian
Faith
without
all
this
Iargon
about
Infallibility
.
In
order
to
this
,
I
first
laid
down
the
Principles
wherein
all
parties
are
agreed
;
and
then
such
Propositions
as
I
supposed
would
sufficiently
give
an
account
of
our
faith
,
without
any
necessity
of
such
an
infallibility
as
he
makes
necessary
for
the
foundation
of
it
.
But
for
our
clearer
proceeding
in
an
Argument
of
this
importance
,
it
will
be
necessary
to
state
and
fix
the
notion
of
Infallibility
before
I
come
to
particulars
.
For
as
it
is
used
it
seems
to
be
a
rare
word
for
Iugglers
in
Divinity
to
play
tricks
with
;
for
sometimes
they
apply
it
to
the
object
that
is
believed
,
and
call
that
infallibly
true
;
sometimes
to
the
subject
capable
of
believing
,
and
say
persons
ought
to
be
infallibly
certain
that
what
they
believe
is
infallibly
true
;
and
sometimes
to
the
means
of
conveying
that
infallible
truth
to
the
faculties
of
men
,
and
these
they
say
must
be
infallible
,
or
else
there
can
be
no
infallible
certainty
of
any
thing
as
infallbly
true
.
But
the
subtilty
of
these
things
lies
only
in
their
obscurity
;
and
the
School-man
is
spoiled
when
his
talk
is
brought
down
out
of
the
clouds
to
common
sense
:
I
will
therefore
trie
to
bring
these
things
out
of
their
terms
to
a
plain
meaning
;
and
surely
we
may
speak
and
understand
each
other
in
these
matters
without
this
doubtful
term
of
Infallibility
.
For
if
it
signifies
any
thing
,
we
may
make
use
of
the
thing
it
signif●es
in
stead
of
the
word
,
and
by
applying
the
thing
signified
by
it
,
to
that
which
it
is
spoken
of
,
we
shall
soon
discern
how
justly
it
is
attributed
to
it
.
Infallibile
is
that
which
cannot
be
deceived
;
now
if
no
one
will
say
,
That
a
proposition
cannot
be
deceived
,
it
is
absurd
to
say
that
it
is
infallibly
true
;
therefore
the
matters
revealed
considered
as
objective
verities
,
as
our
schoolman
speaks
,
are
not
capable
of
Infallibility
;
which
cannot
belong
to
the
truth
proposed
,
but
to
him
that
propounds
or
believes
it
.
For
to
be
deceived
or
not
to
be
deceived
,
are
proper
only
to
persons
;
and
the
impossibility
of
being
deceived
does
in
truth
belong
only
to
an
infinitely
perfect
understanding
;
for
what
ever
understanding
is
imperfect
,
is
of
it self
liable
to
errour
and
mistake
.
And
yet
an
understanding
liable
to
be
deceived
may
not
be
deceived
,
and
be
sure
it
is
not
.
The
highest
assurance
of
not
being
deceived
,
is
from
Gods
revealing
any
thing
to
men
;
for
we
know
it
impossible
that
God
should
be
deceived
,
or
go
about
to
deceive
mankind
in
what
he
obliges
them
to
believe
as
true
.
This
then
is
granted
,
that
whatever
any
person
speaks
immediately
from
God
,
he
cannot
be
deceived
in
it
;
but
men
may
be
deceived
in
thinking
they
speak
from
God
when
they
do
not
.
There
is
then
no
difficulty
in
the
first
,
that
what
ever
persons
are
inspired
by
God
are
infallible
in
what
they
speak
;
but
the
main
difficulty
is
about
the
assurance
which
God
gives
to
men
that
they
are
inspired
.
Two
ways
it
may
be
conceived
that
men
cannot
be
deceived
in
this
matter
.
1.
If
God
inspires
every
particular
person
with
the
belief
of
this
,
and
gives
him
such
evidence
thereof
as
cannot
be
false
.
2.
Or
if
God
shall
inspire
some
persons
in
every
Age
to
assure
the
World
,
that
those
before
them
were
inspired
:
but
notwithstanding
this
,
particular
persons
may
be
deceived
,
in
believing
those
inspired
who
are
not
;
and
to
prevent
this
,
nothing
can
be
sufficient
but
divine
revelation
to
every
particular
person
that
he
hath
appointed
those
infallible
Guides
in
his
Church
,
to
assure
men
that
he
had
at
first
setled
his
Church
by
persons
that
were
infallible
;
but
then
,
why
might
not
such
a
particular
Revelation
assure
men
as
well
immediately
that
Christ
and
his
holy
Apostles
were
infallible
,
as
that
the
Guides
of
the
present
Church
are
infallible
?
For
it
is
unconceivable
that
persons
should
be
more
infallible
in
judging
the
Inspiration
of
the
present
Guides
,
than
of
the
first
Founders
of
the
Church
.
And
supposing
men
not
inspired
,
they
may
be
deceived
in
believing
this
infallibility
of
the
present
Church
,
and
if
they
may
be
deceived
,
how
can
their
Faith
be
infallible
?
so
that
nothing
can
make
the
faith
of
particular
persons
infallible
,
but
private
inspiration
which
must
resolve
all
Faith
into
Enthusiasm
and
immediate
revelation
.
And
nothing
can
be
more
absurd
than
to
say
,
That
there
are
infallible
Believers
without
infallible
Inspiration
;
or
that
an
infallible
Proponent
can
transfuse
infallibility
into
faith
,
unless
the
infallibility
of
that
Proponent
be
first
made
known
to
the
Believer
in
such
a
way
as
he
cannot
be
deceived
in
.
For
in
matters
of
divine
Revelation
,
the
main
thing
we
are
to
enquire
after
,
is
the
infallibility
of
those
who
delivered
this
doctrine
to
the
World.
And
although
the
reason
of
believing
what
God
saith
,
be
his
own
infallibility
,
which
is
natural
and
essential
to
him
;
yet
the
reason
of
my
assenting
to
this
or
that
doctrine
,
as
coming
from
God
,
must
be
an
assurance
that
God
hath
secured
those
persons
from
mistake
whom
he
hath
imployed
to
make
known
the
doctrine
to
the
World.
Those
persons
then
whom
God
inspired
,
are
the
Proponents
of
matters
of
faith
to
us
:
and
if
they
give
us
sufficient
reason
to
believe
that
they
were
inspired
,
we
are
bound
to
believe
them
,
otherwise
not
.
But
to
suppose
that
we
cannot
believe
the
first
infallible
Proponents
,
unless
there
be
such
in
every
Age
,
is
to
make
more
difficulties
,
and
to
answer
none
.
For
then
all
my
belief
of
the
infallibility
of
the
first
Proponents
,
must
depend
on
the
evidence
which
the
present
Guides
of
the
Church
give
of
their
infallibility
,
who
yet
cannot
pretend
to
the
same
evidence
which
they
had
:
and
here
is
no
difficulty
answered
,
for
we
are
certainly
bound
as
much
to
enquire
into
the
reason
of
our
believing
the
present
Guides
of
the
Church
infallible
,
as
the
Apostles
:
and
if
men
cannot
be
infallible
in
believing
the
Apostles
,
unless
there
be
other
infallible
Proponents
in
every
Age
,
to
assure
them
that
the
Apostles
were
inspired
,
why
must
not
the
infallibility
of
these
present
Proponents
be
likewise
so
attested
as
well
as
of
the
Apostles
?
and
what
undoubted
application
can
be
made
of
the
Churches
infallibility
,
unless
there
be
some
other
infallible
Proponent
still
to
transfuse
certainty
into
my
belief
of
that
,
by
vertue
of
which
,
I
must
believe
all
other
matters
of
Faith
,
which
is
the
Churches
Infallibility
?
So
that
the
last
Proponent
must
either
be
believed
for
himself
without
any
further
evidence
,
and
then
the
shorter
way
would
be
to
believe
the
first
so
,
or
else
there
will
be
an
endless
infallibility
;
or
at
last
all
must
be
resolved
into
the
Enthusiasm
of
every
particular
person
,
if
we
do
not
rest
satisfied
with
the
rational
evidence
which
those
persons
,
who
were
inspired
by
God
,
did
give
to
the
World
that
they
were
sent
by
him
:
and
then
let
the
World
judge
whether
Christ
and
his
Apostles
did
not
give
stronger
evidence
that
they
were
sent
from
God
,
than
the
Pope
or
the
Guides
of
the
present
Church
do
?
and
if
so
,
whether
i●
be
possible
for
men
to
do
greater
disse●vice
to
Christianity
,
than
to
suspend
our
belief
of
the
Inspiration
of
the
Founders
of
the
Christian
Church
,
on
a
thing
,
at
least
,
far
less
evident
than
the
thing
to
be
believed
by
it
is
?
but
in
plain
English
,
on
a
thing
notoriously
false
;
and
only
the
arrogant
pretence
of
an
usurping
Faction
,
which
thinks
it
easier
boldly
to
say
that
it
cannot
be
deceived
,
than
to
defend
it self
against
the
just
accusations
both
of
deceiving
,
and
being
deceived
.
These
things
being
premised
,
I
now
come
to
consider
how
far
N.
O.
hath
shewed
the
invalidity
of
the
Principles
laid
down
by
me
,
for
the
end
for
which
I
intended
them
.
The
design
of
them
was
to
shew
,
that
we
may
have
sufficient
Certainty
of
our
Faith
,
without
the
Infallibility
of
the
Roman
Church
;
the
Answerer
hath
yielded
some
things
and
denied
others
.
I
shall
therefore
first
lay
down
his
Concessions
,
and
see
of
what
force
they
are
to
the
issue
of
this
Controversie
,
and
then
come
fairly
to
debate
the
matters
in
difference
between
us
.
I.
For
his
Concessions
.
1.
He
yields
,
That
there
is
no
necessity
at
all
of
Infallibility
under
natural
Religion
:
which
was
implied
in
the
second
and
third
Propositions
which
are
granted
by
him
.
For
in
the
second
Proposition
I
assert
,
That
Man
being
framed
a
rational
Creature
capable
of
reflecting
upon
himself
,
may
antecedently
to
any
external
Revelation
certainly
know
the
being
of
God
,
and
his
dependence
upon
him
;
else
there
could
be
no
such
thing
as
a
Law
of
Nature
,
or
any
Principles
of
Natutural
Religion
:
which
,
he
saith
,
may
be
granted
.
All
supernatural
and
external
Revelation
,
must
suppose
the
truth
of
Natural
Religion
;
for
unless
we
be
antecedently
certain
that
there
is
a
God
,
and
that
we
are
capable
of
knowing
him
,
it
is
impossible
to
be
certain
,
that
God
hath
revealed
his
Will
to
us
by
any
supernatural
means
.
Let
this
be
granted
,
saith
he
.
From
whence
it
follows
that
we
have
sufficient
certainty
of
the
Principles
of
Natural
Religion
,
without
any
such
thing
as
Infallibility
.
2.
He
yields
,
That
Reason
is
to
be
judge
concerning
divine
Revelation
;
which
appears
by
the
next
Proposition
.
Nothing
ought
to
be
admitted
for
Divine
Revelation
,
which
overthrows
the
certainty
of
those
Principles
which
must
be
antecedently
supposed
to
all
Divine
Revelation
:
for
that
were
to
overthrow
the
means
whereby
we
are
to
judge
concerning
the
truth
of
any
Divine
Revelation
.
Of
which
,
he
saith
,
Let
this
also
be
granted
.
3.
He
yields
,
That
the
Will
of
God
may
be
sufficiently
declared
to
men
by
writing
,
for
he
grants
the
tenth
Proposition
,
which
is
this
.
If
the
Will
of
God
cannot
be
sufficiently
declared
to
men
by
writing
,
it
must
either
be
,
because
no
writing
can
be
intelligible
enough
for
that
end
,
or
that
it
can
never
be
known
to
be
written
by
men
infallibly
assisted
;
the
former
is
repugnant
to
common
sense
,
for
words
are
equally
capable
of
being
understood
,
spoken
or
written
;
the
latter
overthrows
the
possibility
of
the
Scriptures
being
known
to
be
the
Word
of
God.
This
,
saith
he
,
is
granted
.
4.
He
yields
,
That
the
written
will
of
God
doth
contain
all
things
simply
necessary
to
salvation
.
For
in
his
consideration
of
the
14.
Proposition
,
these
are
his
words
:
Mean
while
as
touching
the
Perfection
of
holy
Scriptures
,
Catholicks
now
,
as
the
holy
Fathers
anciently
,
do
grant
that
they
contain
all
points
,
which
are
simply
necessary
to
be
of
all
persons
believed
for
attaining
salvation
.
5.
He
yields
,
That
no
person
is
infallibly
certain
of
or
in
his
Faith
,
because
the
Proponent
thereof
is
infallible
,
unless
he
also
certainly
know
,
or
have
infallible
evidence
that
he
is
infallible
;
only
he
adds
,
That
for
begetting
an
infallible
assent
to
the
thing
proposed
,
it
is
sufficient
if
we
have
an
infallible
evidence
either
of
the
thing
proposed
,
or
of
the
Proponent
only
.
Which
is
all
I
desire
as
to
this
matter
.
But
he
quarrels
with
me
for
saying
,
Proposition
21.
It
is
necessary
therefore
in
order
to
an
infallible
assent
,
that
every
particular
person
be
infallibly
assisted
,
in
judging
of
the
matters
proposed
to
be
believed
:
Because
,
saith
he
,
it
is
not
necessary
to
have
an
infallible
evidence
of
the
truth
of
the
things
proposed
,
i.
e.
from
the
internal
principles
that
prove
or
demonstrate
them
;
but
it
is
enough
that
he
have
an
infallible
or
sufficiently
certain
evidence
only
of
the
infallibility
of
the
external
Proponent
▪
Where
there
are
two
things
to
be
taken
notice
of
.
1.
That
by
the
matters
proposed
to
be
believed
,
he
would
seem
to
understand
me
only
of
the
things
that
are
to
be
believed
by
vertue
of
any
Proponent
supposed
infallible
;
whereas
I
meant
it
of
all
such
things
to
which
an
infallible
assent
is
required
,
and
chiefly
of
that
by
which
we
are
to
believe
the
things
revealed
;
as
for
instance
,
that
the
Church
is
infallible
,
is
in
the
first
place
to
be
believed
upon
their
principles
,
and
either
an
infallible
assent
is
required
to
this
or
not
;
if
not
,
then
infallibility
is
not
necessary
to
faith
;
if
it
be
,
then
this
infallible
assent
must
be
built
on
an
infallibility
antecedent
to
that
of
the
Church
;
and
then
my
consequence
necessarily
follows
,
that
the
ground
on
which
a
necessity
of
some
external
infallible
Proponent
is
asserted
,
must
rather
make
every
particular
person
infallible
,
if
no
divine
Faith
can
be
without
an
infallible
assent
,
and
so
renders
any
other
Infallibility
useless
.
2.
That
he
explains
infallible
evidence
by
that
which
is
sufficiently
certain
,
which
is
meer
shuffling
:
for
he
knows
well
enough
that
we
contend
for
sufficiently
certain
evidence
as
much
as
they
;
our
only
Question
is
about
infallibility
,
whether
that
be
necessary
or
no
?
If
sufficiently
certain
evidence
will
serve
for
the
Churches
Infallibility
,
why
may
it
not
for
the
Scriptures
,
or
any
matters
of
Faith
contained
therein
?
If
they
mean
no
more
by
Infallibility
but
sufficient
certainty
,
why
do
they
make
so
great
a
noise
about
it
,
as
though
there
could
be
no
Faith
and
we
no
Christians
without
Infallibility
?
when
we
all
say
that
the
matters
of
Faith
have
sufficient
certainty
,
nay
the
highest
which
such
things
are
capable
of
.
Is
infallible
Faith
come
to
be
sufficiently
certain
only
?
for
all
that
I
know
an
infallible
Pope
may
by
such
another
explication
become
like
one
of
us
.
6.
He
yields
,
That
a
right
and
saving
faith
may
be
without
any
infallible
assurance
concerning
the
Churches
Infallibility
.
Which
,
he
saith
,
is
abundantly
declared
by
Catholick
Writers
.
I
only
desire
to
know
,
why
a
like
right
and
saving
faith
may
not
be
had
concerning
the
Scriptures
,
without
their
Churches
infallibility
?
For
from
hence
it
follows
,
that
an
infallible
assent
is
not
requisite
to
saving
faith
;
directly
contrary
to
my
former
Adversary
E.
W.
for
one
saith
,
it
is
necessary
to
faith
,
and
the
other
,
that
it
is
not
.
But
above
all
,
how
will
he
ever
answer
this
to
Mr.
I.
S.
who
hath
written
a
whole
Book
purposely
against
this
Principle
,
as
impious
and
atheistical
?
Methinks
this
way
of
defending
the
main
foundation
of
their
Faith
by
Principles
so
directly
contradicting
one
another
looks
a
little
scandalously
,
and
brings
an
odd
suspition
upon
their
Cause
,
as
if
it
were
very
hard
to
be
made
good
,
when
our
Adversaries
cannot
agree
by
which
of
two
quite
contrary
Principles
it
was
best
be
maintained
.
7.
He
yields
,
That
the
utmost
assurance
a
man
can
have
of
the
Churches
Infallibility
,
is
only
moral
;
but
to
make
it
up
,
he
calls
it
a
moral
infallibility
;
which
,
how
strangely
soever
it
sounds
,
yet
his
meaning
is
good
;
for
it
is
such
an
infallibility
,
as
is
not
infallibility
.
Hath
the
dispute
been
thus
long
among
us
,
whether
infallibility
be
necessary
or
no
to
faith
,
and
now
at
last
one
comes
and
tells
us
,
Yes
surely
,
a
moral
infallibility
is
necessary
.
I
have
heard
of
a
ho●
dispute
between
two
Gentlemen
about
Transubstantiation
,
very
earnest
they
were
on
both
sides
;
at
last
another
falls
into
their
company
and
asked
them
what
it
was
they
were
about
;
they
told
him
Transubstantiation
:
very
well
,
said
he
,
but
I
pray
tell
me
what
you
mean
by
it
;
one
said
it
was
standing
at
the
Eucharist
,
and
the
other
kneeling
.
Much
such
another
explication
is
this
here
of
Infallibility
,
only
this
is
somewhat
worse
,
for
it
is
joyning
two
words
together
which
destroy
each
other
;
for
if
it
be
only
moral
Certainty
,
it
is
not
infallible
;
if
it
be
infallible
,
it
cannot
be
barely
moral
.
I
expect
to
hear
shortly
of
an
accidental
Transubstantiation
,
a
co-ordinate
Supremacy
,
as
well
as
a
moral
Infallibility
.
But
we
are
to
suppose
that
by
Infallibility
he
means
no
more
than
Certainty
,
because
he
explains
it
by
the
Certainty
of
universal
Tradition
:
this
were
well
enough
,
if
in
the
precedent
Page
he
had
not
said
,
That
a
particular
person
may
be
infallible
in
the
assent
he
gives
to
some
matter
proposed
,
viz.
to
this
,
that
the
Church
is
infallible
;
I
would
fain
understand
what
this
infallible
assent
is
grounded
upon
,
and
if
the
evidence
be
only
sufficiently
or
morally
infallible
,
which
are
his
own
terms
,
how
the
assent
which
is
built
upon
it
,
comes
to
be
more
than
so
.
It
is
very
pleasant
to
observe
how
Mr.
Cressey
,
and
some
other
late
Writers
of
their
Church
are
perplexed
about
this
word
Infallibility
,
as
if
they
had
a
Wolf
by
the
ears
,
they
cannot
tell
how
to
hold
it
,
and
they
are
afraid
to
let
it
go
.
And
very
loth
is
is
our
N.
O.
to
part
with
the
sound
of
Infallibility
,
although
his
own
Concessions
perfectly
overthrow
it
,
as
will
yet
further
appear
by
this
last
,
viz.
8.
That
moral
Certainty
is
a
sufficient
foundation
for
Faith.
This
will
appear
by
my
27.
Proposition
,
which
is
this
:
The
nature
of
certainty
doth
receive
several
names
either
according
to
the
nature
of
the
proof
,
or
the
degrees
of
the
Assent
.
Thus
Moral
Certainty
may
be
so
called
,
either
as
it
is
opposed
to
Mathematical
evidence
,
but
implying
a
firm
assent
upon
the
highest
evidence
that
Moral
things
can
receive
:
Or
as
it
is
opposed
to
a
higher
degree
of
Certainty
in
the
same
kind
,
so
Moral
Certainty
implies
only
greater
Probabilities
of
one
side
than
the
other
.
In
the
former
sense
we
assert
the
certainty
of
Christian
Faith
to
be
Moral
,
but
not
only
in
the
latter
.
To
which
he
saith
,
This
Principle
is
granted
,
if
importing
only
that
Christians
have
or
may
have
a
sufficiently
certain
and
infallible
evidence
of
the
truth
of
their
Christianity
.
Whereby
it
is
plain
that
though
he
useth
the
term
infallible
,
yet
he
means
no
more
than
I
do
,
or
else
he
ought
not
to
have
brought
that
as
an
explication
of
my
principle
which
is
contrary
to
it
,
as
in
this
Controversie
,
Moral
Certainty
is
opposed
to
strict
demonstration
and
Infallibility
.
But
if
he
by
infallibility
means
only
sufficient
certainty
,
I
shall
be
content
for
quietness
sake
,
that
he
shall
call
it
Infallibility
,
if
he
pleases
.
And
that
he
can
mean
no
more
by
it
,
appears
not
only
by
what
he
hath
said
before
,
but
by
what
he
saith
afterwards
in
these
words
.
A
Natural
or
Moral
Certainty
(
though
not
such
a
one
as
cannot
possibly
be
false
,
but
which
according
to
the
Laws
of
Nature
and
the
common
manners
and
experience
of
Men
is
not
false
)
is
sufficient
on
which
to
ground
such
a
faith
as
God
requires
of
us
;
in
respect
of
that
Certainty
which
can
be
derived
from
humane
sense
or
reason
,
and
which
serves
for
an
introductive
to
the
reliance
of
this
our
faith
upon
such
Revelation
as
is
believed
by
us
divine
;
and
which
if
divine
,
we
know
is
not
possibly
fallible
;
In
respect
of
its
relying
on
which
Revelation
,
an
infallible
object
,
and
not
for
an
Infallible
Certainty
as
to
the
subject
,
it
is
that
this
our
Faith
is
denominated
a
Divine
Faith.
Now
this
Natural
or
Moral
Certainty
is
thought
sufficient
for
the
first
rational
Introductive
and
Security
of
our
Faith
,
not
only
by
the
Doctor
in
his
27.
Principle
,
but
also
by
Catholick
Divines
in
their
Discourses
of
the
Prudential
Motives
.
Very
well
said
,
and
I
were
a
very
disingenuous
man
,
if
I
should
not
heartily
thank
him
for
so
free
a
Confession
,
by
which
,
if
I
understand
any
thing
,
he
very
fairly
gives
up
the
Cause
of
Infallibility
,
as
to
the
necessity
of
it
in
order
to
Faith
:
As
will
easily
appear
by
the
managing
of
it
,
so
far
as
I
have
been
concerned
in
it
.
It
is
evident
to
any
one
that
will
cast
an
eye
on
the
Controversie
of
Infallibility
,
between
the
Arch-bishop
and
his
Adversaries
,
that
it
was
raised
on
this
account
,
because
those
of
the
Church
of
Rome
asserted
,
that
the
Infallible
Testimony
of
the
Church
was
necessary
in
order
to
the
believing
the
Scriptures
to
be
the
Word
of
God
:
and
so
much
is
endeavoured
to
be
defended
by
him
who
pretended
to
answer
my
Lord
of
Canterburies
Book
,
who
goes
upon
this
Principle
,
That
this
is
to
be
believed
with
a
divine
Faith
,
and
a
divine
Faith
must
be
built
upon
an
infallible
Testimony
;
the
falsehood
of
which
,
I
at
large
shewed
in
the
Discourse
of
the
Resolution
of
Faith.
Since
the
publishing
whereof
,
the
Metaphysical
Gentleman
before
mentioned
,
pretended
to
answer
that
part
of
it
which
concerns
Infallibility
and
Moral
Certainty
.
Some
of
his
assertions
I
have
laid
down
already
,
as
contrary
to
this
of
N.
O.
as
may
be
;
for
he
not
only
asserts
the
necessity
of
Infallibility
for
a
foundation
of
Christian
Faith
,
but
spends
some
Chapters
in
rambling
talk
against
Moral
Certainty
.
The
Title
of
one
of
which
is
,
Faith
only
Morally
Certain
is
no
Faith.
I
desire
N.
O.
and
E.
W.
to
agree
better
before
they
goe
abo●●
to
confute
me
;
and
to
what
purpose
should●
trouble
my self
with
answering
a
man
who●
Principles
the
more
ingenuous
of
their
ow●
Party
disown
,
as
well
as
we
?
For
not
on●●
N.
O.
here
makes
Moral
Certainty
a
sufficien●
ground
for
Divine
Faith
,
but
the
Guide
1●
Controversies
,
another
of
my
Adversaries
,
a●serts
the
same
,
when
he
saith
,
And
indee●
from
what
is
said
formerly
,
that
a
Divine
Faith
may
be
had
by
those
who
have
had
〈◊〉
extrinsecal
even
morally
infallible
(
I
see
now
from
whom
N.
O.
learnt
these
terms
)
motive
thereof
,
it
follows
that
Divine
Faith
doth
not
resolve
into
such
motives
either
as
the
formal
cause
,
or
always
as
the
applicative
introductive
,
or
condition
of
this
divine
faith
.
And
a
little
after
,
That
it
is
not
necessary
that
such
Faith
always
should
have
an
external
rationally
infallible
ground
or
motive
thereto
(
whether
Church
Authority
or
any
other
)
on
his
part
that
so
believes
.
By
these
concessions
it
appears
that
the
cause
of
Infallibility
,
as
far
as
it
concerns
the
necessity
of
it
in
order
to
Faith
,
is
clearly
given
up
by
these
persons
;
and
if
others
be
still
of
another
mind
among
them
,
I
leave
them
to
dispute
it
among
themselves
.
Thus
far
then
we
are
agreed
;
I
now
come
to
consider
where
the
controversie
still
remains
,
and
why
the
rest
of
my
Principles
may
not
pass
as
well
as
these
.
In
order
to
this
,
I
must
,
by
taking
a
view
of
his
several
exceptions
and
answers
,
draw
together
a
Scheme
of
those
Principles
which
he
sets
up
in
opposition
to
mine
;
and
if
I
do
not
very
much
mistake
,
they
may
be
reduced
to
these
three
.
1.
That
God
hath
given
an
infallible
assistance
to
the
Guides
of
the
Church
in
all
Ages
of
it
,
for
the
direction
of
those
who
live
in
it
.
2.
That
without
this
infallible
assistance
there
can
be
no
certainty
of
the
sense
of
Scripture
.
3.
That
all
the
Arguments
which
overthrow
the
Churches
Infallibility
;
do
destroy
the
Churches
Authority
.
These
,
as
far
as
I
can
perceive
,
contain
the
whole
force
of
his
Considerations
;
and
in
the
examination
of
these
the
remaining
discourse
must
be
spent
;
In
which
I
shall
have
occasion
to
take
notice
of
whatever
is
material
in
his
Book
.
1.
The
main
controversie
is
,
whether
God
hath
given
an
infallible
assistance
to
the
Guides
of
the
Church
in
all
Ages
,
for
the
conduct
of
those
who
live
in
it
?
For
if
he
hath
not
,
my
Adversary
cannot
deny
,
but
the
Principles
laid
down
by
me
must
hold
.
For
in
case
there
be
no
infallibility
in
the
Guides
of
the
Church
,
every
one
must
be
left
to
the
use
of
his
own
understanding
,
proceeding
in
the
best
manner
,
to
find
out
what
the
Will
of
God
is
in
order
to
salvation
.
We
do
not
now
dispute
concerning
the
best
helps
for
a
person
to
make
use
of
in
a
matter
of
this
nature
;
but
the
Q●estion
is
,
whether
a
man
ought
to
resign
his
own
judgement
to
that
of
the
Church
,
which
pretends
to
be
infallible
as
to
all
necessaries
for
salvation
?
or
supposing
no
such
infallibility
,
whether
a
person
using
his
Faculties
in
the
best
manner
about
the
sense
of
Scriptures
,
with
the
helps
of
divine
Grace
,
may
not
have
sufficient
certainty
thereby
what
things
are
required
of
him
in
order
to
happiness
?
Hereby
I
exclude
nothing
that
may
tend
to
the
right
use
of
a
mans
understanding
in
these
things
,
whether
it
be
the
direction
of
Pastors
;
the
decrees
of
Councils
,
the
sense
of
the
Primitive
Church
,
or
the
care
,
industry
,
and
sincerity
of
the
Enquirer
;
but
supposing
all
these
,
whether
by
not
believing
the
Guides
of
the
Church
to
be
infallible
,
the
foundation
of
this
persons
faith
can
be
nothing
else
but
a
trembling
Quicks
and
,
as
N.
O.
speaks
in
his
Preface
;
only
from
the
supposing
an
errability
in
the
Guides
of
Gods
Church
.
And
a
little
after
he
lays
down
that
as
his
fundamental
Principle
,
that
the
only
certain
way
not
to
be
misled
,
will
be
the
submitting
our
internal
assent
and
belief
to
Church
Authority
;
or
as
he
elsewhere
speaks
,
to
the
infallible
Guideship
of
Church
Gover●ors
.
Here
then
two
Questions
necessarily
arise
:
1.
Whether
there
can
be
no
certainty
of
Faith
without
this
infallibility
?
2.
What
certainty
there
is
of
this
infallibility
?
1.
Whether
there
can
be
no
certainty
of
Faith
without
Infallibility
in
the
Guides
of
the
Church
,
and
submitting
our
internal
assent
and
belief
to
them
?
For
the
clearing
of
this
we
must
consider
what
things
are
agreed
upon
between
us
,
that
by
them
we
may
proceed
to
the
resolution
of
this
Question
.
1.
It
is
I
suppose
agreed
,
That
every
man
hath
in
him
a
faculty
of
discerning
of
truth
and
falshood
.
2.
That
this
Faculty
must
be
used
at
least
in
the
choice
of
infallible
Guide
;
for
otherwise
a
man
must
be
abused
with
every
pretence
of
Infallibility
,
and
George
Fox
may
as
well
be
followed
as
the
Pope
of
Rome
;
and
to
what
purpose
are
all
prudential
motives
and
arguments
for
Infallibility
,
if
a
man
must
not
judge
whether
they
be
good
or
no
,
i.
e.
sufficient
to
prove
the
thing
?
3.
That
God
is
not
wanting
in
necessaries
to
the
salvation
of
mankind
.
4.
That
the
Books
of
Scripture
received
on
both
sides
do
contain
in
them
the
Will
of
God
in
order
to
salvation
.
5.
That
all
things
simply
necessary
to
salvation
are
contained
therein
,
which
is
a
concession
mentioned
before
.
These
things
being
supposed
,
the
Question
now
is
,
Whether
a
person
not
relying
on
the
infallibility
of
a
Church
,
may
not
be
certain
of
those
things
which
are
contained
in
those
Books
in
order
to
Salvation
?
For
of
those
ou●
present
enquiry
is
,
and
not
about
the
sense
of
the
more
difficult
and
controverted
places
;
and
if
we
can
make
it
appear
that
men
may
be
certain
as
to
matters
of
salvation
without
infallibility
,
let
them
prove
(
if
they
can
)
the
necessity
of
infallibility
for
things
which
are
not
necessary
to
salvation
.
But
of
the
sense
of
Scripture
in
those
things
afterwards
;
I
now
enquire
into
the
certainty
men
may
attain
to
,
of
the
necessaries
to
salvation
in
Scripture
:
and
concerning
this
,
I
laid
down
this
Proposition
.
Although
we
cannot
argue
against
any
particular
way
of
Revelation
from
the
necessary
Attributes
of
God
,
yet
such
a
way
as
writing
being
made
choice
of
by
him
,
we
may
justly
say
,
that
it
is
repugnant
to
the
nature
of
the
design
and
the
Wisdom
and
Goodness
of
God
to
give
infallible
assistance
to
persons
in
writing
his
Will
for
the
benefit
of
Mankind
,
if
those
Writings
may
not
be
understood
by
all
persons
who
sincerely
endeavour
to
know
the
meaning
of
them
in
all
such
things
as
are
necessary
for
their
salvation
.
This
Principle
,
he
saith
,
is
unsound
;
which
,
if
he
can
prove
,
I
may
have
more
reason
to
question
it
than
I
yet
have
.
And
I
assure
him
I
expect
no
mean
proofs
to
shake
my
belief
of
a
principle
of
so
great
importance
to
the
Christian
Religion
.
For
it
being
granted
by
him
,
that
all
things
simply
necessary
to
salvation
,
are
contained
in
the
Books
of
Scripture
,
I
desire
to
know
whether
things
simply
necessary
ought
not
to
be
delivered
with
greater
plainness
than
things
which
are
not
so
?
Whether
God
appointing
the
Evangelists
and
Apostles
to
write
these
things
,
did
not
intend
that
they
should
be
so
expressed
as
they
might
most
easily
be
understood
?
Whether
our
Saviours
own
Sermons
vere
capable
of
being
understood
by
those
who
heard
them
,
without
some
infallible
Interpreter
?
Whether
the
Evangelists
did
not
faithfully
deliver
our
Saviours
Doctrine
?
If
they
did
,
how
that
comes
to
be
obscure
now
,
which
was
plain
then
?
so
that
either
Christ
himself
must
be
charged
with
not
speaking
the
Will
of
God
plainly
,
or
the
Evangelists
cannot
be
charged
with
not
expressing
it
so
.
There
are
no
other
Books
in
the
World
that
I
know
of
,
that
need
an
infallible
Interpreter
:
and
we
can
tell
certainly
enough
what
any
other
Religion
requires
,
supposing
it
to
be
written
in
the
same
way
that
the
Christian
is
:
Is
it
not
possible
for
a
man
to
be
certain
what
the
Law
of
Moses
required
of
the
People
of
Israel
,
by
reading
the
Books
of
that
Law
,
without
some
infallible
Guides
▪
Do
the
ten
Commandments
need
an
Infallible
Comment
?
Or
can
we
have
now
no
certainty
of
the
meaning
of
the
Levitical
Law
,
because
there
is
no
High-priest
or
Sanhedrin
to
explain
it
?
And
if
it
be
possible
to
understand
the
necessaries
of
that
dark
dispensation
in
comparison
with
the
Gospel
,
are
o●r
eyes
now
blinded
with
too
much
light
?
Is
not
Christianity
therefore
highly
recommended
to
us
in
the
New
Testament
,
because
of
the
clearness
and
perspicuity
wherein
the
Doctrines
and
Precepts
thereof
are
delivered
?
And
yet
after
all
this
,
cannot
the
most
necessary
parts
of
it
,
he
understood
by
those
who
sincerely
endeavour
to
understand
them
?
By
which
sincere
endeavour
we
are
so
far
from
excluding
any
useful
helps
,
that
we
always
suppose
them
.
The
s●m
then
of
what
he
is
to
confute
,
is
this
▪
that
although
the
Apostles
and
Evangelists
did
deliver
the
Mind
of
God
to
the
World
in
their
Writings
,
in
order
to
the
salvation
of
Mankind
,
although
they
were
inspired
by
an
infinite
Wisdom
for
this
end
,
although
all
things
simply
necessary
to
Salvation
are
contained
in
their
Writings
,
although
a
Person
useth
his
sincere
endeavour
by
all
Moral
helps
,
and
the
Divine
Grace
assisting
him
to
find
out
in
these
Writings
the
things
necessary
to
Salvation
,
yet
after
all
he
cannot
certainly
understand
the
meaning
of
them
.
Which
to
me
appears
so
absurd
and
monstrous
a
Doctrine
,
so
contrary
to
the
honour
of
the
Scriptures
and
the
design
of
Christianity
,
that
if
I
had
a
mind
to
disparage
it
,
I
would
begin
with
this
and
end
with
Transubstantiation
.
For
in
earnest
Sir
,
did
not
our
Saviour
speak
intelligibly
in
matte●s
of
so
great
importance
to
the
Salvation
of
Mankind
?
Did
he
not
declare
all
that
was
necessary
for
that
end
,
in
his
many
admirable
discourses
?
Did
not
the
Evangelists
record
his
words
and
actions
in
writing
,
and
that
as
one
of
them
saith
expresly
,
That
we
might
believe
that
Iesus
is
the
Christ
,
the
Son
of
God
,
and
that
believing
we
might
have
life
through
his
name
?
And
after
all
this
,
cannot
we
understand
so
much
as
the
common
necessaries
to
salvation
by
the
greatest
and
most
sincere
endeavour
for
that
end
?
But
it
is
time
now
to
consider
his
exceptions
against
this
Principle
:
which
are
these
.
1.
That
God
may
reveal
his
mind
so
in
Scripture
as
that
in
many
things
it
may
be
clear
only
to
some
persons
more
versed
in
the
Scriptures
,
and
in
the
Churches
Traditional
sense
of
them
,
and
more
assisted
from
above
according
to
their
imployment
;
which
persons
he
hath
appointed
to
instruct
the
rest
.
But
what
is
all
this
to
our
purpose
?
our
Question
is
not
about
may
be
's
,
and
possibilities
of
things
,
but
it
is
taken
for
granted
on
both
sides
,
that
God
hath
revealed
his
mind
in
writing
;
therefore
he
need
not
make
the
supposition
of
no
writings
at
all
,
as
he
doth
afterwards
:
the
Question
is
,
Whether
these
Writings
being
allowed
for
divine
revelations
of
the
Will
of
God
,
he
hath
expressed
the
necessaries
to
salvation
clearly
therein
or
not
?
That
God
may
delivers
his
mind
obscurely
in
many
things
,
is
no
question
;
nor
that
he
may
inspire
persons
to
unfold
his
mind
,
where
it
is
obscure
;
but
our
question
is
,
whether
or
no
these
Writings
being
acknowledged
to
contain
the
Will
of
God
,
it
be
agreeable
with
the
nature
of
the
design
and
the
Wisdom
and
Goodness
of
God
for
such
Writings
not
to
be
capable
of
being
understood
in
all
things
necessary
to
salvation
,
by
those
who
sincerely
endeavour
to
understand
them
?
But
when
I
had
expresly
said
,
things
necessary
for
salvation
,
why
doth
he
avoid
that
which
the
dispute
was
about
,
and
only
say
many
things
in
stead
of
it
?
I
do
not
doubt
but
there
are
many
difficult
places
of
Scripture
,
as
there
must
be
in
any
ancient
Writings
penned
in
an
Idiom
so
very
different
from
ours
.
But
I
never
yet
saw
one
difficulty
removed
by
the
pretended
Infallible
Guides
of
the
Church
;
all
the
help
we
have
had
,
hath
been
from
meer
fallible
men
of
excellent
skill
in
Languages
,
History
,
and
Chronology
,
and
of
a
clear
understanding
;
and
we
should
be
very
unthankful
not
to
acknowledge
the
great
helps
we
have
had
from
them
,
for
understanding
the
difficult
places
of
Scripture
:
But
for
the
Infallible
Guides
,
they
have
dealt
by
the
obscurities
of
Scripture
,
as
the
Priest
and
the
Levi●e
in
our
Saviours
Parable
,
did
by
the
wounded
man
,
they
have
fairly
passed
them
by
,
and
taken
no
care
of
them
.
If
these
Guides
did
believe
themselves
infallible
,
they
have
made
the
least
use
of
their
Talent
that
ever
men
did
;
they
have
laid
it
up
in
a
Napkin
,
and
buried
it
in
the
earth
,
for
nothing
of
it
ever
appeared
above
ground
.
How
could
they
have
obliged
the
World
more
,
(
nay
,
it
had
been
necessary
to
have
done
it
for
the
use
of
their
Gift
)
than
to
have
given
an
Infallible
sense
of
all
controverted
Places
;
and
then
there
had
been
but
one
dispute
left
,
whether
they
were
infallible
or
not
?
but
now
,
supposing
we
believe
their
Infallibility
,
we
are
still
as
far
to
seek
,
for
the
meaning
of
many
difficult
places
.
And
supposing
God
had
once
bestowed
this
Gift
of
Infallibility
upon
the
Guides
of
the
Church
,
he
might
most
justly
deprive
them
of
it
,
because
of
the
no
use
they
have
made
of
it
;
and
we
might
have
great
reason
to
believe
so
from
our
Saviours
words
,
To
him
that
hath
shall
be
given
,
but
from
him
that
hath
not
,
shall
be
taken
away
even
that
which
he
hath
.
So
that
not
making
use
of
this
Talent
of
Infallibility
,
gives
us
just
reason
to
question
,
whether
God
continues
it
,
supposing
he
had
once
given
it
to
the
Guides
of
the
Church
,
since
the
Apostles
days
:
which
I
see
no
reason
to
believe
.
2.
His
next
exception
is
from
a
saying
of
Dr.
Fields
,
who
,
he
saith
,
seems
to
advance
a
contrary
Principle
in
his
Preface
to
his
Books
of
the
Church
.
But
O
the
mischief
of
Common-place-Books
!
which
make
men
write
what
they
find
,
and
not
what
is
to
their
purpose
.
For
after
all
,
Dr.
Field
doth
but
seem
to
advance
another
Principle
in
his
opinion
,
and
doth
not
so
much
as
seem
to
do
it
in
mine
.
For
that
learned
and
judicious
Writer
sets
himself
purposely
to
disprove
the
Infallibility
of
the
Church
in
the
beginning
of
his
fourth
Book
;
and
is
it
probable
that
any
man
of
common
understanding
would
assert
that
in
his
Preface
,
which
he
had
disproved
in
his
Book
?
It
is
a
known
distinction
in
the
Church
of
Rome
of
the
Church
Virtual
,
representative
and
essential
;
by
the
two
first
are
meant
Popes
and
Councils
;
and
of
these
two
,
Dr.
Field
saith
,
that
they
may
erre
in
matters
of
greatest
Consequence
;
yet
these
are
N.
O's
.
infallible
Guides
,
whose
conduct
he
supposeth
men
obliged
to
follow
,
and
to
yield
their
internal
assent
to
.
Concerning
the
essential
Church
,
he
saith
,
That
it
either
comprehends
all
the
faithful
that
are
and
have
been
since
Christ
appeared
in
the
flesh
;
and
then
,
he
saith
,
it
is
absolutely
free
from
all
errour
and
ignorance
of
divine
things
,
that
are
to
be
known
by
Revelations
;
or
as
it
comprehends
only
all
those
Believers
that
are
and
have
been
since
the
Apostles
times
;
and
in
this
sense
,
he
saith
,
the
whole
Church
may
be
ignorant
in
sundry
things
,
which
are
not
necessary
to
salvation
;
but
he
thinks
it
impossible
for
the
whole
Church
to
erre
in
anything
of
this
nature
.
But
in
things
that
cannot
be
clearly
deduced
from
the
Rule
of
Faith
,
and
word
of
divine
and
heavenly
Truth
,
we
think
it
possible
,
that
all
that
have
written
of
such
things
might
erre
and
be
deceived
.
But
if
the
Church
be
taken
only
as
it
comprehends
the
Believers
that
now
are
,
and
presently
live
in
the
world
,
he
saith
,
it
is
certain
and
agreed
upon
,
that
in
things
necessary
to
be
known
and
believed
expresly
and
distinctly
,
it
never
is
ignorant
,
much
less
doth
erre
.
Yea
in
things
that
are
not
absolutely
necessary
to
be
known
and
believed
expresly
and
distinctly
,
we
constantly
believe
that
this
Church
can
never
erre
,
nor
doubt
pertinaciously
,
but
that
there
shall
ever
be
some
found
ready
to
embrace
the
truth
,
if
it
be
manifested
to
them
,
and
such
as
shall
not
wholly
neglect
the
search
and
enquiry
after
it
,
as
times
and
means
give
leave
.
But
if
we
mean
by
a
Church
,
any
particular
Church
,
he
determines
,
That
particular
men
and
Churches
may
erre
damnably
,
because
notwithstanding
others
may
worship
God
aright
;
but
that
the
whole
Church
at
one
time
cannot
so
erre
,
for
that
then
the
Church
should
cease
utterly
for
a
time
,
and
so
not
be
Catholick
being
not
at
all
times
;
and
Christ
should
sometimes
be
without
a
Church
;
yet
,
that
errors
not
prejudicing
the
salvation
of
them
that
erre
may
be
found
in
the
Church
,
that
is
at
one
time
in
the
world
,
we
make
no
doubt
;
only
the
Symbolical
and
Catholick
which
is
and
was
being
wholly
free
from
error
.
Which
several
expressions
amount
to
no
more
than
this
,
that
there
will
be
always
some
true
Christians
in
the
World
;
but
what
is
this
to
infallible
Teachers
and
Guides
,
in
a
Church
that
pretends
to
be
Catholick
against
all
the
sense
and
reason
in
the
World
?
And
is
it
now
imaginable
after
all
this
,
that
Dr.
Field
should
make
any
particular
Church
infallible
?
No
,
all
that
he
means
in
his
Preface
,
is
this
,
that
among
all
the
Societies
of
men
,
persons
who
have
not
leisure
or
capacity
to
examine
particular
Controversies
,
ought
diligently
to
search
which
is
the
true
Church
,
and
having
done
this
,
to
embrace
her
communion
,
follow
her
directions
,
and
rest
in
her
judgment
,
i.e.
Suppose
a
man
by
that
very
Book
of
Dr.
Fields
should
be
convinced
that
the
Church
of
Rome
is
a
very
corrupt
and
tyrannical
Church
,
and
the
Church
of
England
is
a
sound
and
good
Church
(
which
was
the
design
of
his
writing
it
,
)
he
being
thus
far
satisfied
,
ought
to
embrace
the
communion
of
this
Church
,
and
so
follow
her
directions
,
and
rest
in
her
judgment
,
so
,
as
not
to
forsake
her
communion
for
any
cavils
that
are
raised
about
particular
Controversies
of
which
he
is
not
a
capable
judge
.
And
doth
this
make
the
Church
of
England
infallible
?
If
we
say
that
a
man
being
first
satisfied
of
the
skill
and
integrity
of
a
Lawyer
,
ought
to
follow
his
directions
,
and
rest
in
his
judgment
;
doth
this
make
that
Lawyer
infallible
?
so
we
say
here
,
the
resting
in
the
judgment
of
a
Church
,
of
whose
integrity
we
have
assurance
before-hand
,
implies
only
the
supposition
of
so
much
honesty
and
skill
in
a
Church
,
as
may
over-rule
the
Judgments
of
persons
who
either
have
not
leisure
or
capacity
to
understand
particular
Controversies
which
require
skill
in
Languages
,
search
into
the
Fathers
and
later
Writers
on
both
sides
.
If
we
say
,
that
unlearned
persons
ought
in
such
things
to
trust
the
learned
,
whose
integrity
they
have
no
ground
to
suspect
,
this
doth
not
certainly
make
the
more
learned
infallible
?
But
we
may
rest
in
the
judgment
of
those
whom
we
have
no
reason
to
suspect
,
though
we
believe
them
not
to
be
infallible
:
and
it
was
the
former
Dr.
Field
meant
,
and
by
no
means
any
infallibility
,
unless
he
plainly
contradict
himself
.
3.
He
excepts
,
That
this
brings
in
an
inerrability
of
every
particular
Christian
in
all
points
necessary
,
if
such
Christians
will
,
that
is
,
●f
only
they
shall
sincerely
endeavour
to
know
the
meaning
of
them
.
The
force
of
this
Argument
will
be
easily
discerned
if
we
put
another
parallel
to
it
,
viz.
That
they
who
assert
from
Scripture
the
assistance
of
Divine
Grace
to
the
sincere
endeavours
of
men
,
do
make
all
men
imp●ccable
if
they
will
;
as
well
as
those
who
assert
,
that
God
will
not
be
wanting
in
necessaries
to
salvation
to
those
who
sincerely
endeavour
to
know
them
,
make
all
such
men
so
far
infallible
,
if
they
will.
If
any
one
thing
be
plain
in
Scripture
,
the
goodness
of
God
is
;
and
who
can
believe
that
,
and
yet
think
that
he
will
suffer
those
who
sincerely
endeavour
to
know
what
is
necessary
to
their
salvation
,
not
to
understand
it
?
But
besides
,
how
often
doth
the
Scripture
promise
a
greater
degree
of
knowledge
to
the
meek
and
humble
,
to
the
diligent
and
industrious
;
to
those
that
ask
and
seek
wisdom
from
him
,
to
those
that
do
the
will
of
God
,
to
whom
our
Saviour
hath
expresly
promised
,
that
they
shall
know
of
his
doctrine
,
whether
it
be
of
God
or
no
?
And
if
this
be
the
inerrability
he
means
,
he
sees
what
grounds
we
have
to
assert
it
.
But
we
understand
not
by
it
,
that
such
persons
cannot
erre
in
their
judgments
about
what
things
are
necessary
,
and
what
not
;
nor
that
they
cannot
erre
in
other
things
which
are
not
so
necessary
to
salvation
;
but
that
Gods
goodness
is
so
great
,
and
his
promises
so
plain
,
and
his
word
so
clear
in
necessary
things
,
that
no
one
who
sincerely
endeavours
to
know
them
,
shall
ever
miss
of
salvation
.
And
if
such
an
infallibility
will
satisfie
them
,
we
do
not
deny
it
to
Popes
themselves
,
or
other
Guides
of
the
Church
,
on
condition
they
do
not
think
themselves
infallible
beyond
these
bounds
;
for
they
are
only
the
meek
and
humble
whom
God
hath
promised
to
teach
his
way
,
and
not
such
who
will
be
infallible
whether
God
will
or
no.
His
other
exceptions
from
this
principle
destroying
Church-Authority
,
from
the
parity
of
reason
for
Church
Governors
,
and
the
controverted
places
of
Scripture
shall
be
considered
afterwards
.
2.
I
now
come
to
examine
what
certainty
there
is
for
this
Infallibility
?
Here
I
shall
lay
down
some
principles
of
common
reason
,
by
which
we
may
better
understand
the
force
of
his
arguments
.
1.
That
the
Proof
ought
always
to
be
more
evident
than
the
thing
that
is
to
be
proved
by
it
.
For
otherwise
it
is
of
no
advantage
to
the
proof
of
it
,
if
it
have
but
the
same
degree
of
evidence
;
but
is
a
great
prejudice
to
it
,
if
it
have
less
:
so
that
if
the
proofs
of
Infallibility
be
equally
obscure
and
difficult
with
those
things
which
are
to
be
believed
by
virtue
of
it
,
this
Infallibility
is
of
no
use
;
but
if
they
be
less
evident
,
the
pretence
of
it
is
both
very
ridiculous
and
prejudicial
to
the
Christian
Faith.
2.
The
greater
concernment
any
Law
is
of
,
and
the
greater
danger
in
mistaking
the
meaning
of
it
,
the
more
plain
and
distinct
ought
the
terms
of
that
Law
to
be
.
As
a
Law
about
the
succession
of
the
Crown
ought
to
be
framed
with
all
the
clearness
and
distinctness
imaginable
,
because
the
peace
and
security
of
a
Nation
depends
upon
it
.
So
in
case
Christ
hath
appointed
any
Successor
in
the
Government
of
his
Church
,
or
entailed
Infallibility
upon
the
Guides
of
it
:
this
being
a
matter
of
such
infinite
concernment
to
the
whole
Church
;
it
is
most
unreasonable
to
conceive
that
whatever
other
parts
of
his
Will
were
obscure
,
those
which
relate
to
the
matter
of
Succession
and
Infallibility
,
should
be
so
;
but
rather
so
plain
,
that
no
one
can
miss
of
understanding
them
,
because
the
weight
of
all
the
rest
depends
upon
these
two
;
and
it
is
so
horrible
a
presumption
in
any
to
pretend
to
them
,
in
case
they
have
no
right
to
them
,
and
the
danger
so
great
in
relying
upon
them
if
there
be
no
such
thing
.
3.
A
Law
of
such
universal
concernment
to
the
Faith
and
Peace
of
the
Christian
Church
being
supposed
,
the
practice
of
the
best
and
purest●
Ages
of
the
Church
must
be
supposed
agreeable
thereto
,
i.
e.
that
in
all
matters
of
difference
they
did
constantly
own
these
infallible
Judges
,
by
appealing
to
them
for
a
final
issue
of
all
debates
,
and
resting
satisfied
with
their
decisions
.
But
if
on
the
contrary
,
when
great
differences
have
happened
in
and
nearest
the
first
times
,
no
such
Authority
was
made
use
of
,
but
other
ways
put
in
practice
to
make
an
end
of
them
;
if
when
it
was
pretended
,
it
was
slighted
and
rejected
;
nay
,
if
the
persons
pretending
it
,
were
proceeded
against
and
condemned
,
and
this
not
by
a
popular
Faction
,
but
by
just
and
legal
Authority
;
we
may
thence
conclude
that
such
Judges
have
arrogated
that
power
to
themselves
,
which
was
not
given
them
by
the
Supreme
Legislator
.
These
things
being
premised
,
I
come
to
his
particular
Arguments
,
which
lie
scattered●up
and
down
;
but
to
give
them
the
greater
strength
,
I
shall
bring
them
nearer
together
.
And
they
are
drawn
either
from
Scripture
,
or
Tradition
,
or
parity
of
Reason
.
1.
From
Scripture
.
And
in
truth
the
only
satisfactory
Argument
in
a
matter
of
so
great
concernment
to
the
Christian
Church
,
ought
only
to
be
drawn
from
thence
,
unless
we
will
suppose
the
Scripture
defective
in
the
most
important
things
.
For
this
being
pleaded
as
a
thing
necessary
for
the
Peace
of
the
Church
by
some
,
and
for
the
Faith
of
Christians
by
others
;
so
much
greater
the
necessity
of
it
is
,
so
much
clearer
ought
the
evidence
of
it
to
be
in
Scripture
,
supposing
that
to
be
intended
to
reveal
the
Will
of
God
to
us
in
matters
of
the
greatest
necessity
.
But
it
cannot
be
denied
by
our
Adversaries
,
that
the
places
produced
by
them
for
a
constant
Infallibility
in
the
Guides
of
the
Church
,
do
not
necessarily
prove
it
;
because
they
are
very
capable
of
being
understood
,
as
to
the
Infallibility
only
of
the
Apostles
in
the
first
Age
and
Foundation
of
the
Christian
Church
:
is
it
then
to
be
imagined
that
if
Christ
had
intended
such
an
Infallibility
as
the
foundation
of
the
Faith
and
Peace
of
his
Church
,
he
would
not
have
delivered
his
mind
more
plainly
and
clearly
than
he
is
pretended
to
do
in
this
matter
?
How
easily
might
all
the
contentions
of
the
Christian
World
have
been
prevented
,
if
Christ
had
caused
it
to
be
delivered
in
terms
so
clear
,
as
the
nature
of
the
thing
doth
require
?
If
he
had
said
,
I
do
promise
my
Infallible
Spirit
to
the
Guides
of
the
Church
in
all
Ages
,
to
give
the
true
sense
of
Scripture
in
all
controversies
which
shall
arise
among
Christians
,
and
I
expect
an
obedience
suitably
to
all
their
determinations
:
or
,
more
particularly
,
I
appoint
the
Bishops
of
Rome
in
all
Ages
for
my
Successors
in
the
Government
of
the
Church
,
who
shall
be
the
standing
and
infallible
Iudges
of
all
Controversies
among
Christians
;
this
dispute
might
never
have
happened
among
us
.
For
we
assure
them
that
we
account
the
peace
of
the
Church
so
valuable
a
thing
,
and
obedience
to
Christs
Commands
so
necessary
a
duty
,
that
we
are
well
enough
inclined
to
embrace
the
doctrine
of
Infallibility
,
if
we
could
see
any
ground
in
Scripture
for
it
.
But
we
cannot
make
persons
infallible
by
believing
them
to
be
so
,
but
we
may
easily
make
our selves
fools
,
as
others
have
done
,
by
believing
it
without
reason
.
The
controversie
then
is
not
,
whether
Infallibility
in
the
Guides
of
the
Church
be
a
desirable
thing
or
not
,
for
so
we
say
impeccability
is
too
;
but
the
question
is
,
whether
there
be
any
such
thing
promised
by
Christ
to
the
Guides
of
his
Church
,
and
whether
all
Christians
on
that
account
are
bound
to
yield
their
internal
assent
,
as
well
as
external
obedience
to
all
their
decrees
?
which
we
deny
,
and
desire
to
see
it
clearly
proved
from
his
words
who
alone
could
grant
this
Infallibility
.
For
if
an
infallible
Judge
be
therefore
necessary
,
because
the
Scripture
is
not
sufficiently
clear
for
ending
of
Controversies
,
and
that
God
hath
actually
constituted
such
a
Judge
,
cannot
be
proved
but
by
Scripture
,
surely
we
have
all
the
reason
in
the
World
to
expect
that
the
Scripture
should
be
abundantly
,
and
beyond
all
contradiction
clear
in
this
point
,
to
make
amends
for
its
obscurity
in
the
rest
:
For
if
this
Point
be
not
clearly
proved
,
we
are
never
the
nearer
an
end
of
Controversies
:
because
the
business
stops
at
the
very
head
,
and
they
may
beg
their
hearts
out
,
before
we
shall
ever
be
so
good
natured
as
to
grant
it
them
without
proof
.
And
they
who
have
been
so
bold
(
shall
I
say
?
or
blasphemous
)
as
to
charge
our
Lord
with
want
of
discretion
,
in
case
he
have
not
provided
his
Church
with
such
an
Infallible
Judge
,
do
certainly
render
him
much
more
obnoxious
to
this
imputation
,
in
supposing
him
to
have
constituted
such
a
Judge
,
if
he
have
no
where
plainly
declared
that
he
hath
done
so
.
And
let
them
,
if
they
can
,
produce
one
clear
Text
of
Scripture
to
this
purpose
,
which
by
the
unanimous
consent
of
the
Fathers
is
so
interpreted
;
and
which
,
to
the
common
sense
of
Mankind
,
is
more
sufficiently
clear
for
the
ending
this
Controversie
,
than
the
Scripture
is
said
by
them
to
be
in
other
necessary
Points
of
Faith.
And
till
they
have
done
this
,
according
to
their
own
way
of
arguing
,
we
have
as
much
reason
to
deny
their
Infallibility
,
as
they
have
to
demand
our
assent
to
it
,
upon
the
presumed
obscurity
and
insufficiency
of
Scripture
.
When
I
came
thus
prepared
to
find
what
the
Considerator
would
produce
in
a
matter
of
such
consequence
,
I
soon
discerned
how
little
mind
he
had
to
insist
upon
any
proofs
of
that
,
which
is
his
only
Engine
to
overthrow
my
Principles
.
For
after
the
most
diligent
search
I
could
make
,
the
only
Argument
from
Scripture
I
found
produced
,
was
from
the
Old
Testament
,
(
where
I
confess
I
least
looked
for
it
)
but
however
,
this
is
thought
so
considerable
as
to
be
twice
produced
;
and
yet
is
so
unlucky
,
that
if
I
understand
any
thing
of
the
force
of
it
,
it
p●oves
the
Judges
in
Westminster
Hall
to
be
infallible
,
rather
than
the
Pope
,
or
any
Guide
of
the
Christian
Church
.
For
the
force
of
the
Argument
lies
in
Gods
appointing
Iudges
under
the
Law
,
according
to
whose
sentence
matters
were
to
be
determined
,
upon
penalty
of
death
in
case
of
disobedience
.
But
what
then
?
doth
this
imply
infallibility
?
no
,
that
he
dares
not
stand
to
,
but
absolute
obedience
,
;
which
we
are
ready
to
yield
when
we
see
the
like
absolute
command
for
Ecclesiastical
Judges
of
Controversies
of
Religion
,
as
there
was
among
the
Iews
for
their
supreme
Iudges
in
matters
of
Law.
But
of
this
place
I
have
already
spoken
at
large
,
and
shewed
how
impertinently
it
is
produced
for
Infallibility
in
the
Book
,
he
often
referrs
to
,
and
might
,
if
he
had
thought
fit
,
have
answered
what
is
there
said
before
he
had
urged
it
again
,
without
any
new
strength
added
to
it
.
But
since
he
produces
no
other
proof
for
it
,
I
must
consider
how
he
goes
about
to
weaken
mine
against
it
.
Two
things
I
insisted
upon
against
such
a
pretence
of
Infallibility
,
viz.
That
such
a
pretence
implying
an
Infallible
Assistance
of
the
Spirit
of
God
,
there
were
but
two
ways
of
proving
it
,
either
,
1.
By
such
miracles
as
the
Apostles
wrought
to
attest
their
infallibility
,
or
2.
By
those
Scriptures
from
whence
this
Infallibility
is
derived
.
Concerning
both
these
I
laid
down
two
Propositions
.
1.
Concerning
the
Proof
by
miracles
.
The
Proposition
was
this
.
There
can
be
no
more
intollerable
usurpation
on
the
Faith
of
Christians
than
for
any
Person
or
Society
of
men
to
pretend
to
an
Assistance
as
Infallible
in
what
they
propose
,
as
was
in
Christ
or
his
Apostles
,
without
giving
an
equal
degree
of
evidence
that
they
are
so
assisted
as
Christ
and
his
Apostles
did
,
viz.
by
miracles
as
great
,
publick
,
and
convincing
as
theirs
were
;
by
which
I
mean
such
as
are
wrought
by
those
very
persons
who
challenge
this
Infallibility
,
and
with
a
design
for
the
conviction
of
those
who
do
not
believe
it
.
To
this
he
answers
:
1.
That
I
am
equally
obliged
to
produce
miracles
for
the
Churches
Infallibility
in
Fundamentals
,
which
I
had
asserted
in
the
defence
of
the
Archbishop
.
But
this
admits
a
very
easie
answer
;
for
when
I
speak
of
Infallibility
in
Fundamentals
,
I
there
declare
that
I
mean
no
more
by
it
,
than
that
there
shall
be
always
a
number
of
true
Christians
in
the
World.
And
what
necessity
is
there
now
of
miracles
for
men
to
believe
,
since
they
receive
the
doctrine
of
the
Gospel
upon
those
miracles
by
which
it
was
at
first
attested
.
Neither
is
there
any
need
of
miracles
to
shew
that
any
number
of
men
are
not
guilty
of
an
actual
errour
in
what
they
believe
,
supposing
they
declare
to
believe
only
on
the
account
of
that
divine
Revelation
which
is
owned
by
Christians
;
for
in
this
case
the
trial
of
doctrine
is
to
be
by
Scripture
.
But
in
case
any
persons
challenge
an
Infallibility
to
themselves
antecedently
to
the
belief
of
Scriptures
,
and
by
vertue
of
which
,
they
say
,
men
must
believe
the
Scriptures
,
then
I
say
such
persons
are
equally
bound
to
prove
their
infallibility
by
miracles
as
the
Apostles
were
.
2.
Not
resting
in
this
,
he
proceeds
to
another
answer
,
the
sum
of
which
is
,
That
the
Infallibility
of
the
Church
not
being
so
large
or
so
high
as
the
Apostles
,
but
consisting
only
in
the
Infallible
delivery
of
the
same
doctrine
,
there
is
no
necessity
of
miracles
in
the
present
Church
.
To
this
I
answer
,
That
the
doctrine
of
the
Gospel
may
be
said
to
be
new
two
ways
;
1.
In
respect
of
the
matter
contained
in
it
,
and
so
it
was
new
only
when
it
was
first
revealed
.
2.
In
respect
of
the
person
who
is
to
believe
it
:
so
it
is
new
in
every
age
to
those
who
are
first
brought
to
believe
it
.
Now
the
Apostles
had
their
infallibility
attested
by
miracles
,
not
barely
with
a
respect
to
the
revelation
of
new
matter
,
for
then
none
would
have
needed
miracles
but
Christ
himself
,
or
the
Apostles
that
made
the
first
Sermons
;
for
afterwards
the
matter
was
not
new
,
but
the
necessity
of
miracles
was
to
give
a
sufficient
motive
to
believe
,
to
all
those
to
whom
the
Gospel
was
proposed
;
and
therefore
miracles
are
said
to
be
a
a
sign
to
unbelievers
.
For
by
these
,
Unbelievers
were
convinced
that
there
was
sufficient
ground
for
receiving
the
doctrine
of
the
Gospel
on
the
Authority
of
those
who
delivered
it
;
God
himself
bearing
them
witness
with
divers
miracles
and
gifts
of
the
Holy
Ghost
.
Suppose
then
,
any
of
the
Apostles
after
their
first
preaching
continued
only
to
inculcate
the
same
doctrine
for
the
conversion
of
more
Unbelievers
;
in
this
case
the
evidence
of
miracles
was
the
reason
of
relying
on
the
Authority
of
those
persons
for
the
truth
of
the
Doctrine
delivered
by
them
.
From
whence
it
follows
,
that
where
the
Christian
Faith
is
to
be
received
on
the
Authority
of
any
persons
in
any
Age
,
those
persons
ought
to
confirm
that
Authority
by
miracles
,
as
the
Apostles
did
.
For
without
this
,
there
can
be
no
such
Authority
whereon
to
rely
,
antecedently
to
the
embracing
the
Christian
Faith.
Now
,
this
is
the
case
of
the
Church
of
Rome
they
pretend
not
to
deliver
any
Doctrine
wholly
new
,
but
what
was
one
way
or
another
delivered
by
Christ
and
his
Apostles
;
(
although
we
therein
charge
them
with
fraud
and
falshood
)
but
yielding
this
,
yet
they
contend
that
no
man
can
have
sufficient
ground
for
believing
the
Word
of
God
,
but
from
their
Churches
Infallibility
;
in
this
case
it
is
plain
that
they
make
their
Churches
Infallibility
to
be
as
much
the
reason
of
persons
believing
,
as
the
Infallibility
of
the
Apostles
in
their
time
was
;
and
therefore
I
say
,
they
ought
to
prove
this
Infallibility
in
the
same
way
,
and
by
miracles
,
as
great
,
publick
,
and
convincing
,
as
the
Apostles
did
.
3.
Yet
he
is
very
loath
to
let
go
the
miracles
of
their
Church
,
done
in
later
times
as
well
as
formerly
.
It
would
be
too
large
a
task
in
this
place
to
examine
the
miracles
of
the
Roman
Church
,
(
that
may
be
better
done
on
another
occasion
,
)
all
that
I
have
here
to
say
is
,
that
all
the
miracles
pretended
among
them
,
signifie
nothing
to
our
present
purpose
,
unless
those
miracles
give
evidence
of
the
Authority
and
Infallibility
of
those
by
whom
they
were
done
;
and
they
would
do
well
to
shew
,
where
ever
in
Scripture
God
did
bestow
a
gift
of
miracles
upon
any
but
for
this
end
:
and
what
reason
there
is
that
God
should
alter
the
method
and
course
of
his
providence
,
in
a
matter
of
so
great
concernment
to
the
Faith
of
Mankind
.
Such
miracles
as
were
wrought
by
Christ
and
his
Apostles
we
defie
all
other
Religions
in
the
World
to
produce
any
like
them
to
confirm
their
Doctrine
;
but
such
as
the
Church
of
Rome
pretends
,
scarce
any
Religion
in
the
World
but
hath
pretended
to
the
same
.
And
for
his
most
credible
Histories
he
vouches
for
them
,
I
hope
he
doth
not
mean
the
Church
History
written
by
S.
C.
nor
any
other
such
Legends
among
them
;
if
he
doth
,
I
assure
him
they
have
a
very
easie
Faith
that
think
them
credible
.
And
if
all
miracles
that
are
so
called
,
by
those
among
whom
they
are
done
,
be
an
Argument
,
as
he
saith
,
of
the
security
of
salvation
in
the
Communion
and
Faith
of
that
Church
wherein
they
are
done
,
I
hope
he
will
be
so
just
,
to
allow
the
same
to
the
Arrians
,
Novatians
,
Donatists
,
and
others
,
who
all
pretend
to
miracles
as
well
as
the
Church
of
Rome
,
as
any
one
that
is
versed
in
Church-History
may
easily
see
.
But
of
this
more
at
large
elsewhere
.
2.
Concerning
the
proof
of
Infallibility
from
Scripture
,
I
said
down
this
Proposition
.
Nothing
can
be
more
absurd
,
than
to
pretend
the
necessity
of
such
an
infallible
commission
and
assistance
to
assure
us
of
the
truth
of
those
Writings
,
and
to
interpret
them
;
and
at
the
same
time
to
prove
that
Commission
from
those
Writings
from
which
we
are
told
,
nothing
can
be
certainly
deduced
,
such
an
Assistance
not
being
supposed
;
or
to
pretend
that
Infallibility
in
a
Body
of
men
,
is
not
as
liable
to
doubts
and
disputes
,
as
in
those
Books
from
whence
only
they
derive
their
Infallibility
.
He
grants
the
former
part
of
this
,
if
by
it
be
intended
to
prove
such
Commission
only
,
or
in
the
first
place
from
these
writings
.
But
,
he
saith
,
a
Christians
Faith
may
begin
either
at
the
Infallible
authority
of
Scriptures
,
or
of
the
Church
:
It
seems
then
,
there
may
be
sufficient
ground
for
a
Christians
Faith
,
as
to
the
Scriptures
,
without
believing
any
thing
of
the
Churches
Infallibility
;
and
for
this
we
have
reason
to
thank
him
,
whatever
they
of
his
own
Church
think
of
it
.
For
,
by
this
concession
we
may
believe
the
Scriptures
Authority
,
without
ever
believing
a
word
of
the
Churches
Infallibility
;
and
let
them
afterwards
prove
it
from
Scripture
if
they
can
.
Nay
he
goes
yet
farther
,
and
saith
,
That
the
Infallibility
of
Scriptures
as
well
as
the
Church
may
be
proved
from
its
own
testimony
:
but
he
first
supposes
,
that
the
Infallibility
of
one
of
these
,
be
first
learnt
from
Tradition
.
And
therefore
in
the
remainder
of
his
discourse
on
this
Subject
,
he
shews
how
the
Infallibility
of
the
Church
may
be
proved
from
Tradition
not
shewing
at
all
how
the
Infallibility
of
the
Church
can
be
proved
from
Scripture
.
Scripture
being
thus
deserted
,
as
to
the
proof
of
the
Churches
Infallibility
,
I
must
pursue
him
to
his
other
Hold
of
Tradition
.
The
method
of
his
discourse
is
this
;
That
the
Infallibility
of
the
Guides
of
the
Church
was
antecedent
to
the
Scriptures
;
That
the
Apostles
did
not
lose
their
infallibility
by
committing
what
they
preached
to
writing
;
That
their
successors
were
to
have
this
infallibility
preserved
in
them
,
if
there
had
been
no
writings
;
and
cannot
be
imagined
to
have
lost
it
because
of
them
,
because
these
give
testimony
to
it
;
That
this
Infallibility
is
preserved
by
Tradition
descending
from
Age
to
Age
,
as
we
say
the
Canon
of
Scripture
is
delivered
to
us
;
And
lastly
,
That
the
Governours
of
the
Church
always
held
and
reputed
themselves
infallible
,
appears
by
their
Anathematizing
dissenters
.
In
this
Discourse
there
are
some
things
supposed
without
reason
,
and
other
things
asserted
without
proof
.
The
Foundation
of
all
this
Discourse
proceeds
upon
the
supposition
that
the
same
Infallibility
which
was
in
the
Apostles
,
must
be
continued
in
their
Successors
through
all
Ages
of
the
Church
,
for
which
I
see
not
the
least
shadow
of
reason
produced
.
Yes
,
saith
he
,
supposing
there
had
been
no
Writings
,
and
no
Infallibility
,
Christian
Religion
would
have
been
no
rational
and
well
grounded
,
no
stable
and
certain
Religion
.
Two
things
in
answer
to
this
,
I
desire
to
be
informed
of
:
1.
What
he
thinks
of
the
Religion
of
the
Patriarchs
,
who
received
their
Religion
by
Tradition
,
without
any
such
Infallibility
?
2.
What
he
thinks
of
those
Christians
who
receive
the
Scriptures
or
Churches
Infallibility
by
vertue
of
common
and
universal
Tradition
(
which
is
certainly
the
ground
of
the
one
,
and
supposed
by
him
to
be
of
the
other
)
whether
the
Faith
of
such
persons
be
rational
and
well-grounded
,
stable
,
and
certain
,
or
not
;
if
it
be
,
then
there
is
no
such
necessity
of
Infallibility
for
that
purpose
;
if
it
be
not
,
then
he
doth
hereby
declare
that
the
Faith
of
Christians
is
irrational
and
ill-grounded
.
For
whatsoever
is
received
on
the
account
of
Tradition
antecedent
to
the
belief
of
Infallibility
,
cannot
be
received
on
the
account
of
it
;
but
the
belief
of
either
Scriptures
or
Churches
Infallibility
,
must
be
first
received
by
vertue
of
a
principle
antecedent
to
the
Scriptures
or
Churches
Infallibility
,
viz.
Tradition
.
By
this
it
appears
,
that
his
very
way
of
proving
,
destroys
the
thing
he
would
prove
by
it
:
For
if
the
Tradition
may
be
a
sufficient
ground
of
Faith
,
how
comes
Infallibility
to
be
necessary
?
But
if
this
Infallibility
be
not
necessary
without
the
Scriptures
,
much
less
certainly
is
it
now
,
since
it
is
acknowledged
on
both
sides
,
that
the
Apostles
were
infallible
in
their
Writings
,
and
that
therein
the
Will
of
God
is
contained
as
to
all
things
simply
necessary
to
salvation
.
But
these
successors
of
the
Apostles
were
not
deprived
of
their
infallibility
by
the
Apostles
Writings
;
No
certainly
,
for
none
can
be
deprived
of
what
they
never
had
;
but
where
are
the
reasons
all
this
while
,
to
shew
that
there
was
the
same
necessity
of
Infallibility
in
the
Apostles
successors
,
as
was
in
them
?
Two
I
find
rather
intimated
than
insisted
upon
.
1.
That
the
Church
would
otherwise
have
failed
,
if
there
had
been
neither
Writings
nor
Infallibility
;
But
if
this
Argument
hold
for
any
thing
,
it
is
for
the
necessity
of
the
Scriptures
,
and
not
of
Infallibility
;
for
we
see
God
did
furnish
the
Church
with
one
,
and
left
no
footsteps
of
the
other
.
We
do
not
dispute
how
far
the
Church
might
have
been
preserved
without
the
Scriptures
,
we
find
it
hath
been
hard
enough
to
preserve
it
pure
with
them
:
but
we
always
acknowledge
the
Infinite
Wisdom
and
Goodness
of
God
,
that
hath
not
left
us
in
matters
of
Faith
and
Salvation
to
the
determinations
of
men
liable
to
be
corrupted
by
Interest
and
Ambition
,
but
hath
appointed
men
inspired
by
himself
to
set
down
whatever
is
necessary
for
us
to
believe
and
practise
.
And
upon
these
Writings
we
fix
our
Faith
,
as
on
a
firm
and
unmovable
Rock
;
and
on
the
veracity
of
God
therein
contained
and
expressed
,
we
build
all
our
hopes
of
a
Blessed
Eternity
.
And
one
great
benefit
more
we
have
by
these
divine
Books
,
that
by
them
we
can
so
easily
discover
the
fraud
and
imposture
of
the
confident
Pretenders
to
Infallibility
.
Which
is
the
true
reason
why
the
Patrons
of
the
Church
of
Romes
Infallibility
have
so
little
kindness
for
the
Scriptures
,
and
take
all
occasions
to
disparage
them
,
by
insinuating
that
they
are
good
for
nothing
but
to
breed
Heresies
in
the
Heads
of
the
People
;
upon
pretence
of
which
danger
,
they
hide
this
Candle
under
a
Bushel
,
lest
it
should
give
too
much
light
to
them
that
are
in
the
House
,
and
discover
some
things
which
it
is
more
convenient
to
keep
in
the
dark
.
2.
He
saith
,
The
Infallibility
of
the
Apostles
successors
,
receives
a
second
evidence
from
the
testimony
thereof
found
also
in
these
Writings
.
I
confess
I
have
seen
nothing
like
the
first
evidence
yet
,
to
which
this
should
be
a
second
;
but
if
by
the
first
be
meant
that
which
I
mentioned
before
,
this
is
a
proper
second
for
it
.
Neither
of
them
,
I
dare
say
,
intend
any
mischief
to
any
body
;
both
first
and
second
are
forced
into
the
Field
,
where
they
stand
only
for
dumb
shews
,
and
wonder
what
they
are
brought
for
.
But
whereabouts
I
pray
doth
this
second
Testimony
stand
?
what
are
its
weapons
?
I
hope
not
Dic
Ecclesiae
,
nor
Dabo
tibi
Claves
,
nor
any
of
the
old
rusty
Armour
which
our
modern
Combatants
begin
to
be
ashamed
to
appear
with
in
the
Field
.
And
to
speak
truth
,
N.
O.
seems
to
understand
his
Art
better
than
to
meddle
with
such
heavy
and
Antique
Armour
,
which
every
one
hath
been
foiled
with
that
hath
undertaken
to
combat
with
them
;
only
it
seems
a
little
for
the
credit
of
their
Cause
to
point
to
such
a
Magazine
,
which
in
the
days
of
Ignorance
and
Credulity
,
the
Romantick
Age
of
the
Church
,
was
in
great
request
.
But
we
must
now
buckle
our selves
to
a
new
manner
of
Combat
,
which
is
from
the
Tradition
of
the
Church
,
and
that
of
the
very
same
nature
with
what
we
have
for
the
Canon
of
Scripture
.
This
I
confess
is
bright
shining
Armour
,
and
may
do
great
service
if
it
will
hold
;
but
that
must
be
judged
upon
trial
,
which
I
now
set
my self
to
.
But
we
shall
find
that
no
weapons
formed
against
Truth
can
prosper
:
and
it
hath
been
long
observed
of
Rome
that
it
could
never
endure
a
close
Siege
.
The
Question
now
is
,
whether
they
of
the
Roman
Church
have
the
same
universal
Tradition
for
the
Infallibility
of
the
Guides
of
it
,
w
ch
we
have
for
the
Canon
of
Scripture
?
w
ch
he
asserts
.
It
is
I
suppose
agreed
on
both
sides
,
That
the
Tradition
on
w
ch
we
receive
and
believe
the
Scriptures
to
be
the
Word
of
God
was
universal
as
to
all
Ages
and
Times
of
the
Church
;
that
from
the
beginning
all
disputes
in
Religion
among
true
Christians
,
were
built
upon
the
supposition
of
it
;
That
in
no
Age
any
persons
were
allowed
to
be
good
Christians
who
made
doubt
of
it
;
That
every
Age
doth
afford
plentiful
testimonies
of
the
belief
of
it
.
This
is
that
universal
Tradition
we
receive
the
Scriptures
upon
;
and
let
any
thing
like
this
be
produced
for
the
Infallibility
of
the
Guides
of
their
Church
,
and
we
yield
up
the
Cause
to
them
.
Can
any
fairer
terms
than
these
be
desired
?
But
we
expect
proofs
,
and
so
I
perceive
we
may
do
to
the
Worlds
end
.
I
commend
the
Ingenuity
of
N.
O.
for
endeavouring
to
escape
out
of
the
circle
any
way
;
but
I
believe
they
think
themselves
as
wise
,
who
still
dance
within
it
,
knowing
the
impossibility
of
doing
any
good
in
this
other
way
.
The
only
Argument
he
insists
upon
is
so
weak
,
that
I
wonder
he
had
not
considered
how
often
it
had
been
answered
by
their
own
Writers
.
For
it
is
certain
that
Provincial
Councils
as
well
as
General
,
have
Anathematized
dissenters
,
and
pronounced
them
Hereticks
,
which
is
his
only
Argument
to
prove
this
Tradition
of
the
Churches
Infallibility
;
and
they
had
no
way
to
answer
it
,
but
by
saying
,
this
doth
not
imply
their
Infallibility
.
And
if
it
doth
not
in
the
case
of
Provincial
Councils
;
why
should
he
think
it
doth
in
the
case
of
General
?
For
the
Anathema's
of
Provincial
Councils
did
not
relate
to
the
acceptation
of
their
Decrees
,
either
by
the
Pope
,
or
the
whole
Church
,
as
N.
O.
supposes
,
but
did
proceed
upon
their
own
assurance
of
the
truth
of
what
they
decreed
;
otherwise
their
Anathema's
would
have
been
only
conditional
,
and
not
absolute
and
peremptory
as
we
see
they
were
.
But
I
need
give
no
other
answer
to
this
Argument
than
in
the
words
of
Dr.
Field
whom
N.
O.
appealed
to
before
,
viz.
That
Councils
denounce
Anathema
not
because
they
think
every
one
that
disobeyeth
the
Decree
of
the
Council
to
be
accursed
,
but
because
they
are
perswaded
in
particular
,
that
this
is
the
eternal
truth
of
God
which
they
propose
,
therefore
they
accurse
them
that
obstinately
shall
resist
,
as
St.
Paul
willeth
every
Christian
man
to
Anathematize
an
Angel
coming
from
heaven
,
if
he
shall
teach
him
any
other
doctrine
than
he
hath
already
learned
:
yet
is
not
every
particular
Christian
free
from
possibility
of
erring
.
If
the
Argument
then
were
good
from
Anathematizing
dissenters
,
and
calling
them
Hereticks
,
every
particular
person
must
by
it
be
proved
Infallible
;
who
are
bound
to
Anathematize
even
Angels
from
Heaven
in
case
of
delivering
any
other
doctrine
from
the
Gospel
;
so
that
this
,
which
is
his
only
Argument
in
stead
of
proving
an
universal
Tradition
would
prove
an
universal
Infallibility
.
Let
the
Reader
now
judge
in
his
Conscience
,
whether
here
be
any
thing
offered
in
the
way
of
Tradition
for
the
Churches
Infallibility
,
that
may
bear
the
least
proportion
with
the
Tradition
on
which
we
receive
the
Scriptures
?
And
yet
if
this
had
been
true
,
it
had
been
almost
impossible
that
any
one
Age
should
have
passed
without
remarkable
testimonies
of
it
.
For
no
Age
of
the
Church
hath
been
so
happy
as
not
to
have
occasion
for
an
Infallible
Judge
of
Controversies
,
if
any
such
had
been
appointed
by
Christ
:
and
therefore
it
cannot
be
imagined
,
but
that
Christians
must
in
all
Controversies
arising
have
appealed
to
him
,
and
stood
to
his
determinations
;
which
must
have
been
as
well
known
in
the
practice
of
the
Church
,
as
Judges
trying
Causes
in
Westminster
Hall.
But
I
challenge
him
to
produce
any
one
Age
since
the
Apostles
times
to
this
day
,
wherein
the
Infallibility
of
a
standing
Judge
of
Controversies
appointed
by
Christ
,
hath
been
received
by
as
universal
a
consent
as
the
Authority
of
Scripture
hath
been
in
that
very
Age.
Nay
,
I
except
not
that
Age
which
hath
been
since
the
Council
of
Trent
;
for
the
Scriptures
of
the
New
Testament
have
been
received
of
all
sides
,
but
the
Infallibility
of
a
standing
Judge
is
utterly
denied
by
one
side
,
and
vehemently
disputed
between
several
parties
on
the
other
.
Some
making
only
the
Essential
Church
infallible
,
others
the
representative
in
Councils
,
others
again
the
virtual
,
viz.
the
Pope
.
And
supposing
any
infallible
Judge
necessary
;
it
stands
to
reason
it
should
be
rather
in
one
than
in
a
multitude
,
and
rather
in
a
constant
succession
of
Bishops
in
one
See
,
than
in
an
uncertain
number
who
cannot
be
convened
together
as
often
as
the
necessities
of
the
Church
may
require
.
But
this
is
so
far
from
being
received
as
an
Universal
Tradition
in
that
very
Age
wherein
we
live
,
that
onely
one
busie
Party
in
the
Roman
Church
do
maintain
it
,
Many
others
eagerly
opposing
it
,
and
all
the
Princes
and
States
in
Christendom
do
in
their
actions
,
if
not
in
words
,
deny
it
.
And
is
not
this
now
an
Universal
Tradition
fit
to
be
matched
with
that
of
the
Scriptures
?
I
had
once
thought
to
have
brought
testimonies
o●t
of
every
Age
of
the
Christian
Church
manifestly
disproving
any
such
Tradition
of
Infallibility
;
and
that
not
only
of
private
persons
when
there
were
no
Councils
,
but
from
the
most
solemn
Acts
of
Councils
,
and
the
confession
of
their
own
Writers
;
but
that
would
swell
this
Answer
to
too
great
a
Bulk
,
and
is
not
needful
where
so
very
little
is
offered
for
the
proof
of
it
.
And
yet
I
shall
be
ready
to
do
it
,
when
any
thing
more
important
requires
it
.
I
now
return
to
his
exceptions
against
the
latter
part
of
the
former
proposition
,
viz.
That
Infallibility
in
a
Body
of
men
,
is
as
liable
to
doubts
and
disputes
,
as
in
those
Books
from
whence
only
they
derive
their
Infallibility
.
The
plain
meaning
of
which
is
,
that
it
is
a
foolish
thing
to
make
use
of
a
medium
as
uncertain
as
the
thing
which
is
to
be
proved
by
it
;
and
therefore
if
the
Infallibility
of
the
the
Church
be
as
liable
to
doubts
and
disputes
as
that
of
the
Scriptures
,
it
is
against
all
just
Laws
of
reasoning
to
make
use
of
the
Churches
Infallibility
to
prove
the
Scriptures
by
.
And
to
this
no
answer
can
be
proper
,
but
either
by
saying
that
there
is
no
absurdity
in
such
a
way
of
proving
;
or
else
that
the
Infallibility
of
the
Church
is
more
certain
and
evident
than
that
of
the
Scriptures
.
Which
I
should
be
glad
to
see
undertaken
by
any
man
who
pretends
to
sense
;
which
N.
O.
doth
too
much
to
meddle
with
it
;
and
therefore
fairly
shuffles
it
off
,
and
turns
my
words
quite
to
another
meaning
,
as
though
they
had
been
spoken
of
the
doubtful
sense
of
the
Decrees
of
Councils
,
which
although
elsewhere
I
had
sufficient
reason
to
speak
of
,
yet
that
was
not
pertinent
to
this
place
.
But
this
was
a
way
to
escape
by
saying
something
,
though
not
at
all
to
the
purpose
;
and
yet
he
gives
no
sufficient
answer
to
that
sense
he
puts
upon
my
words
,
by
bringing
a
Commentary
upon
them
out
of
words
used
by
me
in
another
Discourse
.
Wherein
I
did
at
large
argue
against
the
Infallibility
of
General
Councils
,
and
after
disproving
it
in
general
,
I
undertook
to
prove
,
that
no
man
can
have
any
certainty
of
Faith
as
to
the
Decrees
of
any
Council
;
because
men
can
have
no
certainty
of
Faith
that
this
was
a
General
Council
,
that
it
passed
such
Decrees
,
that
it
proceeded
lawfully
in
passing
them
,
and
that
this
is
the
certain
meaning
of
them
;
all
which
are
necessary
in
order
to
the
believing
those
Decrees
to
be
infallible
with
such
a
Faith
as
they
call
divine
.
The
words
produced
by
him
do
speak
of
the
doubtful
sense
and
meaning
of
the
Decrees
of
Councils
,
by
which
I
shew
that
men
can
have
no
more
certainty
of
the
meaning
of
them
,
than
of
doubtful
places
of
Scripture
,
not
as
though
I
supposed
it
impossible
for
Councils
to
give
a
clear
decision
in
matters
of
controversie
,
so
as
that
men
might
understand
their
meaning
;
but
I
expresly
mention
such
Decrees
as
are
purposely
framed
in
general
terms
,
and
with
ambiguous
expressions
pressions
to
give
satisfaction
to
the
several
dissenting
Parties
;
for
which
I
instanced
in
some
of
the
Council
of
Trent
,
whose
ambiguity
is
most
manifest
by
the
disputes
about
their
meaning
raised
by
some
who
were
present
at
the
making
of
them
.
I
am
far
enough
from
denying
that
a
Commentary
may
make
a
Text
plainer
,
or
that
a
Iudges
sentence
can
be
clearer
than
the
Law
;
or
that
any
Council
can
,
or
hath
decided
any
thing
clearer
than
the
thing
that
is
in
controversie
;
which
are
his
exceptions
:
but
I
say
,
if
Councils
pretend
to
do
more
than
the
Scriptures
,
and
to
decide
controversies
for
the
satisfaction
of
the
World
,
and
that
men
ought
to
have
that
certainty
of
Faith
by
them
,
which
they
cannot
have
by
the
Scriptures
,
they
ought
never
to
be
liable
to
the
same
ambiguity
and
obscurity
upon
the
account
of
which
the
Scripture
is
rejected
from
being
a
certain
rule
of
Faith.
For
,
as
he
saith
well
,
Infallibility
alone
ends
not
Controversies
,
but
clearness
;
clearness
in
the
point
controverted
:
which
if
Councils
want
,
they
are
as
unfit
to
end
Controversies
as
the
Scriptures
can
be
pretended
to
be
.
But
this
is
not
the
thing
intended
by
me
in
this
Proposition
and
therefore
it
needs
no
farther
answer
;
for
the
only
subject
of
that
Proposition
,
is
the
Infallibility
of
the
Church
,
and
not
the
clearness
of
the
Decrees
of
Councils
.
But
I
cannot
admire
the
ingenuity
of
this
way
of
answering
me
,
by
putting
another
sense
upon
my
words
than
they
will
bear
;
and
by
drawing
words
out
of
another
Discourse
,
without
shewing
the
purpose
for
which
they
are
there
used
,
and
leaving
out
the
most
material
passages
which
tended
to
the
clearing
of
them
.
If
N.
O.
thinks
fit
to
oppose
that
whole
Discourse
against
the
Infallibility
of
General
Councils
,
and
set
down
fairly
the
several
Arguments
,
I
should
be
then
too
blame
not
to
return
a
just
answer
:
but
I
am
not
bound
to
follow
him
in
such
strange
excursions
,
from
the
17.
Proposition
of
this
Book
to
a
single
passage
in
a
larger
Book
,
and
from
that
back
to
another
at
a
mighty
distance
in
the
same
Book
;
which
being
dismembred
from
the
Body
of
the
Discourse
,
must
needs
lose
much
of
their
strength
.
Yet
with
all
the
disadvantage
he
takes
them
(
which
is
such
,
that
the
best
Book
in
the
World
may
be
confuted
in
that
manner
)
he
hath
no
great
cause
to
glory
in
the
execution
he
hath
done
upon
them
.
In
answer
to
my
Lord
of
Canterburies
Adversary
,
who
boasted
of
the
Unity
of
the
Roman
Church
:
because
whatever
the
private
opinions
of
men
are
,
they
are
ready
to
submit
their
judgments
to
the
censure
and
determination
of
the
Church
,
I
had
said
,
that
this
will
hold
as
well
or
better
for
our
Unity
as
theirs
,
because
all
men
are
willing
to
submit
their
judgments
to
Scripture
,
which
is
agreed
on
all
sides
to
be
infallible
.
Against
these
words
thus
taken
alone
N.
O.
spends
two
or
three
Pages
;
which
might
have
been
spared
,
if
he
had
but
fairly
expressed
what
immediately
follows
them
in
these
words
.
If
you
say
it
cannot
be
known
what
Scripture
determines
,
but
it
may
be
easily
what
the
Church
defines
:
it
is
easily
answered
,
that
the
event
shews
it
to
be
far
otherwise
,
for
how
many
disputes
are
there
concerning
the
power
of
determining
matters
of
Faith
?
to
whom
it
belongs
,
in
what
way
it
must
be
managed
,
whether
Parties
ought
to
be
heard
in
matters
of
Doctrine
,
what
the
meaning
of
the
Decrees
are
when
they
are
made
,
which
raise
as
many
divisions
as
were
before
them
;
as
appears
by
the
Decrees
of
the
Council
of
Trent
,
and
the
later
of
Pope
Innocent
relating
to
the
five
Propositions
;
so
that
upon
the
whole
it
appears
setting
aside
force
and
fraud
,
which
are
excellent
Principles
of
Christian
Unity
,
we
are
upon
as
fair
terms
of
Union
as
they
are
among
themselves
.
I
do
not
therefore
say
,
that
the
Church
of
Rome
hath
no
advantage
at
all
in
point
of
Unity
,
but
that
all
the
advantage
it
hath
,
comes
from
force
and
fraud
,
and
setting
these
aside
,
we
are
upon
as
good
terms
of
Union
as
they
;
and
we
do
not
envy
them
the
effects
of
Tyranny
and
Deceit
.
It
is
the
Union
of
Christians
we
contend
for
,
and
not
of
Slaves
or
Fools
;
we
leave
the
Turk
and
the
Pope
to
vie
with
each
other
in
this
kind
of
Unity
,
(
although
I
believe
the
Turk
hath
much
the
advantage
in
it
)
and
I
freely
yield
to
N.
O.
that
they
have
a
juster
pretence
to
Vnity
without
Truth
than
we
.
Which
is
agreeable
to
what
he
pleads
for
,
that
they
are
more
united
in
opinion
than
we
;
united
in
opinion
,
I
say
,
true
or
false
,
saith
he
,
here
matters
not
;
we
speak
here
of
Vnion
not
of
Truth
.
This
and
the
following
of
Tyranny
,
which
we
complain
of
,
are
the
two
fairest
Pleas
for
their
Vnion
I
ever
met
with
.
But
this
is
not
a
place
to
examine
the
pretences
to
Unity
on
both
sides
,
that
I
have
at
large
done
in
a
whole
Chapter
in
the
late
Book
,
and
if
N.
O.
had
intended
any
thing
to
purpose
against
me
on
this
subject
,
he
ought
much
rather
to
have
fallen
on
a
just
Discourse
than
two
such
lame
Clauses
as
he
makes
these
to
be
by
his
citation
of
them
.
And
when
he
doth
that
,
he
may
hear
more
of
this
Subject
;
in
the
mean
time
Infallibility
is
our
business
.
And
therefore
I
proceed
to
the
third
Argument
made
use
of
by
N.
O.
for
the
proof
of
Infallibility
in
the
Guides
of
the
Church
,
which
is
from
parity
of
Reason
.
Because
,
I
say
,
that
it
is
repugnant
to
the
nature
of
the
design
,
and
the
wisdom
and
goodness
of
God
to
give
infallible
assurance
to
persons
,
in
writing
his
Will
for
the
benefit
of
mankind
,
if
those
Writings
may
not
be
understood
by
all
persons
who
sincerely
endeavour
to
know
the
meaning
of
them
in
all
such
things
as
are
necessary
to
their
salvation
;
from
hence
he
inferrs
,
That
if
every
Christian
may
become
thus
infallible
in
necessaries
,
from
1.
a
clear
rule
.
2.
a
due
Industry
used
;
3.
and
a
certainty
that
it
is
so
used
;
may
not
the
Church-Governours
still
much
rather
be
allowed
Infallible
,
and
so
retain
still
their
infallible
Guideship
;
and
the
people
also
,
the
more
clear
the
rule
of
Faith
is
proved
to
be
,
the
more
securely
be
referred
to
their
direction
?
and
have
we
not
all
reason
to
presume
that
the
chief
Guides
of
the
Church
(
even
a
General
Council
of
them
,
or
if
it
be
but
a
major
part
of
this
Council
,
't
is
sufficient
)
in
their
consults
concerning
a
point
necessary
to
salvation
delivered
in
Scripture
,
use
at
least
so
much
endeavour
(
for
more
needs
not
)
as
a
plain
Rustick
doth
,
to
understand
the
meaning
of
it
,
and
also
the
like
sincerity
?
For
what
they
define
for
others
,
they
define
for
themselves
also
,
and
their
salvation
is
as
much
concerned
as
any
other
mans
is
,
in
their
mistakes
.
And
next
,
why
may
not
these
Governours
upon
such
certainty
of
a
sincere
endeavour
and
clearness
of
the
rule
take
upon
them
to
define
these
points
and
enjoyn
an
assent
to
and
belief
of
them
to
their
subjects
;
especially
since
it
is
affirmed
that
all
those
from
whom
they
require
such
obedience
,
if
they
please
to
use
a
sincere
endeavour
may
be
certain
thereof
as
well
as
they
?
And
are
we
not
here
again
arrived
at
Church-infallibility
,
if
not
from
extraordinary
divine
assistance
,
only
sincere
endeavour
being
supposed
?
And
thus
doe
not
his
conditional
Infallibility
of
particular
persons
in
necessaries
,
the
condition
being
so
easie
,
necessarily
inferr
a
moral
impossibility
of
the
Churches
erring
in
them
;
especially
those
necessaries
being
contracted
to
the
Apostles
Creed
,
as
it
is
by
some
.
To
lay
open
the
weakness
of
this
Discourse
,
which
appears
fair
and
plausible
at
first
view
,
I
shall
give
an
account
of
these
two
things
.
1.
What
Infallibility
I
attribute
to
private
persons
.
2.
How
far
the
parity
of
reason
will
extend
to
the
Infallibility
of
the
Guides
of
the
Church
.
1.
As
to
the
Infallibility
by
me
attributed
to
private
persons
;
no
such
thing
can
be
inferred
from
my
words
;
and
I
wish
N.
O.
would
have
kept
to
my
own
expressions
,
and
not
foisted
in
that
term
of
Infallibility
,
without
which
all
his
Discourse
would
have
betrayed
its
own
weakness
.
For
take
the
terms
which
I
laid
down
,
and
apply
them
to
the
Guides
of
the
Church
,
and
see
what
a
mighty
Infallibility
springs
from
them
.
For
if
it
be
repugnant
to
the
nature
of
the
design
,
and
to
the
wisdom
and
goodness
of
God
to
give
infallible
assurance
to
persons
in
writing
his
Will
for
the
benefit
of
mankind
,
if
those
Writings
may
not
be
understood
by
all
persons
who
sincerely
endeavour
to
know
the
meaning
of
them
in
all
such
things
as
are
necessary
for
their
salvation
,
how
doth
it
hence
follow
that
the
Guides
of
the
Church
must
be
infallible
in
teaching
matters
of
Faith
?
If
I
had
asserted
that
particular
persons
were
infallible
in
determining
what
was
true
,
and
what
not
;
then
I
grant
the
Argument
would
have
much
more
held
for
those
whose
office
it
is
to
guide
and
direct
others
.
But
what
he
means
by
mens
being
infallible
in
necessaries
,
I
do
not
well
understand
;
for
it
is
capable
of
three
several
meanings
:
1.
That
either
men
are
infallible
in
judging
of
necessaries
to
salvation
;
2.
or
,
That
men
are
infallible
in
teaching
others
what
art
necessaries
to
salvation
.
Or
3.
That
men
are
infallible
in
believing
such
things
as
are
necessary
to
salvation
,
i.
e.
that
such
is
the
goodness
of
God
,
and
the
clearness
of
Scriptures
,
that
no
man
who
sincerely
desires
to
know
what
is
necessary
to
salvation
shall
be
deceived
therein
;
and
what
is
this
any
more
than
to
assert
that
God
will
not
be
wanting
in
necessaries
to
mankind
;
and
although
I
know
no
reason
for
using
the
term
of
Infallibility
thus
applied
,
yet
the
thing
it self
I
assert
in
that
sense
,
but
in
neither
of
the
other
:
and
what
now
can
be
inferred
from
hence
by
a
parity
of
reason
,
but
that
the
Guides
of
the
Church
,
supposing
the
same
sincerity
shall
enjoy
the
same
priviledge
,
which
I
know
none
ever
denied
them
;
but
what
is
this
to
their
infallibility
in
teaching
all
matters
of
Faith
?
which
is
the
only
thing
to
be
proved
by
him
.
If
he
can
prove
this
as
necessary
for
the
salvation
of
mankind
as
the
other
is
,
then
he
would
do
something
to
his
purpose
,
but
not
otherwise
.
So
that
all
this
discourse
proceeds
upon
a
very
false
way
of
reasoning
from
believing
to
teaching
,
and
from
necessaries
to
salvation
,
to
all
matters
of
Faith
,
which
the
Guides
of
the
Church
shall
propose
to
men
.
2.
But
may
we
not
inferr
,
that
if
God
will
not
be
wanting
to
particular
persons
in
matters
necessary
to
their
salvation
,
much
less
will
he
be
wanting
to
the
Guides
of
the
Church
in
all
matters
of
Faith
?
No
certainly
,
unless
it
be
proved
that
their
Guidance
is
the
only
means
whereby
men
can
understand
what
is
necessary
to
salvation
;
which
is
utterly
denied
by
us
,
God
having
otherwise
provided
for
that
,
by
giving
so
clear
a
Rule
in
matters
necessary
,
that
no
man
who
sincerely
endeavours
to
know
such
things
shall
fail
therein
.
But
will
not
the
same
sincerity
in
the
Guides
of
the
Church
,
extend
to
their
knowing
and
declaring
all
matters
of
Faith
?
This
is
a
thing
possible
,
and
supposing
God
had
entrusted
them
with
the
infallible
delivery
of
all
matters
of
Faith
,
were
not
to
be
questioned
;
but
that
is
the
thing
still
in
dispute
,
and
is
not
to
be
supposed
,
without
proving
it
by
plain
evidence
from
those
Books
which
are
agreed
on
both
sides
to
contain
the
Will
of
God.
Besides
,
that
no
man
that
is
acquainted
with
the
proceedings
of
the
Council
of
Trent
,
will
see
reason
to
be
over-confident
of
the
sincerity
of
Councils
so
palpably
influenced
by
the
Court
of
Rome
as
that
was
.
But
however
is
it
not
fit
in
these
matters
that
particular
persons
should
rather
yield
to
the
guidance
of
others
,
than
to
the
conduct
of
their
own
reason
?
Which
is
N.
O's
.
farther
Argument
in
this
matter
,
viz.
That
a
Fallibility
being
supposed
,
it
is
more
fitting
to
follow
prudent
and
experienced
,
though
fallible
persons
direction
rather
than
our
own
.
To
this
I
answer
in
these
following
particulars
.
1.
That
God
hath
entrusted
every
man
with
a
faculty
of
discerning
Truth
and
Falshood
;
supposing
that
there
were
no
persons
in
the
World
to
direct
or
guide
him
.
For
without
this
there
were
no
capacity
in
mankind
to
be
instructed
in
matters
of
Religion
;
and
it
were
to
no
purpose
,
to
offer
any
thing
to
men
to
be
believed
,
or
to
perswade
them
to
embrace
any
Religion
.
To
make
this
plain
,
I
will
suppose
a
Person
come
to
years
of
understanding
,
not
yet
professing
any
particular
Religion
to
whom
the
several
Religions
in
the
world
are
proposed
by
men
perswaded
of
the
truth
of
them
,
viz.
the
Christian
,
the
Jewish
,
and
the
Mahumetan
:
He
hears
the
several
arguments
brought
for
each
of
them
,
and
hath
no
greater
opinion
of
the
teachers
of
one
than
of
another
,
I
desire
to
know
whether
this
person
may
not
see
so
much
of
the
truth
and
excellency
of
Christian
Religion
,
above
the
rest
as
to
choose
that
and
reject
all
the
rest
.
I
hope
no
one
will
deny
this
;
now
if
a
man
does
here
upon
his
own
judgment
and
reason
choose
the
Christian
Religion
,
so
as
firmly
to
believe
it
,
then
God
hath
given
to
men
such
a
faculty
of
judging
,
that
upon
the
proposal
of
truth
and
falshood
,
he
may
embrace
the
true
Religion
and
reject
the
false
,
and
such
a
Faith
is
acceptable
and
pleasing
to
God
;
Otherwise
no
man
could
embrace
Christianity
at
first
upon
good
grounds
.
2.
This
faculty
is
not
taken
away
,
nor
men
forbidden
the
exercise
of
it
in
the
choice
of
their
Religion
by
any
principle
of
the
Christian
Religion
;
for
our
Saviour
himself
appealed
to
the
Judgement
of
the
persons
he
endeavored
to
convince
;
he
made
use
of
many
arguments
to
perswade
them
,
he
directed
them
in
the
way
of
finding
out
of
truth
,
he
reproved
those
who
would
not
search
into
the
things
delivered
to
them
.
All
which
were
to
no
purpose
at
all
,
if
men
were
not
to
continue
the
exercise
of
their
own
Judgements
about
these
matters
.
Accordingly
we
find
the
Apostles
appealing
to
the
Judgements
of
private
and
fallible
persons
concerning
what
they
said
to
them
,
although
themselves
were
infallible
,
and
had
the
greatest
Authority
over
them
;
we
find
them
,
not
bidding
the
Guides
of
the
Church
p●ove
all
things
and
the
people
held
fast
that
which
they
delivered
them
;
but
Commanding
them
indifferently
to
prove
all
things
and
hold
fast
that
which
is
good
,
i.
e.
what
upon
examination
they
found
to
be
so
;
we
find
those
commended
,
who
searched
the
Scriptures
daily
whether
the
things
proposed
to
them
were
so
or
no.
So
that
we
see
the
Christian
Religion
d●th
not
forbid
men
the
exercise
of
that
faculty
of
judging
,
which
God
hath
given
to
mankind
.
3.
The
exercise
of
this
faculty
was
not
to
cease
as●oon
as
men
had
embraced
the
Christian
Doctrine
.
For
the
precepts
given
by
the
Apostles
do
belong
to
those
who
are
already
Christians
,
and
that
concerning
the
matters
proposed
by
their
Guides
;
nay
they
are
expressly
commended
to
try
and
examin
all
pretences
to
Infallibility
and
Revelation
upon
this
great
reason
because
there
should
be
many
false
pretenders
to
them
.
Beloved
believe
not
every
Spirit
,
but
try
the
Spirits
whether
they
be
of
God
,
for
many
false
Prophets
are
gone
out
into
the
world
.
They
are
commanded
not
to
believe
any
other
Gospel
though
Apostles
or
an
Angel
from
Heaven
should
preach
it
;
and
how
should
they
know
whether
it
were
another
or
the
same
if
they
were
not
to
examin
and
compare
them
?
They
are
bid
to
contend
earnestly
for
the
faith
once
delivered
to
the
Saints
;
it
might
be
a
new
Faith
for
any
thing
they
could
know
,
if
they
were
not
competent
Judges
of
what
was
once
delivered
:
They
are
frequently
charged
to
beware
of
Seducers
and
false
Guides
,
that
should
come
in
the
name
of
Christ
and
his
Apostles
;
they
are
told
,
that
there
should
come
a
falling
away
and
departing
from
the
Faith
;
and
that
the
time
will
come
when
men
will
not
endure
sound
Doctrine
,
and
shall
turn
away
their
ears
from
〈◊〉
truth
and
believe
fables
;
that
such
shall
come
with
all
deceivableness
of
unrighteousness
;
with
powers
and
signs
and
lying
wonders
.
To
what
end
or
purpose
are
all
these
things
said
,
if
men
being
once
Christians
are
no
longer
to
exercise
their
own
Judgements
,
but
deliver
them
up
into
the
hands
of
their
Guides
?
What
is
this
,
but
to
put
them
under
a
necessity
of
being
deluded
when
their
Guides
please
?
and
as
our
Saviour
saith
,
When
the
blind
lead
the
blind
both
shall
fall
into
the
ditch
.
4.
The
Authority
of
Guides
in
the
Church
is
not
absolute
and
unlimited
but
confined
within
certain
bounds
.
Which
if
they
transgress
they
are
no
longer
to
be
followed
.
So
St.
Paul
saith
,
if
we
or
an
Angel
from
Heaven
teach
any
other
Gospel
let
him
be
accursed
,
so
that
the
Apostles
themselves
though
giving
the
greatest
Evidence
of
Infallibility
were
no
longer
to
be
followed
than
they
held
to
the
Gospel
of
Christ.
And
they
desired
no
more
of
their
greatest
Disciples
whom
they
had
Converted
to
the
Christian
Faith
,
than
to
be
followers
of
them
as
they
were
of
Christ
,
they
told
them
they
had
no
dominion
over
their
faith
,
although
they
were
far
more
assisted
with
an
infallible
Spirit
,
than
any
other
Guides
of
the
Church
could
pretend
to
be
ever
since
.
Therefore
no
present
Guides
,
what
ever
names
they
go
by
,
ought
to
usurp
such
an
Authority
over
the
minds
of
men
which
the
Apostles
themselves
did
not
challenge
;
although
there
were
greater
reason
for
men
to
yield
up
their
minds
wholly
to
their
guidance
.
We
are
far
from
denying
all
reasonable
and
just
authority
to
be
given
to
the
Guides
of
the
Church
;
but
we
say
that
their
Authority
not
being
absolute
is
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
exercise
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
the
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
,
or
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
faction
,
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
in
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
Council
?
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
the
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
he
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
Pope
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
,
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
?
must
he
believe
the
Pope
?
He
not
only
contradicts
the
Council
but
himself
too
;
for
it
now
appears
by
a
Greek
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
,
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
of
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
,
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
excommunicated
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
in
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
the
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
been
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.
wher●
the
Heresy
of
the
Monothelites
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
Pope
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
.
Melchior
Canus
confesseth
that
not
only
this
General
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
.
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.
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
,
to
Anathematize
Honorius
by
name
as
guilty
of
heresy
;
some
indeed
,
saith
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
.
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
,
in
which
case
alone
it
is
lawful
for
inferiours
to
resist
the●r
Superiours
and
to
reject
their
doctrine
;
although
even
there
,
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
prove
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
,
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
expresly
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
,
that
I
need
not
Insist
any
longer
upon
it
;
to
whom
no
answer
hath
been
given
but
that
substantial
one
of
an
Index
Expurgatorius
.
Bellarmin
likes
this
way
of
answering
the
difficulty
about
Honorius
;
but
the
greatest
strength
he
adds
to
Baronius
is
only
saying
,
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
Honorius
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
;
and
this
way
is
taken
by
Petavius
,
and
others
;
and
was
the
way
intended
by
Petrus
de
Marcâ
,
as
appears
by
the
account
given
of
his
design
by
Baluzius
;
which
was
first
to
prove
by
most
evident
arguments
,
that
the
Acts
of
the
Council
were
never
corrupted
by
the
Greeks
,
against
the
opinion
before
mentioned
,
and
next
that
he
was
truly
condemned
by
the
Council
;
but
not
for
heresy
,
but
only
for
negligence
and
remissness
.
I
think
there
needs
nothing
to
shew
the
weakness
of
this
,
but
barely
reading
the
Anathema
of
the
Council
against
him
,
which
is
not
,
for
bare
negligence
but
for
confirming
the
wicked
doctrines
of
Sergius
.
And
I
am
apt
to
think
,
that
learned
person
saw
the
weakness
of
his
design
too
much
to
go
on
with
it
:
and
Baronius
and
Bellarmin
saw
well
enough
,
that
whosoever
was
there
Anathematized
it
was
upon
the
account
of
heresy
that
he
was
so
;
and
therefore
Baronius
would
make
men
believe
the
Anathema
belonged
to
Theodorus
and
not
to
Honorius
.
Petavius
thinks
that
Honorius
was
deceived
,
but
it
was
only
by
his
simplicity
and
weakness
,
not
understanding
the
Controversy
aright
.
So
of
old
Iohn
4.
and
Maximus
in
his
dispute
with
Pyrrhus
defended
Honorius
,
that
he
spake
indeed
of
one
Will
,
but
that
,
say
they
,
was
to
be
understood
only
of
one
Will
in
his
humane
nature
.
Which
as
Combesis
saith
,
is
a
more
pious
than
solid
defence
of
him
;
and
would
as
well
serve
,
for
Sergius
and
Cyrus
,
for
Heraclius
his
Ecthesis
and
Constans
his
Type
,
as
Honorius
his
letter
.
For
who
ever
will
peruse
them
,
will
find
they
all
proceed
on
the
same
argument
,
that
there
could
not
be
two
wills
in
Christ
but
one
must
be
contrary
to
the
other
.
But
that
which
I
insist
on
is
this
,
that
it
is
certain
the
Council
approved
by
the
Pope
did
condemn
him
for
heresy
;
I
desire
therefore
again
to
know
whether
he
was
rightly
condemned
or
not
;
if
he
was
,
then
the
Pope
must
be
guilty
,
and
so
not
infallible
;
if
not
,
than
the
Council
must
be
,
according
to
Bellarmin
,
guilty
of
intolerable
impudence
and
errour
;
but
in
either
case
,
there
was
no
infallibility
in
the
Guides
of
the
Church
which
could
require
our
internal
assent
to
what
they
declared
.
But
another
defence
is
yet
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
if
not
,
when
he
is
consulted
about
important
matters
of
faith
,
as
this
was
then
supposed
to
be
,
by
two
Patriarchs
;
and
when
the
Church
was
divided
about
them
;
and
there
upon
solemnly
delivers
his
opinion
?
This
is
then
a
meer
subterfuge
when
men
have
nothing
else
to
say
;
I
conclude
therefore
this
Instance
of
Honorius
with
the
ingenuous
confession
of
Mr.
White
,
that
things
are
so
clear
in
the
cause
of
Honorius
,
that
it
is
unworthy
any
grave
Divine
to
pawn
his
own
honour
and
that
of
Divinity
too
,
in
sowing
together
Fig-leaves
to
palliate
it
.
Thus
far
I
have
shewn
that
those
who
pretend
the
most
to
be
infallible
Guides
of
the
Church
have
opposed
and
condemned
each
other
;
from
whence
it
necessarily
follows
that
no
absolute
submission
is
due
to
them
,
unless
we
can
be
obliged
to
believe
contradictions
.
I
might
pursue
this
much
further
,
and
draw
down
the
History
of
these
contradictions
to
each
other
,
through
the
following
Ages
of
the
Church
;
wherein
Bishops
have
been
against
Bishops
,
Popes
against
Popes
,
Councils
against
Councils
,
Church
against
Church
;
especially
after
the
breach
between
the
Eastern
and
Greek
Churches
,
the
Greek
and
the
Roman
,
and
the
Roman
and
those
of
the
Reformation
;
But
a
man
who
is
bound
to
rely
only
on
the
Authority
of
his
Guides
,
must
suppose
them
to
be
agreed
;
and
in
case
of
difference
among
them
,
he
must
first
choose
his
Religion
and
by
that
his
Guide
.
9.
In
the
present
divided
State
of
the
Christian
Church
,
a
man
that
would
satisfy
his
own
mind
,
must
make
use
of
his
judgement
in
the
choice
of
his
Church
,
and
those
Guides
he
is
to
submit
to
.
Unless
a
man
will
say
,
that
every
one
is
bound
to
yield
himself
absolutely
to
the
Guidance
of
that
Church
which
he
lives
in
whether
Eastern
or
Greek
,
Roman
or
Protestant
:
which
I
suppose
N.
O.
will
never
yield
to
,
for
a
reason
he
knows
because
then
no
Revolter
from
us
could
be
justified
.
The
true
State
then
of
the
present
case
concerning
the
Guides
of
the
Catholick
Church
is
this
;
that
it
hath
been
now
for
many
Ages
rent
and
torn
into
several
distinct
Communions
;
every
one
of
which
Communions
,
hath
particular
Guides
over
it
,
who
pretend
it
to
be
the
duty
of
men
to
live
in
subjection
to
them
,
because
every
Church
doth
suppose
it self
to
be
in
the
right
;
now
the
Question
proposed
is
,
whether
it
be
not
fitter
for
me
to
submit
to
the
Guides
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
than
to
trust
my
own
judgement
?
I
should
make
no
scruple
in
all
doubtful
matters
to
resolve
the
affirmative
,
supposing
that
all
the
Guides
of
the
Catholick
Church
were
Agreed
;
for
I
should
think
it
arrogance
and
presumption
in
me
to
set
up
my
own
private
opinion
in
opposition
to
the
unanimous
consent
of
all
the
Guides
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
in
such
a
case
;
but
that
is
far
from
ours
,
for
we
find
the
Christian
World
divided
into
very
different
Communions
.
The
Eastern
Churches
are
still
as
numerous
,
though
not
so
prosperous
as
the
Roman
;
the
extent
of
the
Greek
Church
alone
is
very
great
,
but
besides
that
,
there
are
two
other
distinct
Churches
in
those
parts
who
break
off
Communion
with
the
Greek
on
the
Account
of
the
Councils
of
Ephesus
and
Chalcedon
;
and
the
latter
sort
especially
are
very
far
spread
in
those
parts
,
from
Armenia
to
the
Abyssine
Empire
.
In
the
time
of
Iacobus
de
Vitriaco
,
he
saith
these
two
Churches
were
said
to
be
more
numerous
than
the
Greek
and
the
Latin
;
and
Bellonius
in
these
later
times
assures
us
,
that
the
rites
of
the
Greek
Church
do
yet
extend
farther
than
the
Latin.
What
then
makes
these
Churches
to
be
left
out
in
our
Enquiries
after
the
Guides
of
the
Catholick
Church
?
Are
these
such
inconsiderable
parts
of
the
Body
,
that
no
regard
is
to
be
had
to
them
?
I
believe
upon
a
strict
examination
,
notwithstanding
the
reproach
of
heresy
and
Schism
,
which
those
of
the
Church
of
Rome
cast
upon
all
but
themselves
,
they
will
be
sound
much
more
sou●d
parts
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
than
the
Roman
Church
is
Five
great
Bodies
or
Communions
of
Christians
are
at
this
day
in
the
World.
1.
The
most
Eastern
Christians
,
commonly
called
Nestorians
whether
justly
or
no
I
shall
not
now
examine
,
these
are
spread
over
the
most
Eastern
parts
,
and
all
live
in
subjection
to
the
Patriarch
of
Muzal
.
2.
The
Iacobites
,
who
are
dispersed
through
Mesopotamia
,
Armenia
,
Aegypt
and
the
Abyssine
Empire
,
and
live
under
several
Patriarchs
of
their
own
.
3.
The
Greek
Church
,
of
which
,
besides
the
Moscovites
,
are
to
be
reckoned
the
Melchites
or
Suriani
,
and
the
Georgians
;
for
though
their
language
be
different
,
they
all
agree
in
Doctrine
.
4.
The
Roman
Church
,
taking
under
it
all
in
the
Eastern
parts
who
have
submitted
to
the
Bishop
of
Rome
.
5.
The
Protestant
Churches
who
have
cast
off
subjection
to
the
Pope
,
and
Reformed
the
corruptions
they
charge
the
Church
of
Rome
with
.
Now
of
these
5.
parts
,
4.
of
them
are
all
agreed
,
that
there
is
no
necessity
of
living
in
subjection
to
the
Guides
of
the
Roman
Church
;
but
they
are
all
under
their
own
proper
Guides
,
W
ch
they
do
not
Question
will
direct
them
in
the
right
way
to
Heaven
.
Only
those
of
the
Church
of
Rome
take
upon
themselves
against
all
sense
and
reason
to
be
the
Catholick
Church
,
and
so
exclude
4.
parts
of
5.
out
of
a
capacity
of
Salvation
;
and
challenge
Infallibility
as
belonging
to
the
Guides
of
it
alone
.
In
this
case
,
the
Arrogance
of
the
pretence
,
the
uncharitableness
of
rejecting
so
mighty
a
number
of
Christians
from
the
possibility
of
Salvation
,
are
sufficient
to
make
any
Man
not
yield
up
his
Faith
at
the
first
demand
;
but
to
consider
a
while
,
whether
there
be
no
other
Churches
,
or
Guides
in
those
Churches
?
when
he
finds
so
many
and
those
not
inferiour
to
the
Roman
Church
in
any
thing
save
only
in
pomp
,
pride
,
and
uncharitableness
;
and
all
opposing
those
arrogant
pretences
of
Authority
and
Infallibility
in
it
,
what
reason
can
he
have
,
supposing
that
he
is
to
submit
to
any
Guides
,
that
he
must
submit
only
to
those
of
the
Roman
Church
?
Why
not
as
well
to
those
of
the
Eastern
,
Greek
,
or
Protestant
Churches
?
If
any
one
goes
about
to
assign
a
reason
,
by
charging
them
with
heresy
,
or
Schism
,
he
unavoidably
makes
him
Judge
of
some
of
the
greatest
difficulties
in
Religion
,
before
he
can
submit
to
his
Infallible
Guides
.
He
must
know
what
Nestorianism
,
Eutychianism
,
Monothelism
mean
,
how
they
came
to
be
heresies
,
whether
the
Churches
accused
be
justly
charged
with
them
?
He
must
understand
all
the
subtilties
of
Personalitie
,
subsistence
,
Hypostatical
Union
;
whether
the
Union
of
two
natures
in
Christ
be
substantial
,
natural
,
or
accidental
?
whether
it
be
enough
to
say
that
the
Divine
and
humane
are
one
by
inhabitation
,
or
one
by
consent
,
or
one
by
Communion
of
operation
,
or
one
by
Communion
of
dignity
and
honour
,
all
which
the
Nestorians
acknowledged
,
only
denying
the
union
of
two
natures
to
make
one
Person
?
supposing
a
man
be
come
to
this
,
he
must
then
be
satisfied
that
the
present
Eastern
Christians
do
hold
the
Doctrine
of
the
old
Nesiorians
,
for
they
acknowledge
Christ
to
be
perfect
God
and
perfect
Man
;
and
that
the
B.
Virgin
may
be
called
the
Mother
of
the
Son
of
God
,
or
the
Mother
of
the
Word
,
but
they
stick
only
at
calling
her
the
Mother
of
God.
Then
for
the
other
Churches
which
are
charged
with
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
supposing
they
are
willing
to
leave
the
dispute
of
two
natures
,
on
condition
,
that
the
humane
nature
be
only
made
the
Instrument
of
the
Divine
in
its
operations
,
whether
they
are
justly
charged
with
heresy
in
so
doing
?
All
these
things
a
Man
must
fully
be
satisfied
in
,
before
he
can
pronounce
those
Churches
guilty
of
heresy
,
and
so
not
to
be
followe
.
But
supposing
those
Churches
be
rejected
,
why
must
the
Greek
,
which
embraces
all
the
Councils
which
determined
those
subtle
controversies
?
Here
comes
the
mystery
of
the
procession
of
the
Holy
Ghost
to
be
examined
,
whether
from
the
Father
alone
or
from
the
Father
and
the
Son
?
but
supposing
this
to
be
yielded
,
why
may
he
not
joyn
with
those
Churches
,
which
agree
with
the
Church
of
Rome
in
all
those
points
,
as
the
Protestant
Churches
do
?
Here
a
Man
must
examine
the
notes
of
the
Church
,
and
enquire
whether
they
be
true
notes
,
whether
they
agree
only
to
the
Roman
Church
?
And
one
of
the
greatest
of
those
notes
being
consent
with
the
Primitive
Church
,
a
Man
that
would
be
well
satisfied
,
must
go
through
all
the
disputes
between
us
and
the
Church
of
Rome
,
and
by
that
time
he
is
well
settled
in
them
,
he
will
see
little
use
,
and
less
necessity
of
an
Infallible
Guide
.
So
that
a
Man
who
would
satisfy
himself
in
this
divided
State
of
the
Christian
Church
,
what
particular
Communion
he
ought
to
embrace
and
what
Guides
he
must
follow
,
must
do
all
that
,
for
the
preventing
of
which
an
Infallible
Guide
is
said
to
be
necessary
.
i.e.
he
must
not
only
exercise
his
own
judgment
in
particular
controversies
,
but
must
proceed
according
to
it
,
and
joyn
with
that
Church
which
upon
Enquiry
he
judges
to
be
the
Best
.
10.
A
prudent
submission
is
due
to
the
Guides
of
that
Church
,
with
which
a
person
lives
in
Communion
.
Having
shewed
that
absolute
submission
is
not
due
,
all
that
can
be
left
is
a
submission
within
due
bounds
,
which
is
that
I
call
a
prudent
submission
.
And
those
bounds
are
these
following
.
1.
Not
to
submit
to
all
those
who
challenge
the
Authority
of
Guides
over
us
,
though
pretending
to
never
so
much
Power
and
Infallibility
.
When
N.
O.
would
perswade
me
to
submit
my
understanding
to
the
Infallible
Guides
of
the
Church
;
He
must
think
me
a
very
easy
man
to
yield
,
till
I
be
satisfied
first
that
God
hath
appointed
such
to
be
my
Guides
,
and
in
the
next
place
that
he
hath
promised
Infallibility
to
them
.
And
that
is
the
true
State
of
the
Controversy
between
us
and
those
of
the
Church
of
Rome
in
this
matter
;
they
tell
us
we
are
bound
to
submit
to
the
Guides
of
the
Church
;
we
desire
to
know
whom
they
mean
by
these
Guides
;
and
at
last
we
understand
them
to
be
the
Bishop
of
Rome
and
his
Clergy
.
Here
we
demur
,
and
own
no
Authority
the
Bishop
of
Rome
hath
over
us
;
we
assert
that
we
have
all
the
Rights
of
a
Patriachal
Church
within
our selves
,
that
we
owe
no
account
to
the
Bishop
of
Rome
of
what
we
believe
or
practise
;
it
is
no
Article
of
our
Creed
that
God
hath
made
him
Iudge
either
of
the
quick
or
the
dead
;
We
have
Guides
of
our
Church
among
our selves
,
who
have
as
clear
a
succession
and
as
good
a
title
as
the
Bishops
of
any
Church
in
the
world
.
To
these
,
who
are
our
Lawful
Guides
,
we
promise
a
due
obedience
,
and
are
blame
worthy
if
we
give
it
not
;
but
for
the
Bishop
and
Clergy
of
Rome
,
we
own
none
to
them
,
let
them
challenge
it
with
never
so
much
confidence
,
and
arrogant
pretences
to
Infallibility
.
So
that
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
,
as
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
principle
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
.
2.
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
,
that
declares
in
her
Articles
,
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
there
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
,
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
.
4.
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
of
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
more
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
,
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
;
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
:
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
,
whom
he
〈◊〉
over
them
to
bring
them
in
the
Vnity
of
the
Faith
to
a
perfect
man
;
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
.
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
,
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
.
1.
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●●
prove
,
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
he
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
,
that
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
,
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
doubtful
places
;
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
every
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
to
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
and
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
should
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
by
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
then
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
;
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
,
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
but
that
of
St.
Luke
,
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
.
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
;
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
,
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
;
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
,
and
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
,
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
that
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
;
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
stones
;
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
sense
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
;
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
,
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
some
of
late
,
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
,
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
be
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
be
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
.
3.
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
;
and
▪
which
the
Church
dispersed
over
the
Earth
did
equally
receive
in
all
places
;
with
a
wonderful
consent
.
For
although
the
places
and
languages
be
never
so
distant
or
different
from
each
other
,
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
,
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
:
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
the
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
,
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
.
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
faith
,
viz.
a
summary
comprehension
of
the
Doctrine
received
among
Christians
,
such
as
the
Creed
is
mentioned
by
Irenaeus
;
and
afterwards
he
speaks
of
the
Rule
of
the
Valentinians
in
opposition
to
that
of
the
sound
Christians
.
From
hence
Irenaeus
proceeds
to
confute
the
Doctrine
of
the
Valentinians
by
Scripture
and
Reason
in
the
third
,
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
of
Hereticks
is
this
.
1.
That
there
must
be
a
certain
unalterable
Rule
of
Faith.
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
,
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
.
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
.
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
;
but
other
things
were
matters
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
;
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
.
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
,
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
.
2.
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
.
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
,
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
;
for
it
is
unreasonable
to
suppose
that
the
Apostles
should
not
know
the
Doctrine
of
Christ
,
(
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
:
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
;
and
we
must
say
all
the
former
Christians
were
baptized
into
a
false
faith
,
as
not
knowing
the
true
God
or
the
true
Christ
if
Marcion
and
Valentinus
did
deliver
the
true
Doctrine
,
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
;
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
;
so
Marcion
,
Apelles
,
and
Valentinus
were
confuted
in
the
Sadducees
,
and
first
corrupters
of
Christianity
.
But
the
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
,
and
the
Chairs
of
the
Apostles
so
well
known
,
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
,
he
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
,
because
there
cannot
be
two
infinitely
great
,
and
on
the
same
grounds
he
makes
two
he
may
make
many
more
,
and
because
God
must
be
known
by
his
works
,
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
;
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
,
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
of
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
,
by
the
greater
Antiquity
and
the
universal
reception
of
the
true
Gospels
;
and
after
refutes
the
supposition
of
a
twofold
Christ
one
for
the
Jews
and
another
for
the
Gentiles
from
the
comparing
of
Scriptures
together
,
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
.
Against
Hermogenes
,
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
:
he
compares
several
places
of
Scripture
together
,
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
his
sense
of
Scripture
to
be
false
and
erroneous
.
Against
Praxeas
,
he
disputes
whether
God
the
Father
took
our
nature
upon
him
,
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
.
Hitherto
we
find
nothing
said
of
an
infallible
Guide
to
give
the
certain
sense
of
Scripture
,
when
the
fairest
occasion
was
offered
,
by
those
who
disputed
the
most
concerning
the
sense
of
Scripture
in
the
Age
wherein
they
lived
viz.
by
Irenaeus
and
Tertullian
.
I
now
proceed
to
Clemens
of
Alexandria
who
in
his
learned
Collections
,
proposes
that
objection
,
against
Christianity
,
that
there
were
many
Heresies
among
Christians
,
and
therefore
men
could
believe
nothing
.
To
which
he
answers
,
That
there
were
Heresies
among
the
Jews
and
Philosophers
;
and
that
objection
was
not
thought
sufficient
against
Iudaism
or
Philosophy
,
and
therefore
ought
not
to
be
against
Christianity
.
Besides
the
coming
of
Heresies
was
foretold
,
and
what
ever
is
foretold
must
come
to
pass
.
The
Physitians
saith
he
differ
in
their
opinions
,
yet
men
do
not
neglect
to
make
use
of
them
,
when
they
are
sick
.
Heresies
should
only
make
men
more
careful
what
they
choose
.
Men
ought
thereby
to
endeavour
the
more
to
find
out
truth
from
falshood
;
as
if
two
sorts
of
fruit
be
offered
to
a
man
real
,
and
waxen
;
will
a
man
abstain
from
both
,
because
one
is
Counterfeit
,
or
rather
find
out
the
true
from
the
apparent
?
When
several
ways
offer
themselves
for
a
man
to
go
in
,
he
ought
not
therefore
to
sit
down
and
not
stir
a
step
further
;
but
he
uses
the
best
means
to
find
out
the
true
way
and
then
walks
in
it
.
So
that
they
are
justly
condemned
who
do
not
discern
the
true
from
the
false
;
for
they
who
will
,
saith
he
,
may
find
out
the
truth
.
For
either
there
is
demonstration
or
not
;
all
grant
demonstration
,
or
evidence
,
who
do
not
destroy
our
senses
;
If
there
be
demonstration
there
must
be
search
and
enquiry
made
;
and
by
the
Scriptures
we
may
demonstratively
learn
how
Heresies
fell
of
,
and
that
the
exactest
knowledge
was
to
be
found
in
the
truth
and
the
ancient
Church
.
Now
the
true
searchers
will
not
leave
till
they
find
Evidence
from
the
Scriptures
.
To
this
end
,
he
commends
the
exercise
of
mens
reason
and
understanding
,
impartiality
or
laying
aside
opinion
,
a
right
disposition
of
Soul
,
for
when
men
are
given
over
to
their
lusts
they
endeavour
to
wrest
the
Scriptures
to
them
.
But
he
establishes
the
Scripture
as
the
only
principle
of
certainty
to
Christians
,
and
more
credible
than
any
demonstration
:
which
who
so
have
tasted
are
called
faithful
,
but
those
who
are
versed
in
them
are
the
truly
knowing
men
.
The
great
objection
now
is
,
that
Hereticks
make
use
of
Scripture
too
:
I
but
they
,
saith
he
,
reject
what
they
please
,
and
do
not
follow
the
Body
and
Contexture
of
Prophecy
;
but
take
ambiguous
expressions
and
apply
them
to
their
own
opinions
:
and
a
few
scattered
phrases
without
regarding
the
sense
and
importance
of
them
.
For
in
the
Scriptures
produced
by
them
,
you
may
find
them
either
making
use
of
meer
names
,
and
changing
the
significations
of
them
;
never
attending
to
the
scope
and
intention
of
them
.
But
truth
,
saith
he
,
doth
not
lye
in
the
change
of
the
signification
of
words
(
for
by
that
means
all
Truth
may
be
overthrown
)
but
in
considering
what
is
proper
and
perfectly
agreeable
to
our
Lord
and
Almighty
God
,
and
in
confirming
every
thing
which
is
demonstrated
by
the
Scripture
out
of
the
same
Scriptures
.
Wherein
Clemens
Alexandrinus
lays
down
such
rules
as
he
thought
necessary
to
find
out
the
certain
sense
of
Scripture
,
viz.
by
considering
the
scope
and
coherence
of
the
words
,
the
proper
sense
and
importance
of
them
,
the
comparing
of
Scripture
with
Scripture
,
and
the
Doctrine
drawn
from
it
with
the
nature
and
properties
of
God
,
all
which
are
excellent
Rules
,
without
the
least
intimation
of
the
necessity
of
any
Infallible
Interpreter
to
give
the
certain
sense
of
doubtful
places
.
After
this
time
a
great
dispute
arose
in
the
Church
about
the
rebaptizing
Hereticks
,
managed
by
the
Eastern
and
African
Bishops
against
Stephen
Bishop
of
Rome
.
Here
the
Question
was
about
the
sense
of
several
places
of
Scripture
,
and
the
practice
of
the
Apostles
;
as
appears
by
the
Epistles
of
Cyprian
and
Firmilian
;
both
parties
pleading
Scripture
and
Tradition
for
themselves
.
But
no
such
thing
as
an
infallibility
in
judgement
was
pleaded
by
the
Pope
,
nor
any
thing
like
it
in
the
least
acknowledged
by
his
Adversaries
,
who
charge
him
,
(
without
any
respect
to
his
Infallible
guideship
,
)
with
pride
,
error
,
rashness
,
impertinency
,
and
contradicting
himself
.
Which
makes
Baronius
very
Tragically
exclaim
:
and
although
he
makes
use
of
this
as
a
great
argument
of
the
prevalency
of
Tradition
,
because
the
opinion
of
Stephen
obtained
in
the
Church
;
yet
there
is
no
Evidence
at
all
that
any
Churches
did
submit
to
the
opinion
of
Stephen
when
he
declared
himself
,
but
as
appears
by
Dionystus
of
Alexandria's
Epistles
,
the
Controversy
continued
after
his
time
;
and
if
we
look
into
the
judgement
of
the
Church
in
following
Ages
,
we
shall
find
that
neither
Stephens
opinion
,
nor
his
Adversaries
were
followed
;
(
for
Stephen
was
against
rebaptizing
any
Hereticks
,
and
the
others
were
for
rebaptizing
all
,
because
one
Baptism
was
only
in
the
true
Church
:
)
For
in
the
19.
Canon
of
the
Council
of
Nice
the
Samosatenian
Baptism
is
pronounced
null
?
and
the
persons
who
received
it
are
to
be
new
Baptized
;
and
the
first
Council
of
Arles
decrees
,
that
in
case
of
Heresy
men
are
to
receive
new
Baptism
but
not
otherwise
:
The
second
Council
of
Arles
puts
a
distinction
between
Hereticks
;
decreeing
that
the
Photinians
and
Samosatenians
should
be
Baptized
again
;
but
not
the
Bonofiaci
no●
the
Arians
,
but
they
were
to
be
received
upon
renouncing
their
Heresy
without
Baptism
.
Which
seems
the
harder
to
understand
since
the
Bonosiaci
were
no
other
than
Photinians
.
The
most
probable
way
of
solving
it
is
,
that
these
two
latter
sorts
did
preserve
the
form
of
Baptism
entire
,
but
the
Photinians
and
Samosatenians
altered
it
:
which
St.
Augustin
saith
,
is
a
thing
to
be
believed
.
So
Gennadius
reports
it
that
those
who
were
Baptized
without
invocation
of
the
B.
Trinity
,
were
to
he
Baptized
upon
their
reception
into
the
Church
(
not
rebaptized
because
the
former
was
accounted
null
)
of
these
he
reckons
not
only
the
Paulianists
and
Photinians
,
but
the
Bon●s●●ci
too
and
many
others
.
But
St.
Basil
determines
the
case
of
Baptism
,
not
from
the
form
but
from
the
faith
which
they
professed
;
a
Schismatical
Baptism
he
faith
,
was
allowed
,
but
not
Heretical
,
by
which
he
means
such
as
denyed
the
Trinity
;
and
therein
he
saith
,
S.
Cyprian
and
Firmilian
were
to
blame
,
because
they
would
allow
no
Baptism
among
persons
separated
from
the
Communion
of
the
Church
.
The
Council
of
Laodicea
decreed
that
the
Novatians
,
Photinians
,
and
Quarto-decimans
were
to
be
received
without
new
Baptism
,
but
not
the
Montanists
,
or
Cataphryges
:
but
Binius
saith
there
was
one
Copy
,
wherein
the
Photinians
were
left
out
;
and
then
these
Canons
may
agree
with
the
rest
;
and
Baronius
asserts
that
the
greater
number
of
M.
S.
Copies
leave
out
Photinians
,
And
withal
he
proves
,
that
the
Church
did
never
allow
the
Baptism
of
the
Photinians
,
though
it
did
of
the
Arians
;
by
which
we
see
that
the
Church
afterwards
did
not
follow
that
which
Stephen
pretended
to
be
an
Apostolical
tradition
,
viz.
that
no
Hereticks
should
be
rebaptized
;
and
from
hence
we
may
conclude
that
the
Pope
was
far
from
being
thought
an
infallible
Guide
or
Interpreter
of
Scripture
,
either
by
that
,
or
succeeding
Ages
;
when
not
only
single
persons
that
were
eminent
Guides
of
the
Church
(
such
as
the
African
and
Eastern
Bishops
were
,
)
opposed
his
Doctrine
,
and
slighted
his
excommunications
,
but
several
Councils
called
both
in
the
East
and
Africa
,
and
the
most
eminent
Councils
of
the
Church
afterwards
(
such
as
the
first
of
Arles
and
Nice
)
decreed
contrary
to
what
he
declared
to
be
an
Apostolical
Tradition
.
In
the
same
Age
we
meet
with
another
great
Controversy
about
the
sense
of
Scripture
,
for
Paulus
Samosatenus
openly
denyed
the
Divinity
of
Christ
and
asserted
the
Doctrine
of
it
to
be
repugnant
to
Scripture
,
and
the
ancient
Apostolical
tradition
.
For
this
Paulus
revived
the
heresie
of
Artemon
;
whose
followers
,
as
appears
by
the
fragment
of
an
ancient
Writer
against
them
in
Eusebius
,
(
supposed
to
be
Caius
)
pleaded
that
the
Apostles
were
of
their
mind
,
and
that
their
Doctrine
continued
in
the
Church
till
the
time
of
Victor
,
and
then
it
began
to
be
corrupted
.
Which
saith
that
Writer
would
seem
probable
,
if
the
holy
Scriptures
did
not
first
contradict
them
;
and
the
Books
of
several
Christians
before
Victors
time
.
So
that
we
see
the
main
of
the
Controversie
did
depend
upon
the
sense
of
Scripture
which
was
pleaded
on
both
sides
.
But
what
course
was
taken
in
this
important
Controversie
to
find
out
the
certain
sense
of
Scripture
?
Do
they
appeal
to
any
infallible
Guides
?
Nothing
like
it
.
But
in
the
Councils
of
Antioch
,
in
the
Writings
of
Dionysius
of
Alexandria
and
others
since
,
they
who
opposed
the
Samosatenian
Doctrine
endeavoured
with
all
their
strength
to
prove
that
to
be
the
true
sense
of
Scripture
,
which
asserted
the
Divinity
of
Christ.
It
is
great
pity
the
dispute
of
Malchion
with
Paulus
is
now
lost
,
which
was
extant
in
Eusebius
his
time
;
but
in
the
Questions
and
Answers
between
Paulus
and
Dionysius
;
(
which
Valesius
without
reason
suspects
since
St.
Hierome
mentions
his
Epistle
against
Paulus
)
the
dispute
was
about
the
true
sense
of
Scripture
which
both
pleaded
for
themselves
.
Paulus
insists
on
those
places
,
which
speak
of
the
humane
infirmities
of
Christ
,
which
he
saith
prove
that
he
was
meer
Man
and
not
God
;
the
other
answers
that
these
things
were
not
inconsistent
with
the
Being
of
the
Divine
nature
,
since
expressions
implying
humane
passions
are
attributed
to
God
in
Scripture
:
But
he
proves
from
multitude
of
Scriptures
,
and
reasons
drawn
from
them
that
the
divine
nature
is
attributed
to
Christ
,
and
therefore
the
other
places
which
seem
repugnant
to
it
,
are
to
be
interpreted
in
a
sense
agreeable
thereto
.
The
same
course
is
likewise
taken
by
Epiphanius
against
this
heresie
:
who
saith
the
Christians
way
of
answering
difficulties
was
not
from
their
own
reasons
,
but
from
the
scope
and
consequence
of
Scripture
:
and
particularly
adds
that
the
Doctrine
of
the
Trinity
was
carefully
delivered
in
the
Scriptures
,
because
God
foresaw
the
many
heresies
which
would
arise
about
it
.
But
never
any
Controve●sie
about
the
sense
of
Scripture
disturbed
the
Church
more
,
than
that
which
the
Arians
raised
;
and
if
ever
any
had
reason
to
think
of
some
certain
and
infallible
way
of
finding
out
the
sense
of
Scripture
the
Catholick
Christians
of
that
Age
had
.
I
shall
therefore
give
an
account
of
what
way
the
best
Writers
of
the
Church
in
that
time
took
to
find
out
the
sense
of
Scripture
in
the
Controverted
places
.
Of
all
the
Writers
against
them
Athanasius
hath
justly
the
greatest
esteem
,
and
Petavius
saith
that
God
inspired
him
with
greater
skill
in
this
Controversie
,
than
any
others
before
him
.
The
principle
he
goes
upon
in
all
his
disputes
against
the
Arians
,
is
this
,
that
our
true
faith
is
built
upon
the
Scriptures
,
so
in
several
places
of
his
conference
with
the
Arian
and
in
the
beginning
of
his
Epistle
to
Iovianus
and
elsewhere
.
Therefore
in
the
entrance
of
his
Disputations
against
the
Arians
,
he
adviseth
all
that
would
secure
themselves
from
the
impostures
of
Hereticks
,
to
study
the
Scriptures
;
because
those
who
are
versed
therein
stand
firm
against
all
their
assaults
;
but
they
who
look
only
at
the
words
,
without
understanding
the
meaning
of
them
are
easily
seduced
by
them
.
And
this
Counsel
he
gives
,
after
the
Council
of
Nice
,
had
decreed
the
Arian
Doctrine
to
be
Heresie
;
and
although
he
saith
,
other
ways
may
be
used
to
confute
it
,
yet
because
the
Holy
Scripture
is
more
sufficient
than
all
of
them
,
therefore
those
who
would
be
better
instructed
in
these
things
,
I
would
advise
them
to
be
conversant
in
the
divine
Oracles
.
But
did
not
the
Arians
plead
Scripture
as
well
as
they
?
how
then
could
the
Scripture
end
this
Controversie
,
which
did
arise
about
the
sense
of
Scripture
?
This
objection
,
which
is
now
made
so
much
of
against
the
Scriptures
,
was
never
so
much
as
thought
of
in
those
days
;
or
if
it
were
,
was
not
thought
worth
answering
;
for
they
di●
not
in
the
least
desert
the
proofs
of
Scripture
,
because
their
Adversaries
made
use
of
it
too
.
But
they
endeavou●ed
to
shew
that
their
Adversaries
Doctrine
had
no
solid
Foundation
in
Scripture
,
but
theirs
had
i.e.
that
the
Arians
perverted
it
,
because
they
did
not
examine
and
compare
places
as
they
ought
to
do
,
but
run
away
with
a
few
words
without
considering
the
scope
and
design
of
them
;
or
comparing
them
with
places
plainer
than
those
were
which
they
brought
.
Thus
when
the
Arians
objected
that
place
My
Father
is
greater
than
I
,
Athanasius
bids
them
compare
that
with
other
places
,
such
as
My
Father
and
I
are
one
,
and
who
being
in
the
form
of
God
thought
it
no
robbery
to
be
equ●●
with
God
;
and
by
him
all
things
were
made
&c.
When
Arius
objected
,
to
us
there
is
but
one
God
of
whom
are
all
things
,
he
tel●s
him
,
he
ought
to
consider
the
following
words
,
and
one
Lord
Iesus
Christ
by
whom
are
all
things
;
from
whence
when
Arius
argued
that
Christ
was
only
Gods
instrument
in
creating
things
,
Athanasius
then
bids
him
compare
this
place
with
another
,
where
it
is
said
of
whom
the
whole
body
,
&c.
Not
barely
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
but
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
When
the
Arians
objected
,
Christs
saying
,
all
things
are
delivered
to
me
from
my
Father
,
Athanasius
opposes
that
place
of
St.
Iohn
to
it
,
By
him
all
things
were
made
;
Thus
when
they
objected
several
other
places
,
he
constantly
hath
recourse
to
Iohn
1.
1
,
2
,
3.
to
Phil.
2.
7.
1
Iohn
5.
20.
and
others
which
he
thought
the
plainest
places
for
Christs
eternal
Divinity
;
and
by
these
he
proves
that
the
other
were
to
be
interpreted
,
with
a
respect
to
his
humane
nature
,
and
the
State
he
was
in
upon
Earth
.
So
that
the
greatest
Defender
of
the
Doctrine
of
the
Trinity
against
the
Arians
saw
no
necessity
at
all
of
calling
in
the
Assistance
of
any
infal●ible
Guides
,
to
give
the
certain
sense
of
Scripture
in
these
doubtful
places
;
but
he
thought
the
Scripture
plain
enough
to
all
those
who
would
impartially
examine
it
;
and
for
others
who
wilfully
shut
their
eyes
,
no
light
could
be
great
enough
for
them
.
Indeed
,
when
the
Arians
called
in
the
help
of
any
of
the
Ancient
Writers
to
justify
their
Doctrine
,
then
Athanasius
thought
himself
concerne●
to
vind●cate
them
;
as
particularly
Dionysius
of
Alexandria
.
But
,
as
he
saith
,
if
they
can
produce
Scripture
or
Reason
for
what
they
say
let
them
do
it
,
but
if
not
,
let
them
hold
their
peace
:
Thereby
implying
that
these
were
the
only
considerable
things
to
be
regarded
:
yet
he
shews
at
large
that
they
abused
the
Testimony
of
Dionysius
,
who
although
in
his
letters
against
Sabellius
he
spake
too
much
the
other
way
,
yet
in
other
of
his
writings
he
sufficiently
cleared
himself
from
being
a
savou●er
of
the
Arian
Heresie
.
And
although
Athanasius
doth
else
where
say
,
that
the
Faith
which
the
Catholick
Church
then
held
was
the
faith
of
their
Fore-fathers
,
and
descended
from
the
Apostles
;
yet
,
he
no
where
saith
,
that
without
the
help
of
that
Tradition
it
had
been
impossible
to
have
known
the
certain
sense
of
Scripture
,
much
less
without
the
infallible
interpretation
of
the
Guides
of
the
present
Church
.
S.
Hilary
in
his
disputes
against
the
same
Hereticks
,
professes
in
the
beginning
that
his
intention
was
to
confound
their
rage
and
ignorance
out
of
writings
of
the
Prophets
and
Apostles
:
and
to
that
end
desires
of
his
Readers
that
they
would
conceive
of
God
not
according
to
the
Laws
of
their
own
beings
,
but
according
to
the
greatness
of
what
he
had
declared
of
himself
.
For
he
is
the
best
Reader
of
Scripture
,
who
doth
not
bring
his
sense
to
the
Scripture
,
but
takes
it
from
it
,
and
doth
not
resolve
before
hand
to
find
that
there
,
which
he
concluded
must
be
the
sence
before
he
reads
.
In
things
therefore
which
concern
God
,
we
must
allow
him
to
know
himself
best
,
and
give
due
Reverence
to
his
word
.
For
he
is
the
best
witness
to
himself
who
cannot
be
known
but
by
himself
.
In
which
words
he
plainly
asserts
that
the
Foundation
of
our
Faith
must
be
in
the
Scriptures
,
and
that
a
free
and
impartial
mind
is
necessary
to
find
out
the
true
sense
of
Scripture
.
And
after
he
had
said
in
the
second
Book
,
that
Heresies
arise
from
misunderstanding
the
Scripture
,
and
charged
in
his
fourth
Book
the
Arians
particularly
with
it
,
he
proceeds
to
answer
all
the
places
produced
by
them
out
of
the
old
and
new
Testament
,
by
comparing
several
places
together
,
and
the
antecedents
and
consequents
,
and
by
these
means
proving
that
they
mistook
the
meaning
of
Scripture
.
So
in
the
beginning
of
his
ninth
Book
rehearsing
the
Common
places
,
which
were
made
use
of
by
the
Arians
,
he
saith
,
they
repeated
the
words
alone
,
without
enquiring
into
the
meaning
,
or
Contexture
of
them
;
whereas
the
true
sense
of
Scripture
is
to
be
taken
from
the
antecedents
and
consequents
:
their
fundamental
mistake
being
the
applying
those
things
to
his
Divine
nature
,
which
were
spoken
of
his
humane
:
which
he
makes
good
by
a
particular
examination
of
the
several
places
in
Controversie
.
The
same
course
is
taken
by
Epiphanius
,
Phaebadius
and
others
of
the
ancient
Writers
of
the
Church
,
who
asserted
the
Eternal
Divinity
of
Christ
against
the
Arians
.
Epiphanius
therefore
charges
them
which
mangling
and
perverting
the
sense
of
Scripture
;
understanding
figurative
expressions
liter●●ly
,
and
those
which
are
intended
in
a
plain
sense
figuratively
.
So
that
it
is
observable
in
that
great
Controversie
which
disturbed
the
Church
so
many
years
,
which
exercised
the
wits
of
all
men
in
that
time
to
find
out
a
way
to
put
an
end
to
it
,
after
the
Guides
of
the
Church
had
in
the
Council
of
Nice
declared
what
was
the
Catholick
faith
:
yet
still
the
Controversie
was
managed
about
the
sense
of
Scripture
,
and
no
other
ways
made
use
of
for
finding
it
,
than
such
as
we
plead
for
at
this
day
.
It
is
a
most
incredible
thing
,
that
in
a
time
of
so
violent
contention
,
so
horrible
confusion
,
so
scandalous
divisions
in
the
Christian
Church
,
none
of
the
Catholick
Bishops
should
once
suggest
this
admirable
Expedient
of
Infallibility
.
But
this
Palladium
was
not
then
fallen
down
from
heaven
,
or
if
it
were
,
it
was
kept
so
secret
,
that
not
one
of
the
Writers
of
the
Christian
Church
in
that
busie
and
disputing
Age
discovered
the
least
knowledge
of
it
.
Unless
it
be
said
that
of
all
times
it
was
then
least
fit
to
talk
of
Infallibility
in
the
Guides
of
the
Church
,
when
they
so
frequently
in
Councils
contr●dicted
each
other
.
The
Synodical
Book
in
the
new
Tomes
of
the
Councils
,
reckons
up
31.
several
Councils
of
Bishops
in
the
time
of
the
Arian
Controversie
,
whereof
near
20.
were
for
the
Arians
,
and
the
rest
against
them
.
If
the
sense
of
Scripture
were
in
this
time
to
be
taken
from
the
Guides
of
the
Church
,
what
security
could
any
man
have
against
Arianism
?
since
the
Councils
which
favoured
it
,
were
more
numerous
than
those
which
opposed
and
condemned
it
.
Yea
so
mean
was
the
opinion
which
some
of
the
greatest
persons
of
the
Church
at
that
time
had
of
the
Guides
of
the
Church
met
together
in
Councils
,
that
St.
Gregory
Nazianzen
declares
he
had
not
seen
a
good
issue
of
any
of
them
;
but
they
rather
increased
mischief
than
removed
any
;
because
of
the
contention
and
ambition
which
ruled
in
them
,
therefore
he
resolved
to
come
no
more
at
any
of
them
.
What
?
had
St.
Gregory
so
mean
an
esteem
of
the
Guides
of
the
Christian
Church
to
think
that
,
ambition
and
contention
should
sway
them
in
their
Councils
and
not
the
spirit
of
God
,
which
certainly
rules
not
where
the
other
do
?
Yet
this
de
declares
to
be
his
mind
upon
consideration
and
experience
in
that
time
,
and
if
he
had
lived
to
those
blessed
days
of
the
Councils
of
latter
Ages
,
with
what
zeal
and
Rhetorick
would
he
have
set
them
forth
?
Never
was
any
answer
more
jejune
to
this
Testimony
than
that
of
Bellarmin
,
viz.
that
forsooth
there
could
be
no
lawful
Councils
called
in
his
time
;
and
why
so
I
pray
?
was
there
not
a
good
Authority
to
call
them
?
But
if
that
had
been
the
reason
,
he
did
not
so
little
understand
the
way
of
expressing
himself
,
to
assign
the
cause
of
it
to
contention
and
ambition
,
if
he
mean
quite
another
thing
which
he
doth
not
in
the
least
intimate
.
And
what
if
he
were
afterwards
present
at
the
Council
of
Constantinople
?
doth
that
shew
,
that
his
mind
was
in
the
least
changed
?
but
in
this
Epistle
he
declares
,
how
little
good
was
to
be
exspected
from
a
Council
,
and
yet
afterwards
by
the
Emperours
command
he
might
be
present
at
one
.
St.
Augustin
in
dealing
with
Maximinus
the
Arian
expresly
sets
aside
all
Authority
of
the
Guides
of
the
Church
,
as
to
the
sense
of
Scripture
in
the
places
controverted
between
them
;
for
he
saith
,
I
will
neither
bring
the
Authority
of
the
Council
of
Nice
,
neither
shall
you
that
of
Ariminum
;
but
we
will
proceed
by
Authorities
of
Scripture
that
are
common
to
both
of
us
,
and
by
the
clearest
Evidence
of
reason
.
It
seems
then
St.
Augustin
was
far
from
thinking
that
there
could
be
no
certainty
of
the
sense
of
Scripture
if
the
Authority
of
the
Guides
of
the
Church
be
set
aside
.
But
by
what
means
doth
he
then
think
,
that
men
may
come
to
any
certainty
about
the
true
meaning
of
Scripture
?
of
that
he
is
best
able
to
give
us
an
account
himself
having
written
purposely
in
this
subject
in
his
Books
of
Christian
Doctrine
the
substance
of
what
he
there
says
may
be
comprehended
in
these
Rules
.
1.
That
the
main
scope
of
the
Scripture
is
to
perswade
men
to
the
Love
of
God
and
our
Neighbour
,
without
which
,
he
saith
,
no
man
doth
truly
understand
it
;
but
whosoever
interprets
Scripture
to
the
advancing
of
that
,
though
he
may
be
mistaken
as
to
the
sense
of
the
words
,
yet
his
errour
is
not
dangerous
.
2.
That
in
order
to
the
right
understanding
of
Scripture
men
must
apply
themselves
to
it
with
minds
duly
prepared
for
it
;
by
a
fear
of
God
,
humility
,
prayer
,
sincerity
,
and
purity
of
heart
.
3.
That
all
those
things
which
are
necessary
to
Salvation
are
plainly
laid
down
in
Holy
Scriptures
;
This
is
in
terms
asserted
by
him
,
as
a
fundamental
principle
,
that
in
those
things
which
are
plainly
set
down
in
Scripture
,
all
things
are
to
be
found
which
contain
our
faith
and
rule
of
life
.
i.e.
All
things
which
are
necessary
to
the
Love
of
God
and
our
Neighbour
,
and
consequently
to
the
making
us
happy
.
And
these
things
men
ought
especially
to
read
the
Scriptures
for
;
and
the
more
they
find
of
them
,
the
larger
their
understanding
of
Scripture
is
.
4.
That
the
obscure
places
of
Scripture
are
to
be
understood
by
the
plain
.
For
which
end
he
requires
frequent
reading
,
and
using
ones
self
to
the
language
of
Scriptures
,
and
drawing
examples
from
plain
places
to
illustrate
difficult
,
and
those
which
are
certain
to
clear
the
doubtful
.
For
,
scarce
any
thing
,
saith
he
,
is
drawn
out
of
the
most
difficult
places
,
but
what
is
very
plainly
set
down
elsewhere
.
5.
That
in
regard
of
the
infinite
variety
of
Latin
Interpreters
(
which
it
seems
were
in
his
time
)
in
matters
of
doubt
it
was
necessary
to
have
recourse
to
the
Original
Hebrew
and
Greek
:
the
knowledge
of
which
tongues
might
therefore
be
necessary
to
the
knowledge
of
Scripture
,
because
several
words
are
preserved
untranslated
;
but
those
being
few
the
necessity
is
not
so
great
on
their
account
,
as
the
diversity
of
Interpreters
;
for
although
those
who
had
translated
the
Hebrew
into
Greek
might
be
reckoned
up
,
the
Latin
Interpreters
could
not
.
Which
diversity
of
translations
doth
rather
help
than
hinder
the
understanding
of
Scripture
,
if
the
Readers
of
it
be
not
negligent
;
for
some
doubtful
places
are
cleared
by
the
difference
of
readings
.
6.
Where
the
ambiguity
lyes
in
proper
words
,
the
clearing
of
it
depends
on
the
circumstances
of
the
place
;
in
so
much
that
he
determines
,
that
it
is
a
very
rare
and
difficult
thing
to
find
such
an
ambiguity
in
the
words
of
Scripture
,
which
may
not
be
cleared
from
the
intention
of
the
Writer
,
or
comparing
places
,
or
searching
the
Original
Language
.
7.
Men
must
carefully
distinguish
between
proper
and
figurative
expressions
;
for
to
understand
figurative
expressions
literally
is
to
subject
our
understanding
to
carnal
conceptions
of
things
;
and
that
is
,
saith
he
,
a
miserable
slavery
of
mind
,
to
take
signs
for
things
;
such
signs
he
tells
us
under
the
Gospel
are
the
two
Sacraments
of
Baptism
and
the
Lords
supper
.
The
great
difficulty
herein
,
lyes
in
the
finding
out
the
difference
between
proper
and
figurative
expressions
,
for
which
he
lays
down
this
rule
,
if
the
words
of
Scripture
command
what
is
good
and
forbid
what
is
evil
,
it
is
no
figurative
expression
;
but
if
it
forbids
what
is
good
,
or
command
any
thing
that
is
evil
,
it
must
be
figuratively
understood
.
For
which
he
instances
in
those
words
of
our
Saviour
unless
ye
eat
the
flesh
,
and
drink
the
blood
of
the
Son
of
man
ye
shall
have
no
life
in
you
.
Which
seeming
to
command
something
evil
,
must
be
figuratively
understood
of
Communicating
in
the
Passion
of
Christ
,
and
calling
to
mind
that
his
flesh
was
crucified
and
wounded
for
us
.
8.
There
is
no
danger
in
different
senses
being
given
of
the
same
place
of
Scripture
,
if
every
one
of
those
senses
appear
by
other
places
to
be
agreeable
to
Truth
:
This
being
supposed
that
the
person
do
sincerely
enquire
after
the
sense
of
the
Author
;
For
,
saith
he
,
that
Divine
Spirit
might
easily
foresee
how
many
several
senses
those
words
are
capable
of
,
which
being
agreeable
to
other
parts
of
Scripture
,
though
not
the
particular
meaning
of
those
words
,
the
mistake
cannot
be
dangerous
therein
.
9.
Where
such
a
sense
is
given
which
cannot
be
proved
by
other
certain
Testimonies
of
Scripture
,
it
must
be
made
manifest
to
be
the
sense
by
clear
Evidence
of
Reason
.
But
he
rather
approves
the
way
of
proving
the
sense
of
Scripture
by
other
places
of
Scripture
,
where
the
interpretation
is
doubtful
.
So
that
the
way
in
doubtful
places
which
he
prescribes
is
this
,
either
to
draw
such
a
sense
from
them
as
hath
no
dispute
concerning
its
being
a
true
Proposition
,
or
if
it
have
,
that
it
be
confirmed
by
other
places
of
Scripture
.
Besides
these
,
he
lays
down
the
7.
rules
of
Ticonius
the
Donatist
which
are
not
of
that
consequence
to
be
here
repeated
;
that
which
I
take
notice
of
is
,
that
St.
Augustin
thought
the
rules
he
gave
sufficient
for
understanding
the
meaning
of
Scripture
in
doubtful
places
;
but
he
doth
not
in
the
least
mention
the
Infallibility
of
the
Guides
of
the
Church
as
a
necessary
means
for
that
end
.
But
he
doth
assert
in
as
plain
terms
,
as
I
have
done
,
that
Scripture
is
plain
in
all
necessaries
to
Salvation
to
any
sober
enquirer
,
and
what
ever
consequences
are
charged
upon
me
for
making
that
a
Fundamental
principle
,
must
reflect
as
much
upon
St.
Augustin
as
me
;
and
I
do
not
fear
all
the
objections
can
be
made
against
a
principle
so
evident
to
reason
,
and
so
agreeable
not
only
to
St.
Augustin
,
but
the
Doctrine
of
the
Catholick
Church
both
before
and
after
him
.
The
next
after
St.
Augustin
who
hath
purposely
writ
of
this
argument
about
the
sense
of
Scripture
is
Vincentius
Lerinensis
:
about
4.
years
after
St.
Augustins
death
and
3.
after
the
Council
of
Ephesus
,
who
seems
to
attribute
more
to
the
Guides
of
the
Church
than
St.
Augustin
doth
,
yet
far
enough
short
of
Infallibility
.
He
saith
,
that
every
man
ought
to
strengthen
his
faith
against
Heresie
by
two
things
,
first
by
the
Authoriry
of
the
divine
Law
,
and
then
by
the
Tradition
of
the
Catholick
Church
:
which
tradition
he
makes
necessary
,
not
by
way
of
addition
to
the
Scripture
,
for
he
allows
the
perfection
and
sufficiency
of
that
for
all
things
;
but
only
to
interpret
Scripture
by
giving
a
certain
sense
of
it
,
there
being
such
different
opinions
among
men
about
it
.
For
all
the
Hereticks
whom
he
there
names
had
different
senses
of
Scripture
,
as
Novatianus
,
Sabellius
,
Donatus
,
Arius
,
Macedonius
,
Photinus
,
&c.
But
then
he
bounds
this
tradition
within
the
compass
of
the
universal
consent
of
Antiquity
as
well
as
the
present
Church
;
or
as
he
expresseth
it
,
within
those
things
which
were
believed
every
where
,
always
,
and
by
all
persons
.
That
we
may
therefore
consider
how
far
these
rules
of
Vincentius
will
serve
for
explaining
the
sense
of
Scripture
,
we
are
to
take
notice
of
the
restrictions
he
lays
upon
them
1.
That
they
are
to
be
taken
together
,
and
not
one
of
them
separate
from
the
rest
.
As
for
instance
,
that
of
Vniversality
in
any
one
Age
of
the
Church
,
being
taken
without
the
consent
of
Antiquity
,
is
no
sufficient
rule
,
to
interpret
Scripture
by
.
For
Vincentius
doth
suppose
that
any
one
Age
of
the
Church
may
be
so
overrun
with
Heresie
,
that
there
is
no
way
to
confute
it
,
but
by
recourse
to
Antiquity
.
For
in
the
case
of
the
Arian
heresie
,
he
grants
that
almost
the
whole
Church
was
overspread
with
it
,
and
there
was
then
no
way
left
but
to
prefer
the
consent
of
Antiquity
before
a
prevailing
novelty
.
In
some
cases
the
Universal
consent
of
the
present
Church
is
to
be
relyed
upon
against
the
attempts
of
particular
persons
,
as
in
that
of
the
Donatists
;
but
then
we
are
to
consider
,
that
Antiquity
was
still
pleaded
on
the
same
side
that
Vniversality
was
,
and
supposing
that
all
the
Ancient
Church
from
the
Apostles
times
had
been
of
the
same
mind
with
the
Donatists
,
the
greater
number
of
the
same
Age
opposing
them
,
would
have
been
no
more
cogent
against
them
,
than
it
was
afterwards
for
the
Arians
.
It
is
unreasonable
to
believe
that
in
a
thing
universally
believed
by
all
Christians
from
the
Apostles
times
the
Christian
Church
should
be
deceived
;
but
it
is
quite
another
thing
to
say
,
that
the
Church
in
any
one
or
more
Ages
since
the
Apostles
times
may
be
deceived
;
especially
if
the
Church
be
confined
to
one
certain
Communion
excluding
all
others
,
and
the
persons
in
that
Church
have
not
liberty
to
deliver
their
opinions
,
for
then
it
is
impossible
to
know
what
the
Judgement
of
the
whole
Church
is
.
And
so
universality
is
not
thought
by
Vincentius
himself
to
be
alone
sufficient
to
determine
the
sense
of
Scripture
;
supposing
that
universality
to
be
understood
according
to
the
honesty
of
the
Primitive
times
for
a
free
and
general
consent
of
the
Christians
of
that
Age
in
which
a
man
lives
;
but
since
the
great
divisions
of
the
Christian
world
,
it
is
both
a
very
hard
matter
to
know
the
consent
of
Christendom
in
most
of
the
Controverted
places
of
Scripture
,
and
withal
the
notion
of
Vniversality
is
debauched
and
corrupted
,
and
made
only
to
signifie
the
consent
of
one
great
Faction
,
which
is
called
by
the
name
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
but
truly
known
by
the
name
of
Roman
.
2.
That
great
care
and
Judgement
must
be
used
in
the
applying
those
Rules
;
for
1.
The
consent
of
Antiquity
is
not
equally
evident
in
all
matters
in
dispute
,
and
therefore
cannot
be
of
equal
use
.
1.
There
are
some
things
wherein
we
may
be
certain
of
such
a
consent
,
and
that
was
in
the
Rule
of
Faith
,
as
Vincentius
and
most
of
the
ancient
Writers
call
it
i.e.
the
summary
comprehension
of
a
Christians
duty
as
to
matters
of
faith
,
which
was
not
so
often
called
the
Symbol
as
the
Rule
of
Faith
,
that
I
mean
which
was
delivered
to
persons
,
who
were
to
be
baptized
and
received
into
the
Church
,
this
the
ancient
Church
Universally
agreed
in
as
to
the
substance
of
it
.
And
as
to
this
Vincentius
tells
us
his
Rule
is
especially
to
be
understood
.
For
saith
he
,
this
consent
of
Antiquity
is
not
to
be
sought
for
in
all
questions
that
may
arise
about
the
sense
of
Scripture
,
but
only
or
at
least
chiefly
in
the
Rule
of
Faith
:
or
as
he
elsewhere
explains
himself
,
alone
or
chiefly
in
those
Questions
which
concern
the
Fundamentals
of
the
Catholick
Doctrine
:
which
were
those
contained
in
the
Rule
of
Faith
,
delivered
to
all
that
were
to
be
baptized
.
Suppose
men
now
should
stretch
this
Rule
beyond
the
limits
assigned
it
by
Vincentius
,
what
security
can
there
be
from
him
that
it
shall
be
a
certain
rule
,
who
confined
it
within
such
narrow
bounds
?
Not
that
I
think
,
his
Rules
of
no
use
at
all
now
;
no
,
I
think
them
to
be
of
admirable
use
and
great
importance
to
Christianity
,
if
truly
understood
and
applyed
.
i.e.
When
any
Persons
take
upon
them
to
impose
any
thing
upon
others
as
a
necessary
matter
of
faith
to
be
believed
by
them
,
we
can
have
no
better
rules
of
Judgement
in
this
case
than
those
of
Vincentius
are
,
viz.
Antiquity
,
Vniversality
and
Consent
;
and
whatsoever
cannot
be
proved
by
these
Rules
ought
to
be
rejected
by
all
Christians
.
To
make
this
plain
,
the
Ancient
Creeds
we
allow
on
both
sides
to
have
been
universally
received
by
the
Catholick
Church
;
but
now
the
Church
of
Rome
adds
new
Articles
to
be
believed
,
we
desire
to
put
the
whole
matter
upon
this
issue
:
Let
the
Popes
Supremacy
,
the
Roman
Churches
Infallibility
,
the
Doctrines
of
Transubstantiation
,
Purgatory
,
&c.
be
proved
by
as
Universal
Consent
of
Antiquity
as
the
Articles
of
the
Creed
are
,
and
then
let
them
charge
us
with
Heresie
if
we
reject
them
.
But
we
say
the
measure
of
Heresie
in
the
Ancient
Church
was
the
rejecting
the
Rule
of
Faith
universally
received
among
Christians
,
this
Rule
of
Faith
,
we
stand
to
,
and
say
no
other
can
be
made
upon
any
pretence
whatsoever
,
as
Vincentius
at
large
proves
;
but
what
ever
things
are
obtruded
on
the
belief
of
Christians
,
which
want
that
Vniversal
consent
of
Antiquity
,
which
the
Rule
of
Faith
had
,
we
are
bound
by
Vincentius
,
from
plain
Scripture
,
to
shun
them
as
prophane
novelties
and
corruptions
of
the
Christian
Faith.
These
Rules
therefore
are
not
barely
allowed
,
but
pleaded
for
by
us
,
in
the
test
of
Articles
of
Faith
,
as
to
which
Vincentius
tells
us
,
if
not
the
only
,
yet
the
chief
use
of
them
is
.
2.
But
suppose
the
Question
be
not
,
concerning
the
express
Articles
of
this
Rule
of
Faith
,
but
concerning
the
sense
and
meaning
of
them
,
how
then
are
we
to
find
out
the
consent
of
Antiquity
?
For
they
might
all
agree
in
the
words
and
yet
have
a
different
notion
of
the
things
.
As
Petavius
at
large
proves
,
that
there
was
an
ancient
Tradition
for
the
substance
of
the
Doctrine
of
the
Trinity
,
and
yet
he
confesses
that
most
of
the
Writers
of
the
ancient
Church
did
differ
in
their
explication
of
it
from
that
,
which
was
only
allowed
by
the
Council
of
Nice
:
And
he
grants
,
that
Arius
did
follow
the
opinion
of
many
of
the
Ancients
in
the
main
of
his
Doctrine
,
who
were
guilty
of
the
same
error
that
he
was
before
the
matter
was
throughly
discussed
.
Here
now
arises
the
greatest
difficulty
to
me
in
this
point
of
Tradition
;
the
usefulness
of
it
,
I
am
told
,
is
for
explaining
the
sense
of
Scripture
:
but
there
begins
a
great
Controversie
in
the
Church
about
the
explication
of
the
Doctrine
of
the
Trinity
,
I
desire
to
know
whether
Vincentius
his
Rules
will
help
us
here
?
It
is
pleaded
by
St.
Hierome
and
others
,
that
the
Writers
of
the
Church
might
err
in
this
matter
,
or
speak
unwarily
in
it
before
the
matter
came
to
be
throughly
discussed
;
if
so
,
how
comes
the
Testimony
of
erroneous
or
unwary
Writers
to
be
the
certain
means
of
giving
the
sense
of
Scripture
?
And
in
most
of
the
Controversies
of
the
Church
this
way
hath
been
used
to
take
off
the
Testimony
of
persons
,
who
writ
before
the
Controversie
began
,
and
spake
differently
of
the
matter
in
debate
.
I
do
not
deny
the
truth
of
the
allegation
in
behalf
of
those
persons
;
but
to
my
understanding
it
plainly
shews
the
incompetency
of
Tradition
for
giving
a
certain
sense
of
Scripture
,
when
that
Tradition
is
to
be
taken
from
the
Writers
of
the
foregoing
Ages
:
and
if
this
had
been
the
only
way
of
confuting
Arius
,
it
is
a
great
Question
how
he
could
ever
have
been
condemned
,
if
Petavius
or
St.
Hierome
say
true
?
But
since
a
General
Council
hath
determined
the
contrary
to
the
opinion
of
these
Writers
before
,
which
Council
hath
been
received
by
the
Universal
Church
,
I
will
not
deny
that
they
had
better
opportunities
of
knowing
what
the
sense
of
the
Ancient
Church
was
,
when
so
many
writings
were
extant
which
are
now
lost
,
than
we
can
have
at
this
distance
;
and
therefore
we
yield
all
submission
to
a
Council
of
that
nature
and
proceeding
in
that
manner
which
that
of
Nice
did
;
who
did
not
meerly
determine
that
Controversie
by
the
number
of
Writers
on
their
side
before
them
,
but
by
comparing
the
opinions
afterwards
with
the
Rule
of
Scriptures
;
and
in
this
regard
we
acknowledge
a
great
Reverence
due
to
the
decrees
of
such
General
Councils
as
that
was
.
Therefore
next
to
the
Rule
of
Faith
we
allow
a
great
veneration
to
the
determinations
of
lawful
General
Councils
Universally
received
;
which
Vincentius
himself
pleads
for
:
But
supposing
no
general
Councils
or
such
which
are
not
allowed
,
or
received
for
such
;
we
are
yet
to
enquire
into
the
ways
of
finding
out
Catholick
tradition
,
which
may
interpret
Scripture
.
For
this
end
he
proposes
another
means
which
is
,
The
gathering
together
the
opinions
of
those
Fathers
alone
;
who
living
holily
,
wisely
and
constantly
in
the
faith
and
communion
of
the
Catholick
Church
have
died
in
that
faith
,
or
else
for
it
.
But
still
with
this
reserve
,
that
what
either
all
or
many
of
them
manifestly
,
frequently
and
constantly
,
as
it
were
by
a
Council
of
them
,
have
confirmed
by
their
receiving
,
holding
,
and
delivering
of
it
,
that
ought
to
be
held
for
undoubted
,
certain
and
firm
;
but
whatsoever
any
one
though
holy
and
learned
,
though
a
Bishop
,
confessour
or
Martyr
,
hath
held
against
the
opinion
of
others
that
ought
not
to
be
looked
on
as
the
judgement
of
the
Church
,
but
as
his
own
private
opinion
,
and
therefore
not
to
be
followed
.
Which
words
I
shall
not
examine
with
all
the
severity
that
some
have
done
,
for
then
the
proving
these
conditions
to
have
been
observed
by
any
one
person
would
require
more
pains
,
and
be
less
capable
of
resolution
than
the
matter
it self
is
;
but
I
say
,
that
in
most
of
the
Controversies
this
day
in
the
Christian
world
,
it
may
be
much
more
satisfactory
to
examine
the
merits
of
the
cause
than
the
integrity
of
the
witnesses
,
these
conditions
being
supposed
.
And
yet
after
all
this
,
we
must
not
misunderstand
him
,
as
though
this
way
would
serve
to
confute
all
heresies
;
For
he
tells
us
yet
farther
.
2.
This
course
can
only
hold
in
some
new
and
upstart
heresies
i.e.
in
case
of
the
pretence
of
some
new
revelation
when
men
pretend
to
some
special
grace
without
humane
industry
to
discover
some
divine
truth
,
not
known
before
;
but
in
case
of
ancient
and
inveterate
heresies
;
he
saith
we
have
no
way
to
deal
with
them
,
but
either
only
by
Scripture
,
or
else
by
plain
decrees
of
General
Councils
,
for
when
heresies
have
been
of
long
continuance
,
then
,
saith
he
,
we
may
have
ground
to
suspect
they
have
not
dealt
fairly
with
the
Testimonies
of
ancient
times
.
And
thus
we
see
what
Vincentius
hath
offered
towards
the
resolution
of
this
great
Question
,
how
we
may
be
sure
of
the
certain
sense
of
Scripture
in
controverted
places
;
wherein
is
nothing
contained
but
what
we
are
willing
to
stand
to
;
and
very
far
from
the
least
supposition
of
any
infallibility
in
the
present
Guides
of
the
Church
for
that
end
.
Thus
far
I
have
taken
the
pains
to
search
into
the
opinion
of
the
Primitive
Church
in
this
important
Controversie
;
which
I
might
carry
yet
farther
,
if
it
were
at
all
needful
.
The
substance
of
what
is
delivered
by
them
is
this
,
that
if
any
Controversie
arise
in
the
Church
concerning
the
sense
of
Scripture
,
if
the
Persons
do
not
allow
the
Scripture
,
then
we
are
to
proceed
by
the
best
means
we
can
have
without
it
,
viz.
The
tradition
of
Apostolical
Churches
from
the
beginning
;
if
they
do
allow
the
Scripture
then
we
are
to
examine
and
compare
places
of
Scripture
with
all
the
care
and
judgement
that
may
be
.
If
after
all
this
,
the
dispute
still
continues
,
then
if
it
be
against
the
ancient
Rule
of
Faith
universally
received
,
that
is
a
sufficient
prescription
against
any
opinion
;
if
not
against
the
Rule
of
Faith
in
express
words
,
but
about
the
sense
of
it
,
then
if
ancient
General
Councils
have
determined
it
which
had
greater
opportunities
of
knowing
the
sense
of
the
Apostolical
Church
than
we
,
it
is
reasonable
we
should
yield
to
them
;
but
if
there
have
been
none
such
,
then
the
unanimous
consent
of
Fathers
is
to
be
taken
,
so
it
be
in
some
late
and
upstart
heresies
,
which
men
pretend
to
have
by
Revelation
or
some
special
Grace
of
God.
Now
either
all
these
means
were
sufficient
or
not
to
find
out
the
sense
of
Scripture
,
if
not
,
then
the
ancient
Church
was
wholly
defective
and
wanted
any
certain
way
of
finding
out
the
sense
of
Scripture
;
if
these
were
sufficient
,
then
there
is
no
necessity
of
infallibility
in
the
Guides
of
the
Church
to
give
us
a
certain
sense
of
Scripture
:
which
was
the
thing
to
be
proved
.
But
N.
O.
towards
the
conclusion
of
his
Book
produces
St.
Augustin
for
the
Churches
Infallibility
,
in
delivering
the
sense
of
Scripture
in
obscure
places
;
which
being
contrary
to
what
I
have
already
said
concerning
him
,
must
be
examined
before
I
conclude
this
discourse
about
the
sense
of
Scripture
.
The
place
is
out
of
his
Answer
to
Cresconius
concerning
the
obscure
point
of
Rebaptization
;
in
these
words
,
since
the
holy
Scripture
cannot
deceive
,
let
whosoever
is
in
fear
of
being
deceived
by
the
obscurity
of
this
Question
,
consult
the
same
Church
about
it
,
which
Church
the
holy
Scripture
doth
without
all
ambiguity
demonstrate
.
And
before
,
the
truth
of
the
Holy
Scriptures
is
held
by
us
in
this
matter
,
when
we
do
that
which
hath
pleased
the
Vniversal
Church
,
which
the
Authority
of
the
Scripture
does
commend
,
&c.
All
which
is
false
and
said
to
no
purpose
saith
N.
O.
if
the
Scripture
be
not
clear
in
this
,
that
this
Church
can
determine
nothing
in
such
important
contests
contrary
to
the
verity
of
the
Scriptures
,
and
that
we
ought
to
give
credit
to
what
she
decides
;
for
then
it
would
not
be
true
,
what
he
says
the
truth
of
the
same
Scripture
in
this
matter
is
held
by
us
:
and
he
who
is
in
fear
of
being
deceived
by
the
obscurity
of
this
Question
,
is
no
way
relieved
in
following
the
sentence
of
the
Churth
.
To
which
I
answer
,
That
St.
Augustin
doth
not
suppose
,
that
men
cannot
attain
to
any
certainty
of
the
the
sense
of
Scripture
in
this
matter
without
the
Churches
Infallibility
;
for
,
he
saith
,
in
the
Chapter
preceding
,
that
in
this
matter
we
follow
the
most
certain
Authority
of
Canonical
Scriptures
;
but
he
puts
the
case
that
no
certain
example
could
be
produced
out
of
Scripture
,
then
he
saith
,
they
had
the
truth
of
the
Scriptures
when
they
do
that
which
pleased
the
Vniversal
Church
,
&c.
For
the
explaining
St.
Augustins
meaning
,
we
are
to
consider
,
that
there
were
two
Controversies
then
on
foot
in
the
Church
with
the
Donatists
,
the
one
concerning
Rebaptization
,
the
other
concerning
the
Church
the
former
he
looks
upon
as
more
intricate
and
obscure
,
by
reason
not
only
of
the
doubtfulness
of
Scripture
,
but
the
Authority
of
about
seventy
Bishops
of
Africa
,
who
had
determined
for
it
,
among
whom
St.
Cyprian
was
chief
,
which
we
see
in
all
his
disputes
with
the
Donatisis
on
this
subject
he
is
very
much
perplexed
with
;
therefore
St.
Augustin
finding
that
Controversie
very
troublesome
,
was
willing
to
bring
it
to
that
issue
,
that
what
the
Catholick
Church
after
so
much
discussing
the
point
had
agreed
upon
should
be
received
as
the
truth
.
By
this
means
the
dispute
would
be
brought
to
that
other
Question
,
which
he
thought
much
more
easie
,
viz.
Which
was
the
true
Church
,
the
Catholick
or
the
Donatists
:
but
by
no
means
doth
St.
Augustin
hereby
intend
to
make
the
Churches
Authority
to
resolve
all
doubts
concernig
Scriptures
;
but
he
thought
it
much
easier
to
prove
by
Scripture
which
was
the
true
Church
,
than
whether
rebaptization
were
lawful
or
not
.
And
accordingly
his
very
next
words
are
,
but
if
you
doubt
whether
the
Vniversal
Church
be
that
which
the
Scripture
commends
,
I
will
load
you
with
many
and
most
manifest
Testimonies
of
Scripture
to
that
end
.
Which
is
the
design
of
his
Book
of
the
Vnity
of
the
Church
:
wherein
he
shews
,
That
those
Testimonies
of
Scripture
which
speak
of
the
Universality
of
the
Church
,
are
very
plain
and
clear
:
and
needed
no
interpretation
at
all
,
that
in
this
case
we
are
not
to
regard
what
Donatus
,
or
Parmenianus
,
or
Pontius
hath
said
;
for
neither
,
saith
he
,
are
we
to
yield
to
Catholick
Bishops
themselves
,
if
they
be
at
any
time
so
much
deceived
as
to
hold
what
is
contrary
to
Canonical
Scriptures
.
By
which
it
is
evident
that
he
supposed
no
infallibility
in
the
Guides
of
the
Church
.
And
in
terms
he
asserts
,
that
the
Church
is
to
be
proved
by
nothing
but
plain
Scriptures
,
neither
by
the
Authority
of
Optatus
,
or
St.
Ambrose
,
or
innumerable
Bishops
,
nor
Councils
,
nor
Miracles
,
nor
visions
and
Revelations
,
(
whatever
N.
O.
thinks
of
them
)
now
St.
Augustin
supposing
there
was
much
less
ambiguity
in
Scripture
in
the
Controversie
of
the
Church
than
in
that
of
Rebaptization
,
he
endeavours
to
bring
them
to
a
resolution
in
the
other
point
for
the
clearing
of
this
:
and
so
he
only
pursues
the
method
laid
down
in
the
Books
of
Christian
Doctrine
,
to
make
use
of
plainer
places
of
Scripture
to
give
light
to
the
darker
.
And
when
they
were
convinced
by
Scripture
that
the
Catholick
Church
was
the
true
Church
of
Christ
,
he
doth
not
question
but
they
would
follow
that
which
was
the
sentence
of
the
Catholick
Church
.
But
here
lyes
the
main
difficulty
,
on
what
account
the
sentence
of
the
Church
was
to
be
followed
?
In
order
to
the
resolution
of
it
,
we
must
take
notice
of
these
things
.
1.
That
all
the
proofs
which
St.
Augustin
brings
for
the
Church
do
relate
only
to
the
extent
and
Vniversality
of
it
,
and
not
to
any
Infallibility
that
is
promised
to
it
;
as
will
easily
appear
to
any
one
that
will
read
his
discourses
on
that
subject
against
the
Donatists
.
2.
That
he
asserts
no
infallibility
in
the
highest
Authority
of
the
Church
;
which
in
many
places
of
his
Books
of
Baptism
against
the
Donatists
he
makes
to
be
a
Plenary
or
General
Council
;
whose
Authority
,
he
saith
,
was
to
be
preferred
before
that
of
St.
Cyprian
,
or
any
particular
Councils
either
in
his
time
,
or
before
it
;
which
he
calls
the
Authority
and
decrees
of
the
Vniversal
Church
.
So
that
we
see
he
resolves
all
the
Authority
of
the
Church
in
this
matter
into
that
of
a
General
Council
:
(
whether
that
of
Arles
,
or
Nice
is
not
to
my
purpose
to
enquire
)
and
we
shall
then
see
what
his
opinion
is
of
the
Churches
infallibility
by
that
which
he
delivers
of
General
Councils
;
as
well
as
any
other
Church
Authority
compared
with
the
Scriptures
,
in
these
remarkable
words
.
Who
knows
not
that
the
sacred
Canonical
Scripture
is
contained
within
its
certain
bounds
,
and
is
so
far
to
be
preferred
before
all
latter
writings
of
Bishops
that
there
can
be
no
doubt
or
dispute
at
all
made
,
whether
that
be
true
or
right
which
is
contained
therein
;
but
all
latter
writings
of
Bishops
which
have
been
or
are
written
,
since
the
Canon
of
Scripture
hath
been
confirmed
,
may
be
corrected
if
in
any
thing
they
err
from
the
Truth
,
either
by
the
wiser
discourse
of
any
more
skilful
person
,
or
the
weightier
Authority
of
other
Bishops
,
or
the
prudence
of
more
learned
men
,
or
by
Councils
:
And
even
Councils
themselves
that
are
Provincial
yield
without
dispute
to
those
which
are
General
,
and
called
out
of
all
the
Christian
World
;
and
of
these
General
Councils
the
former
are
often
amended
by
the
latter
,
when
by
some
farther
tryal
of
things
that
which
was
shut
is
laid
open
,
and
that
which
was
hidden
is
made
known
without
any
swelling
of
sacrilegious
pride
,
or
stifness
of
arrogancy
,
or
contentin
of
envy
;
but
with
holy
humility
,
Catholick
peace
and
Christian
Charity
.
Can
any
one
that
reads
this
excellent
Testimony
of
St.
Augustin
delivered
in
this
same
matter
,
ever
imagine
he
could
so
plainly
contradict
himself
;
as
to
assert
the
Churches
infallibility
in
one
place
and
destroy
it
in
another
?
Would
he
assert
that
all
Councils
how
General
soever
may
be
amended
by
following
Councils
,
and
yet
bind
men
to
believe
that
the
decrees
of
the
former
Councils
do
contain
the
unalterable
will
of
God
?
A
lesser
person
than
St.
Augustin
would
never
thus
directly
contradict
himself
,
and
that
about
the
very
same
Controversie
,
which
words
of
his
cannot
be
understood
of
unlawful
Councils
,
of
matters
of
fact
or
practice
,
but
do
refer
to
the
great
Question
then
in
debate
about
rebaptizing
Hereticks
;
and
hereby
he
takes
off
the
great
Plea
,
the
Donatists
made
from
the
Authority
of
St.
Cyprian
and
his
Council
,
which
they
continually
urged
for
themselves
.
3.
He
grants
,
that
the
arguments
drawn
from
the
Churches
Authority
are
but
humane
,
and
that
satisfaction
is
to
be
taken
from
the
Scriptures
in
this
Controversie
.
For
mentioning
the
obscurity
of
this
Question
,
and
the
great
debates
that
had
been
about
it
before
the
Donatists
time
among
great
and
good
men
,
and
diverse
resolutions
of
Councils
and
the
settlement
of
it
at
last
by
a
plenary
Council
of
the
whole
World
;
but
lest
,
saith
he
,
I
should
seem
to
make
use
only
of
humane
arguments
,
I
produce
certain
Testimonies
out
of
the
Gospel
,
by
which
,
God
willing
,
I
demonstrate
how
true
and
agreeable
to
his
Will
the
Doctrine
and
practice
of
the
Catholick
Church
is
.
And
else
where
he
appeals
not
to
the
Judgement
of
men
,
but
to
the
Lords
ballance
,
viz.
To
his
Judgement
delivered
in
Scripture
,
and
in
this
same
case
when
he
was
urged
by
the
Authority
of
Cyprian
,
he
saith
,
There
are
no
Writings
they
have
not
liberty
to
judge
of
,
but
those
of
Scripture
,
and
by
them
they
are
to
Judge
of
all
others
,
and
what
is
agreeable
to
them
they
receive
,
what
is
not
they
reject
,
though
written
by
persons
of
never
so
great
Authority
.
And
after
all
this
is
it
possible
to
believe
that
St.
Augustin
should
make
the
Churches
decree
in
a
General
Council
infallible
?
No
:
the
utmost
by
a
careful
consideration
of
his
mind
in
this
matter
that
I
can
find
,
is
;
that
in
a
Question
of
so
doubtful
and
obscure
a
nature
as
that
was
,
which
had
been
so
long
bandied
in
the
Churches
of
Africa
,
and
from
thence
spread
over
all
the
Churches
of
the
Christian
World
,
it
was
a
reasonable
thing
to
presume
that
what
the
whole
Christian
World
did
consent
in
was
the
truth
,
not
upon
the
account
of
infallibility
,
but
the
reasonable
supposition
that
all
the
Churches
of
the
Christian
World
,
would
not
consent
in
a
thing
repugnant
to
any
Apostolical
Doctrine
or
Tradition
.
And
so
St.
Augustins
meaning
is
the
same
with
Vincentius
Lerinensis
as
to
the
Universal
attestation
of
the
Christian
Church
in
a
matter
of
Tradition
;
being
declared
by
the
decree
of
a
General
Council
,
and
that
decree
Universally
received
but
only
by
the
litigant
parties
in
Africa
.
To
which
purpose
it
is
observable
that
he
so
often
appeals
to
the
Vniversal
consent
of
Christians
in
this
matter
;
after
it
had
been
so
throughly
discussed
and
considered
,
by
the
most
wise
and
disinteressed
persons
,
and
that
consent
declared
by
a
Plenary
Council
before
himself
was
born
.
So
that
if
Authority
were
to
be
relyed
upon
in
this
obscure
Controversie
,
he
saith
,
the
Authority
of
the
Universal
Church
was
to
be
preferred
,
before
that
of
several
Councils
in
Africa
,
of
the
Bishops
and
particularly
St.
Cyprian
who
met
in
them
.
And
whereas
St.
Cyprian
had
slighted
Tradition
in
this
matter
,
Christ
having
called
himself
Truth
and
not
custom
,
St.
Augustin
replys
to
him
;
That
the
custom
of
the
Church
having
been
always
so
and
continuing
after
such
opposition
and
confirmed
by
a
General
Council
,
and
after
examination
of
the
reasons
and
Testimonies
of
Scripture
on
both
sides
,
it
may
be
now
said
,
that
we
follow
what
Truth
hath
declared
.
Wherein
we
see
with
what
modesty
and
upon
what
grounds
he
declares
his
mind
,
which
at
last
comes
to
no
more
than
Vincentius
his
Rules
of
Antiquity
,
Vniversality
and
Consent
.
Especially
in
such
a
matter
as
this
was
,
which
had
nothing
but
Tradition
to
be
pleaded
for
it
,
the
Apostles
,
having
determined
nothing
of
either
side
,
in
their
Books
as
St
Augustin
himself
at
last
confesses
in
this
matter
.
The
most
then
that
can
be
made
of
the
Testimony
alledged
out
of
St.
Augustin
is
this
,
that
in
a
matter
of
so
doubtful
and
obscure
a
nature
wherein
the
Apostles
have
determined
nothing
in
their
Writings
,
we
are
to
believe
that
to
be
the
truth
,
which
the
Universal
Church
of
Christ
agreed
in
those
times
,
when
the
consent
of
the
Universal
Church
was
so
well
known
by
frequent
discussion
of
the
case
and
coming
at
last
to
a
resolution
in
a
General
Council
.
In
such
a
case
as
this
,
I
agree
to
what
St.
Augustin
saith
,
and
think
a
man
very
much
relieved
by
following
so
evident
a
consent
of
the
Universal
Church
:
not
by
vertue
of
any
infallibility
,
but
the
unreasonableness
of
believing
so
many
,
so
wise
,
so
disinteressed
persons
should
be
deceived
.
Let
the
same
evidences
be
produced
for
the
consent
of
the
Vniversal
Church
from
the
Apostolical
times
in
the
matters
in
dispute
between
our
Church
and
that
of
Rome
,
and
the
Controversie
of
Infallibility
may
be
laid
aside
;
For
such
an
universal
consent
of
the
Christian
Church
I
look
upon
as
the
most
Authentick
Interpreter
of
Holy
Scripture
in
doubtful
and
obscure
places
.
But
let
them
never
think
to
fob
us
off
,
with
the
consent
of
the
Roman
Faction
for
the
Vniversal
Church
,
nor
of
some
latter
ages
,
for
a
Tradition
from
Apostolical
times
,
nor
of
a
packed
Company
of
Bishops
for
a
truly
General
Council
.
And
thus
much
may
now
serve
to
clear
that
important
Controversie
about
the
sense
of
Scripture
in
doubtful
places
.
The
last
thing
to
be
considered
is
,
whether
the
same
arguments
which
overthrow
infallibility
,
do
likewise
destroy
all
Church-Authority
?
For
this
is
by
N.
O.
frequently
objected
against
me
;
for
,
he
saith
,
thus
it
happens
more
than
once
in
these
Principles
laid
down
by
me
,
that
in
100
forward
a
zeal
in
demolishing
the
one
,
viz.
Church
Infallibility
,
the
other
is
also
dangerously
undermined
,
viz.
Church-Authority
.
And
therefore
out
of
his
singular
regard
to
the
good
of
our
Church
,
he
saith
,
it
concerns
my
Superior
to
look
to
it
,
whether
their
Churches
and
their
own
Authority
suffers
no
detriment
from
my
Principles
,
and
,
again
,
he
saith
,
my
Principles
against
Infallibility
conclude
,
the
uselessness
of
any
Ecclesiastical
Authority
to
teach
men
,
as
of
an
Infallible
to
assure
men
of
the
truth
of
those
things
,
which
by
using
only
their
own
sincere
endeavour
they
may
know
without
them
.
And
lastly
,
he
saith
,
my
Principles
afford
no
effectual
way
or
means
of
suppressing
or
convicting
any
Schism
,
Sect
or
Heresie
,
or
reducing
them
either
to
submission
of
judgement
or
silence
.
And
therefore
he
desires
the
prudent
to
consider
;
whether
the
Authority
of
the
Church
of
England
is
not
much
debilitated
and
brought
into
contempt
,
and
daily
like
to
wane
more
and
more
by
this
new
taken
up
way
of
its
Defence
.
My
Answer
is
,
that
I
have
carefully
examined
and
searched
my
Principles
and
find
no
such
Gunpowder
in
them
for
blowing
up
Authority
either
of
Church
or
State.
For
all
that
I
can
discover
,
they
are
very
innocent
and
harmless
;
and
if
all
other
mens
had
been
so
,
we
had
never
heard
so
much
talk
of
this
way
,
of
undermining
and
blowing
up
.
But
is
it
not
a
pleasant
thing
to
see
,
all
of
a
sudden
,
what
zeal
these
men
discover
for
the
preservation
of
our
Churches
Authority
?
Alas
good
men
!
It
grieves
them
at
the
very
heart
,
to
see
the
Authority
of
our
Church
weakned
and
that
by
its
own
members
.
What
would
not
they
do
for
the
strengthening
and
upholding
of
it
?
What
pity
it
is
,
such
a
Church
should
not
stand
,
whose
very
enemies
take
such
care
for
its
preservation
;
And
are
so
ready
to
discover
the
pl●ts
of
its
own
children
against
it
?
B●t
to
be
●ure
,
there
is
mischief
intended
when
enemies
discover
it
;
not
by
those
whom
they
accuse
,
but
by
the
honest
Informers
;
who
would
be
content
to
hold
their
peace
,
if
they
thought
they
could
not
sow
mischief
by
pretending
to
discover
it
.
It
is
a
pretty
plot
to
make
those
who
design
to
defend
our
Church
to
be
the
underminers
of
it
,
and
the
most
professed
Enemies
its
surest
Friends
.
But
such
plots
are
too
fine
to
hold
,
and
too
thin
not
to
be
seen
through
.
How
is
it
I
beseech
N.
O.
that
my
principles
undermine
all
Church
Authority
?
Have
I
any
where
made
the
Church
a
meer
shadow
,
and
an
insignificant
Cypher
,
a
Society
depending
only
on
the
pleasure
of
men
for
its
subsistence
and
Authority
?
This
had
been
indeed
to
the
purpose
,
but
not
the
least
word
tending
that
way
can
be
drawn
out
of
any
Principles
of
mine
.
For
I
verily
believe
that
the
Church
is
a
Society
instituted
by
Christ
himself
,
and
invested
with
Authority
necessary
for
its
Government
and
preservation
.
But
though
I
cannot
deny
such
an
Authority
I
may
render
it
wholly
useless
.
I
cannot
conceive
any
such
malignant
influence
in
any
Principles
of
mine
,
but
if
there
be
,
it
must
be
from
one
of
these
things
.
1.
Either
because
I
deny
Infallibility
in
the
Guides
of
the
Church
.
Or
2.
Because
I
say
that
the
Scriptures
are
plain
in
things
necessary
to
salvation
.
Or
3.
Because
I
deny
the
Authority
of
the
Church
of
Rome
.
Or
4.
Because
I
am
not
for
such
an
effectual
way
of
suppressing
Sects
and
Heresies
as
is
in
use
in
the
Roman
Church
.
But
I
hope
to
make
it
appear
that
none
of
these
do
in
the
least
tend
to
weaken
,
or
bring
into
contempt
the
Church
of
Engl●nds
authority
,
nor
the
just
Authority
of
any
Church
in
the
World.
1.
Not
the
denial
of
Infallibility
.
This
N.
O.
seems
to
suppose
to
be
the
very
Faux
in
the
Gunpowder
Plot
,
the
instrument
of
setting
all
on
Fire
.
But
is
there
any
thing
peculiar
to
my
Principles
herein
?
Have
not
all
who
have
written
against
the
Church
of
Rome
opposed
the
pretence
of
Infallibility
?
how
then
come
my
principles
to
be
of
so
mischievous
a
nature
above
others
?
But
I
pray
,
Sir
,
are
Authority
and
Infallibility
all
one
in
your
account
?
We
suppose
that
Magistrates
and
Parents
,
and
Masters
have
all
of
them
an
unquestionable
Authority
but
I
never
heard
yet
of
any
man
that
said
they
wre
infallible
:
or
that
there
was
no
ground
to
obey
them
,
if
they
were
not
.
Why
may
we
not
then
allow
any
Authority
belonging
to
the
Governours
of
the
Church
,
and
yet
think
it
possible
for
them
to
be
deceived
?
Is
this
a
sufficient
reason
for
any
man
to
cast
off
his
subjection
to
his
Prince
,
because
it
's
possible
he
may
require
something
unlawful
?
or
to
disobey
his
Parents
,
because
they
do
not
sit
in
an
infallible
chair
?
or
to
slight
his
Master
,
because
he
is
not
Pope
?
These
are
strange
ways
of
arguing
about
matters
of
Religion
,
which
are
ridiculous
in
any
other
case
.
If
the
possibility
of
being
deceived
destroys
no
other
Authority
in
the
world
,
why
should
it
do
that
of
the
Church
?
The
Magistrate
does
not
lose
his
Authority
though
we
say
we
are
to
obey
God
rather
than
men
,
and
consequently
to
examine
whether
the
Laws
of
men
are
not
repugnant
to
the
Laws
of
God
,
which
implys
that
he
may
require
what
it
is
our
duty
not
to
do
.
The
Authority
of
Parents
is
not
destroyed
,
because
in
some
cases
we
are
bound
to
disobey
them
,
when
they
command
men
to
destroy
or
rise
up
in
arms
against
their
Soveraign
.
How
comes
it
then
to
pass
,
that
all
Church-Authority
is
immediately
gone
,
if
we
do
but
suppose
a
possibility
of
errour
in
those
which
have
it
?
But
it
may
be
said
it
is
their
office
to
be
Guides
,
and
if
we
do
not
follow
them
absolutely
,
we
renounce
them
from
being
our
Guides
.
To
which
I
answer
,
there
are
two
sorts
of
persons
that
stand
in
need
of
Guides
,
the
blind
and
the
Ignorant
;
the
blind
must
follow
their
Guides
because
of
an
incapacity
of
seeing
their
way
,
the
Ignorant
for
want
of
Instruction
.
Yet
neither
of
these
are
bound
to
believe
their
Guides
Infallible
,
and
to
follow
them
at
all
adventures
.
For
even
the
blind
by
their
own
sad
experience
of
frequent
falling
into
ditches
or
knocking
their
heads
against
Posts
may
have
reason
to
question
,
if
not
the
skill
,
yet
the
sincerity
of
their
Guides
,
and
though
they
must
have
some
,
may
seek
new
ones
.
The
ignorant
follow
their
Guides
only
upon
the
opinion
of
their
skill
and
integrity
;
and
when
they
see
reason
to
Question
these
,
they
know
of
no
obligation
to
follow
their
conduct
over
rocks
and
precipices
;
if
they
are
so
careless
of
their
own
welfare
,
others
are
not
bound
to
follow
them
therein
.
But
we
are
not
to
presume
persons
so
wholly
Ignorant
,
but
they
have
some
general
Rules
by
which
to
Judge
of
the
skill
and
fidelity
of
their
Guides
.
If
a
Person
commits
himself
to
the
care
of
a
Pilot
to
carry
him
to
Constantinople
because
of
his
ignorance
of
the
Sea
,
should
this
man
still
rely
upon
his
Authority
,
if
he
carried
him
to
find
out
the
North
West
passage
?
No
:
though
he
may
not
know
the
particular
Coasts
so
well
;
yet
he
knows
the
East
and
West
,
the
North
and
South
from
each
other
.
If
a
stranger
should
take
a
Guide
to
conduct
him
from
London
to
York
,
although
he
may
not
think
fit
to
dispute
with
him
at
every
doubtful
turning
,
yet
is
he
bound
to
follow
him
when
he
travels
all
day
with
the
Sun
in
his
face
?
for
although
he
doth
not
know
the
direct
road
,
yet
he
knows
that
he
is
to
go
Northward
.
The
meaning
of
all
this
is
,
that
the
supposition
of
Guides
in
Religion
doth
depend
upon
some
common
principles
of
Religion
that
are
or
may
be
known
to
all
,
and
some
precepts
so
plain
that
every
Christian
without
any
help
may
know
them
to
be
his
duty
;
within
the
compass
of
these
plain
and
known
duties
,
lyes
the
capacity
of
persons
judging
of
their
Guides
;
if
they
carry
them
out
of
this
beaten
way
,
they
have
no
reason
to
rely
upon
them
in
other
things
:
if
they
keep
themselves
carefully
within
those
bounds
,
and
shew
great
integrity
therein
,
then
in
doubtful
and
obscure
things
they
may
with
more
safety
rely
upon
them
.
But
if
they
tell
them
they
must
put
out
their
eyes
to
follow
them
the
better
,
or
if
they
kindly
allow
them
to
keep
their
eyes
in
their
heads
,
yet
they
must
believe
them
against
their
eye-sight
,
if
they
perswade
them
to
break
plain
Commands
of
God
and
to
alter
the
Institutions
of
Christ
,
what
reason
can
there
be
that
any
should
commit
themselves
to
the
absolute
Conduct
of
such
unfaithful
Guides
?
And
this
is
not
to
destroy
all
Authority
of
faithful
Guides
,
for
they
may
be
of
great
use
for
the
direction
of
unskilful
persons
in
matters
that
are
doubtful
and
require
skill
to
resolve
them
,
but
it
is
only
to
suppose
that
their
Authority
is
not
absolute
nor
their
direction
infallible
.
But
if
we
take
away
this
Infallible
direction
from
the
Guides
of
the
Church
,
what
Authority
is
there
left
them
?
As
much
as
ever
God
gave
them
,
and
if
they
will
not
be
contented
with
that
,
we
cannot
help
it
;
and
that
it
may
appear
how
vain
and
frivolous
these
exceptions
are
,
I
shall
now
shew
what
real
Authority
is
still
left
in
the
Governours
of
the
Church
,
though
Infallibility
be
taken
away
.
And
that
lyes
in
three
things
.
1.
An
Authority
of
inflicting
censures
upon
offenders
;
which
is
commonly
called
the
Power
of
the
keys
,
or
of
receiving
into
and
excluding
out
of
the
Communion
of
the
Church
.
This
the
Church
was
invested
with
by
Christ
himself
,
and
is
the
necessary
consequence
of
the
being
and
institution
of
a
Christian
Society
,
which
cannot
be
preserved
in
its
purity
and
peace
without
it
.
Which
Authority
belongs
to
the
Governours
of
the
Church
,
and
however
the
Church
in
some
respects
be
incorporated
with
the
Common-wealth
in
a
Christian
State
,
yet
its
Fundamental
Rights
remain
distinct
from
it
:
of
which
this
is
one
of
the
chief
to
receive
into
and
exclude
out
of
the
Church
such
persons
which
,
according
to
the
Laws
of
a
Christian
Society
,
are
fit
to
be
taken
in
or
shut
out
.
2.
An
Authority
of
making
Rules
and
Canons
about
matters
of
order
and
decency
in
the
Church
.
Not
meerly
in
the
necessary
circumstances
of
time
and
place
,
and
such
things
the
contrary
to
which
imply
a
natural
indecency
;
but
in
continuing
and
establishing
those
ancient
rites
of
the
Christian
Church
,
which
were
practised
in
the
early
times
of
Christianity
,
and
are
in
themselves
of
an
indifferent
nature
.
Which
Authority
of
the
Church
hath
been
not
only
asserted
in
the
Articles
of
our
Church
,
but
strenuously
defended
against
the
trifling
objections
of
her
Enemies
,
from
Scripture
,
Antiquity
and
Reason
.
And
I
freely
grant
,
not
only
that
such
an
Authority
is
in
it self
reasonable
and
just
;
but
that
in
such
matters
required
by
a
Lawful
Authority
(
such
as
that
of
our
Church
is
)
there
is
an
advantage
on
the
side
of
Authority
,
against
a
scrupulous
Conscience
,
which
ought
to
over-rule
the
practice
of
such
who
are
the
members
of
that
Church
.
3.
An
Authority
of
proposing
matters
of
faith
and
directing
men
in
Religion
.
Which
is
the
proper
Authority
of
Teachers
,
and
Guides
,
and
Instructers
of
others
;
which
may
be
done
several
ways
,
as
by
particular
instruction
of
doubtful
persons
,
who
are
bound
to
make
use
of
the
best
helps
they
can
,
among
which
that
of
their
Guides
is
the
most
ready
and
useful
,
and
who
are
obliged
to
take
care
of
their
Souls
,
and
therefore
to
give
the
most
faithful
advice
and
Counsel
to
them
.
Besides
this
,
there
is
a
publick
way
of
instructing
by
discourses
grounded
upon
Scripture
to
particular
congregations
,
assembled
together
for
the
worship
of
God
in
places
set
apart
for
that
end
and
therefore
called
Churches
.
And
those
who
are
duly
appointed
for
this
work
,
and
ordained
by
those
whose
office
is
to
ordain
,
viz.
the
Bishops
,
have
an
Authority
to
declare
what
the
mind
and
Will
of
God
is
,
contained
in
Scripture
in
order
to
the
Salvation
and
edification
of
the
Souls
of
men
.
But
besides
this
,
we
may
consider
the
Bishops
and
representative
Clergy
of
a
Church
as
met
together
for
reforming
any
abuses
crept
into
the
practice
of
Religion
or
errours
in
Doctrine
;
and
in
this
case
we
assert
that
such
a
Synod
or
Convocation
hath
the
power
and
Authority
within
it self
(
especially
having
all
the
ancient
rights
of
a
Patriarchal
Church
)
when
a
more
general
consent
cannot
be
obtained
to
publish
and
declare
what
those
errours
&
abuses
are
,
&
to
do
as
much
as
in
them
lyes
to
reform
them
,
viz.
by
requiring
a
consent
to
such
propositions
as
are
agreed
upon
for
that
end
,
of
those
who
are
to
enjoy
the
publick
offices
of
teaching
and
instructing
others
.
Not
to
the
end
that
all
those
propositions
should
be
believed
as
Articles
of
Faith
;
but
because
no
Reformation
can
be
effected
,
if
persons
may
be
allowed
to
preach
and
officiate
in
the
Church
in
a
way
contrary
to
the
design
of
such
a
Reformation
.
And
this
is
now
that
Authority
we
attribute
to
the
Governours
of
our
Church
,
although
we
allow
no
Infallibility
to
them
.
And
herein
we
proceed
in
a
due
mean
between
the
extremes
of
robbing
the
Church
of
all
Authority
of
one
side
;
and
advancing
it
to
Infallibility
on
the
other
.
But
we
cannot
help
the
weakness
of
those
mens
understanding
,
who
cannot
apprehend
that
any
such
thing
as
Authority
should
be
left
in
a
Church
,
if
we
deny
Infallibility
.
Other
diseases
may
be
cured
,
but
natural
incapacity
cannot
.
2.
Not
,
the
making
Scriptures
plain
to
all
sober
enquirers
in
matters
necessary
to
Salvation
.
This
is
that
principle
which
N.
O.
makes
such
horrible
out-crys
about
,
as
though
it
were
the
Foundation
of
all
the
heresies
and
Sects
in
the
World.
This
,
he
saith
,
makes
all
Ecclesiastical
Authority
useless
;
for
what
need
is
there
of
Bishops
,
Presbyters
,
or
any
Ecclesiastical
Pastors
among
Protestants
,
as
to
the
office
of
teaching
or
expounding
these
writings
,
if
these
in
all
necessaries
are
clear
to
all
persons
,
who
desire
to
know
the
meaning
of
them
:
But
not
content
with
this
modest
charge
in
comparison
,
in
another
Treatise
;
he
makes
this
the
very
heighth
of
Fanaticism
,
in
spight
of
Mother
Iuliana
and
their
Legendary
Saints
:
because
,
forsooth
,
this
is
to
ground
all
our
Religion
upon
our
own
fancies
,
enquiring
into
the
true
sense
of
divine
Revelation
;
and
therefore
,
good
man
,
seems
troubled
at
it
,
that
he
can
by
no
means
in
the
world
absolve
me
from
being
not
only
a
Fanatick
,
but
a
Teacher
of
Fanaticism
.
In
earnest
,
it
was
happily
found
out
,
to
return
this
heavy
charge
back
upon
my self
with
so
much
rage
and
violence
;
(
for
although
N.
O.
be
a
modest
man
,
yet
S.
C.
is
a
meer
fury
)
for
not
meerly
Fanaticism
,
pure
putid
Fanaticism
follows
from
this
principle
,
Fanaticism
without
vizard
or
disguise
,
and
all
this
demonstratively
proved
from
this
Principle
,
But
all
our
Church
is
immediately
gone
with
it
;
Men
may
talk
of
dangerous
plots
for
undermining
and
blowing
up
of
Towns
and
Forts
and
Parliaments
,
but
what
are
all
those
to
the
blowing
up
a
whole
Church
at
once
?
For
since
that
Train
of
my
Principles
hath
been
laid
,
nothing
like
the
old
Church
of
Engl●nd
hath
been
seen
.
It
is
true
,
there
are
the
same
Bishops
,
the
same
Authority
,
the
same
Liturgy
and
Ceremonies
,
the
same
●●●achers
and
Officers
that
were
;
but
what
are
all
these
to
the
Church
of
England
?
For
from
hence
it
follows
(
if
we
believe
S.
C.
)
that
the
●overnours
of
our
Church
have
no
Authority
to
teach
truth
,
or
to
condemn
er●●urs
;
and
a●l
the
people
are
become
Prophets
,
and
all
their
Articles
,
Constitutions
and
Ordinances
have
been
composed
and
enjoyned
by
an
usurped
Authority
.
Very
sad
consequences
truly
!
but
like
deep
plots
they
lye
very
far
out
of
sight
.
For
to
my
understanding
,
not
one
of
these
dismal
things
follows
any
more
from
my
Principles
,
than
from
proving
that
S.
C.
and
N.
O.
both
stand
for
the
same
Person
.
Which
will
easily
appear
to
any
one
●●e
that
will
but
consider
.
1.
The
intention
of
those
Principles
.
2.
The
just
consequence
of
them
.
1.
The
intention
of
those
Principles
;
which
was
plainly
to
lay
down
the
Foundations
of
a
Christians
faith
living
in
the
Communion
of
our
Church
;
(
which
is
expressed
in
as
perspicuous
terms
before
them
as
may
be
;
)
and
to
shew
that
the
Roman
Churches
Infallibility
is
no
necessary
Foundation
of
Faith.
Now
,
this
being
the
design
of
those
Principles
,
to
what
purpose
should
I
have
gone
about
therein
,
to
have
stated
the
nature
and
bounds
of
the
Authority
of
particular
Churches
.
I
no
where
in
the
least
exclude
the
use
of
all
means
and
due
helps
of
Guides
and
others
for
the
understanding
the
sense
of
Scripture
;
and
I
no
where
mention
them
;
because
my
business
was
only
about
the
Foundation
of
Faith
,
and
whether
Infallibility
was
necessary
for
that
or
no
?
If
I
have
proved
it
was
not
,
I
have
gained
my
design
;
for
then
those
who
deny
the
Church
of
Romes
Infallibility
may
never
the
less
have
a
sure
Foundation
,
or
solid
Principles
to
build
their
Faith
upon
.
Now
to
what
purpose
in
an
account
of
the
Principles
of
Faith
should
I
mention
those
things
,
which
we
do
not
build
our
faith
upon
,
I
mean
the
Authority
of
our
Guides
;
for
although
we
allow
them
all
the
usefulness
of
helps
;
yet
those
are
no
more
to
be
mentioned
in
the
Principles
of
resolving
Faith
,
than
Eulids
Master
was
to
be
mentioned
in
his
Demonstrations
.
For
although
he
might
learn
his
skill
from
him
;
yet
the
force
of
his
Demonstrations
did
not
depend
upon
his
Authority
.
I
hope
it
now
appears
,
how
far
I
am
from
making
Church-Authority
useless
;
but
I
still
say
our
Faith
is
not
to
be
resolved
into
it
,
and
therefore
is
not
to
be
reckoned
as
a
Principle
or
Foundation
of
Faith.
To
that
end
it
is
sufficient
to
prove
.
that
men
in
the
due
use
of
means
,
whom
I
call
sober
enquirers
,
may
without
any
Infallible
Church
,
believe
the
Scriptures
,
and
understand
what
is
necessary
to
their
Salvation
herein
:
If
this
may
be
,
then
I
say
it
follows
(
Princ.
15.
)
that
there
can
be
no
necessity
supposed
of
any
infallible
Society
of
men
,
either
to
attest
or
explain
these
Writings
,
among
Christians
.
Not
one
word
that
takes
away
the
use
of
Authority
in
the
Church
,
but
only
of
Infallibility
;
but
it
may
be
said
that
although
it
might
not
be
my
intention
,
yet
it
may
be
the
just
consequence
of
the
Principles
themselves
2.
Therefore
I
shall
now
prove
that
no
consequence
drawn
from
them
can
infer
this
.
For
what
if
all
those
things
which
are
necessary
to
Salvation
are
plain
in
Scripture
,
to
all
that
sincerely
endeavour
to
understand
them
,
doth
it
hence
follow
that
there
can
be
no
just
Authority
in
a
Church
,
no
use
of
Persons
to
instruct
others
,
must
all
the
people
become
Prophets
and
no
bounds
be
set
to
the
liberty
of
Prophesying
?
These
are
bad
consequences
;
but
the
comfort
is
,
they
are
not
true
.
If
I
should
say
that
the
necessary
Rules
for
a
mans
health
are
so
plainly
laid
down
by
Hippocrates
,
that
every
one
that
will
take
the
pains
may
understand
them
;
doth
this
make
the
whole
profession
of
Physick
useless
,
or
license
every
man
to
practise
Physick
that
will
,
or
make
it
needless
to
have
any
Professours
in
that
faculty
?
When
the
Philosophers
of
old
did
so
frequently
inculcate
that
the
necessaries
for
life
were
few
and
easie
;
did
this
make
all
Political
Government
useless
,
and
give
every
man
power
to
do
what
he
pleased
?
Men
of
any
common
understanding
would
distinguish
between
the
necessaries
of
life
and
civil
Society
;
so
would
any
one
but
S.
C.
or
N.
O.
of
the
necessaries
to
Salvation
,
and
to
the
Government
of
the
Church
;
For
men
must
be
considered
first
as
Christians
,
and
then
as
Christians
united
together
:
as
in
civil
Societies
they
are
to
be
considered
first
as
men
,
and
then
as
Cives
;
to
say
,
that
a
man
hath
all
that
is
necessary
to
preserve
his
life
as
a
man
,
doth
not
overthrow
the
Constitution
of
a
Society
,
although
it
implys
that
he
might
live
without
it
:
so
when
men
are
considered
barely
as
Christians
no
more
ought
to
be
thought
necessary
for
them
as
such
,
but
what
makes
them
capable
of
Salvation
;
but
if
we
consider
them
as
joyning
together
in
a
Christian
Society
,
then
many
other
things
are
necessary
for
that
end
:
For
then
there
must
be
Authority
in
some
and
subjection
in
others
,
there
must
be
orders
and
Constitutions
,
whereby
all
must
be
kept
within
their
due
bounds
,
and
there
must
be
persons
appointed
to
instruct
the
Ignorant
,
to
satisfy
the
doubting
,
to
direct
the
unskilful
,
and
to
help
the
weak
.
It
belongs
to
such
a
Society
not
barely
to
provide
for
necessity
but
safety
,
and
not
meerly
the
safety
of
particular
persons
but
of
it self
;
which
cannot
be
done
without
prudent
orders
,
fixing
the
bounds
of
mens
imployments
,
and
not
suffering
every
pretender
to
visions
and
Revelations
to
set
up
for
a
new
Sect
,
or
which
is
all
one
a
new
Order
of
Religious
men
.
How
comes
it
now
to
pass
that
by
saying
that
men
,
considered
barely
as
Christians
,
may
understand
all
that
is
necessary
to
their
Salvation
,
I
do
overthrow
all
Authority
of
a
Church
and
make
all
men
Prophets
?
Do
I
in
the
least
mention
mens
teaching
others
,
or
being
able
themselves
to
put
a
difference
,
between
what
is
so
necessary
and
what
not
;
or
doth
S.
C.
suppose
that
all
that
understand
what
is
necessary
to
Salvation
have
no
need
to
be
ruled
and
governed
?
If
he
thinks
so
,
I
assure
him
I
am
quite
of
another
opinion
,
and
do
make
no
question
but
that
Government
ought
to
be
preserved
in
a
Church
,
though
the
necessaries
to
Salvation
be
known
to
all
in
it
;
and
so
I
suppose
doth
any
one
else
that
in
the
least
considers
what
he
says
.
By
this
we
see
,
that
S.
C
'
s.
recrimination
of
Fanaticism
on
our
Church
,
by
vertue
of
this
principle
is
as
feeble
as
the
Defence
he
hath
made
for
his
own
,
of
which
he
may
hear
in
due
time
.
But
if
there
be
any
Fanaticism
in
this
principle
,
we
have
the
concurrence
of
the
greatest
and
wisest
persons
of
the
Christian
Church
in
it
:
Two
of
them
especially
have
in
terms
said
as
much
as
I
have
done
,
St.
Augustin
in
his
Books
of
Christian
Doctrine
already
mentioned
:
and
St.
Chrysostome
in
as
plain
words
as
may
be
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
All
things
are
plain
and
right
in
the
holy
Scriptures
;
all
necessary
things
are
manifest
.
Let
S.
C.
now
charge
all
the
dreadful
consequences
of
this
principle
on
St.
Chrysostome
,
and
tell
him
that
he
destroyed
all
Church-Authority
,
and
laid
the
Foundation
for
the
height
of
Fanaticism
?
Nay
S.
Chrys●stome
goes
much
higher
than
I
do
,
for
he
saith
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
&c.
If
I
had
made
the
Guides
of
the
Church
so
useless
as
St.
Chrysostome
seems
to
do
in
these
words
what
passionate
and
hideous
out-crys
would
,
S.
C.
have
made
?
And
by
this
let
the
skill
or
ingenuity
of
S.
C.
be
tryed
,
who
says
,
that
I
cannot
find
out
one
single
short
sentence
in
Antiquity
to
support
the
main
pillar
of
my
Religion
,
which
he
supposes
this
principle
to
be
;
and
for
the
finding
out
the
sense
of
Scripture
without
the
help
of
Infallibility
,
I
have
produced
more
out
of
Antiquity
in
this
discourse
,
than
either
he
or
his
whole
partie
will
be
able
to
Answer
.
3.
Not
the
denying
the
Authority
of
the
Church
of
Rome
.
Which
I
must
do
till
I
see
some
better
proofs
for
it
,
than
I
have
ever
yet
done
.
But
how
doth
this
,
destroy
all
Authority
in
a
Church
?
can
there
be
none
,
but
what
is
derived
from
Rome
?
I
do
not
think
,
I
do
in
the
least
diminish
the
Kings
Authority
,
by
denying
that
he
derives
it
from
the
Cham
of
Tartary
,
or
the
Great
Mogol
:
although
they
may
challenge
the
Lordship
of
the
whole
Earth
to
themselves
:
and
may
pretend
very
plausible
reasons
that
it
would
be
much
more
for
the
quiet
and
conveniency
of
mankind
to
be
all
under
one
universal
Monarch
,
and
that
none
have
so
fair
a
pretence
to
it
,
as
they
that
have
challenged
the
Right
of
it
to
themselves
:
and
yet
for
all
this
,
I
do
verily
believe
the
King
hath
an
unquestionable
right
to
his
Kingdom
,
and
a
just
Authority
over
all
his
subjects
.
The
time
was
when
the
first
of
Genesis
would
serve
to
prove
the
Popes
title
,
and
the
Suns
ruling
by
day
was
thought
a
clear
argument
for
his
supremacy
;
but
the
world
is
now
altered
and
all
the
wit
and
subtility
that
hath
been
since
used
hath
not
been
able
to
make
good
that
crackt
title
of
Universal
Pastorship
,
which
the
Bishops
of
Rome
have
taken
to
themselves
.
But
although
we
disown
the
Popes
Authority
as
an
unjust
usurpation
,
we
assert
and
plead
for
the
Authority
of
the
Church
and
the
Bishops
who
are
placed
therein
,
who
derive
their
power
to
Govern
the
Church
from
Christ
and
not
from
the
Pope
.
And
I
dare
appeal
to
any
Person
,
whether
the
asserting
the
Bishops
deriving
their
Authority
from
Christ
or
from
the
Pope
,
be
the
better
way
of
defending
their
Power
?
We
are
not
now
disputing
what
Authority
were
fit
to
be
entrusted
in
the
Popes
hands
,
supposing
all
other
differences
composed
,
and
that
things
were
in
the
same
State
wherein
they
were
in
the
times
of
the
4.
General
Councils
;
in
which
case
,
it
ought
to
be
considered
,
how
far
it
might
be
convenient
to
give
way
to
such
an
Authority
so
apt
to
grow
extravagant
,
and
which
hath
been
stretched
so
very
far
beyond
what
the
Canons
allowed
,
that
it
hath
challenged
Infallibility
to
it self
;
but
the
thing
at
present
under
debate
,
is
,
whether
the
disallowing
the
Papal
Hierarchy
doth
overthrow
all
Authority
in
the
Episcopal
;
which
is
in
effect
to
ask
,
whether
there
be
any
other
power
besides
the
Popes
in
the
Church
?
for
if
there
be
any
other
,
the
denying
the
Popes
Authority
over
us
cannot
in
the
least
diminish
the
just
Authority
of
Bishops
.
The
only
considerable
Question
in
this
case
,
is
,
whether
the
rejecting
that
Hierarchy
which
was
in
being
at
the
the
time
of
the
Reformation
,
doth
not
make
way
for
the
peoples
rejecting
the
Authority
of
our
Bishops
,
and
consequently
no
Authority
in
the
Church
can
be
maintained
,
unless
we
again
yield
to
the
Papal
Authority
.
This
I
suppose
to
be
N.
O.
meaning
,
when
he
tells
us
by
Church-Authority
he
means
that
Superior
and
more
comprehensive
Body
of
the
Ecclesiastical
Hierarchy
;
which
in
any
dissent
and
division
of
the
Clergy
,
according
to
the
Church
Canons
ought
to
be
obeyed
.
And
any
particular
Church
divided
from
this
more
universal
cannot
with
the
least
pretence
of
reason
challenge
submission
from
her
subjects
,
since
she
her self
(
and
particularly
the
Church
of
England
)
refused
the
same
to
all
the
Authority
extant
in
the
world
,
when
she
separated
her self
.
To
this
I
answer
,
That
the
Church
of
England
in
Reforming
her self
did
not
oppose
any
just
Authority
then
extant
in
the
World.
It
is
to
no
purpose
to
make
s●ch
loud
clamours
about
our
Churches
refusing
submission
to
all
the
Authority
then
extant
in
the
World
,
unless
there
be
better
Evidence
produced
for
it
,
than
we
have
yet
seen
.
For
it
is
very
well
known
that
the
dispute
was
then
concerning
the
Popes
Supremacy
over
our
Church
,
which
we
have
all
along
asserted
to
have
been
a
notorious
encroachment
upon
the
liberties
of
our
Church
.
And
the
Popes
usurpations
were
〈◊〉
injurious
both
to
the
Ecclesiastical
and
Civil
Government
,
that
those
who
adhered
to
the
Religion
of
the
Roman
Church
yet
agreed
to
the
rejecting
that
Authority
which
he
challenged
in
England
.
Which
is
sufficiently
known
to
have
been
the
beginning
of
the
Breach
,
between
the
two
Churches
.
Afterwards
,
when
it
was
thus
agreed
that
the
Bishop
of
Rome
had
no
such
Authority
as
he
challenged
,
what
should
hinder
our
Church
from
proceeding
in
the
best
way
it
could
for
the
Reformation
of
it self
?
For
the
Popes
Supremacy
being
cast
out
as
an
usurpation
,
our
Church
was
thereby
declared
to
be
a
Free
Church
,
having
the
Power
of
Government
within
it self
.
And
what
method
of
proceeding
could
be
more
reasonable
in
this
case
,
than
by
the
advice
of
the
Governours
of
the
Church
and
by
the
concurrence
of
civil
Authority
to
publish
such
Rules
and
Articles
,
according
to
which
Religion
was
to
be
professed
and
the
worship
of
God
setled
in
England
?
And
this
is
that
which
N.
O.
calls
refusing
submission
to
all
the
Authority
then
extant
in
the
world
;
was
all
the
Authority
then
extant
,
shut
up
in
the
Popes
Breast
?
was
there
no
due
power
of
Governing
left
,
because
his
unjust
power
was
cast
off
,
and
that
first
by
Bishops
,
who
in
other
things
adhered
to
the
Roman
Church
?
But
they
proceeded
farther
and
altered
many
things
in
Religion
against
the
Consent
of
the
more
Vniversal
Church
.
It
is
plain
since
our
Church
was
declared
to
be
Free
they
had
a
Liberty
of
enquiring
and
determining
things
fittest
to
be
believed
and
practised
;
this
then
could
not
be
her
fault
.
But
in
those
things
they
decreed
,
they
went
contrary
to
the
consent
of
the
Vniversal
Church
:
Here
we
are
now
come
to
the
merits
of
the
cause
;
and
we
have
from
the
beginning
of
the
Reformation
defended
,
that
we
rejected
nothing
but
innovations
,
and
Reformed
nothing
but
Abuses
.
But
the
Church
thought
otherwise
of
them
.
What
Church
I
pray
?
The
Primitive
and
Apostolical
?
that
we
have
always
appealed
to
and
offered
to
be
tryed
by
.
The
truly
Catholick
Church
of
all
Ages
?
That
we
utterly
deny
to
have
agreed
in
any
one
thing
against
the
Church
of
England
.
But
the
plain
English
of
all
is
,
the
Church
of
Rome
was
against
the
Church
of
England
;
and
no
wonder
,
for
the
Church
of
England
was
against
the
Church
of
Rome
;
but
we
know
of
no
Fault
we
are
guilty
of
therein
;
nor
any
obligation
of
submission
to
the
Commands
of
that
Church
.
And
N.
O.
doth
not
say
,
that
we
opposed
the
whole
Church
,
but
the
more
Vniversal
Church
,
i.
e.
I
suppose
the
greater
number
of
Persons
at
that
time
.
But
doth
he
undertake
to
make
this
good
,
that
the
greater
number
of
Christians
,
then
in
the
world
,
did
oppose
the
Church
of
England
?
How
doth
he
know
that
the
Eastern
,
Armenian
,
Abyssin
and
Greek
Churches
did
agree
with
the
Church
of
Rome
against
us
?
No
:
that
is
not
his
meaning
;
but
by
the
more
Vniversal
Church
,
he
fairly
understands
no
more
but
the
Church
of
Rome
.
And
that
we
did
oppose
the
Doctrine
and
practices
of
the
Church
of
Rome
we
deny
not
;
but
we
utterly
deny
that
to
be
the
Catholick
Church
;
or
that
we
opposed
any
lawful
Authority
in
denying
submission
to
it
.
But
according
to
the
Canons
of
the
Church
we
are
to
obey
,
in
any
dissent
or
division
of
the
Clergy
,
the
Superior
and
more
comprehensive
Body
of
the
Ecclesiastical
Hierarchy
.
What
he
means
by
this
,
I
do
not
well
understand
,
either
it
must
be
the
Authority
of
the
Pope
and
Councils
of
the
Roman
Church
,
or
a
General
Council
of
all
the
Catholick
Church
.
For
the
first
,
we
owe
no
obedience
to
them
,
for
the
second
,
there
was
no
such
thing
then
in
the
world
,
and
therefore
could
not
be
opposed
.
And
for
the
Canons
of
the
Catholick
Councils
before
the
breaches
of
Christendom
,
no
Church
hath
been
more
guilty
of
a
violation
of
them
,
than
the
Church
of
Rome
,
since
the
Rules
of
the
Fathers
have
been
turned
into
the
Royalties
of
S.
Peter
.
We
are
no
Enemies
to
the
ancient
Patriarchal
Government
of
the
Christian
Church
,
and
are
far
more
for
preserving
the
Dignity
of
it
,
than
the
Roman
Church
can
be
:
For
we
should
think
it
a
happy
State
of
the
Christian
Church
,
if
all
the
Patriarchs
did
enjoy
their
ancient
power
and
priviledges
,
and
all
Christendom
would
consent
to
a
truly
Free
and
General
Council
;
which
we
look
on
as
the
best
expedient
on
earth
,
for
composing
the
differences
of
the
Christian
World
,
if
it
might
be
had
.
But
we
cannot
endure
to
be
abused
by
meer
names
of
titular
Patriarchs
,
but
real
Servants
and
Pensionaries
of
the
Popes
,
with
combinations
of
interested
parties
instead
of
General
Councils
,
with
the
pleasure
of
Popes
instead
of
ancient
Canons
.
Let
them
reduce
the
ancient
Government
of
the
Church
within
its
due
bounds
;
let
the
Bishop
of
Rome
content
himself
with
the
priviledges
he
then
en●oyed
;
let
debates
be
free
and
Bishops
assemble
with
an
equal
proportion
out
of
all
Churches
of
Christendom
;
and
if
we
then
oppose
so
gener●l
a
consent
of
the
Christian
Church
,
let
them
charge
us
with
not
submitting
to
all
the
Authority
extant
of
the
world
.
But
since
,
the
State
of
Christendom
hath
been
so
much
divided
,
that
a
truly
General
Council
is
next
to
an
impossible
thing
,
the
Church
must
be
Reformed
by
its
parts
,
and
every
Free
Church
,
enjoying
the
Rights
of
a
Patriarchal
See
,
hath
according
to
the
Canons
of
the
Church
a
sufficient
power
to
Reform
all
abuses
within
it self
,
when
a
more
general
consent
cannot
be
obtained
.
By
this
we
may
see
how
very
feeble
this
charge
is
of
destroying
all
Church-Authority
by
refusing
submission
to
the
Roman
Hierarchy
:
and
how
very
pityful
an
advantage
can
from
hence
be
made
by
the
dissenting
parties
among
us
,
who
decry
that
Patriarchal
and
ancient
Government
as
Anti-christian
which
we
allow
as
Prudent
and
Christian.
But
of
the
difference
of
these
two
case
,
I
have
spoken
already
.
4.
But
yet
N.
O.
saith
,
my
principles
afford
no
effectual
way
or
means
in
this
Church
of
suppressing
or
convicting
any
Schism
,
Sect
or
Heresie
,
or
reducing
them
either
to
submission
of
judgement
or
silence
:
Therefore
my
Principles
are
dest●●ctive
to
all
Church-Authority
.
To
which
I
answer
,
1.
That
the
design
of
my
Principles
was
to
lay
down
the
Foundations
of
Faith
,
and
not
the
means
of
suppressing
heresies
.
If
I
had
laid
down
the
Foundations
of
Peace
and
left
all
Persons
to
their
own
judgements
without
any
regard
to
Authority
,
this
might
have
been
justly
objected
against
me
;
but
according
to
this
way
,
it
might
have
been
objected
to
Aristotle
that
he
was
an
Enemy
to
civil
Government
,
because
he
doth
not
lay
down
the
Rules
of
it
in
his
Logick
,
or
that
Hippocrates
favoured
the
Chymists
and
Mountebanks
,
because
he
saith
not
a
word
of
the
Colledge
of
Physitians
.
If
I
had
said
any
thing
about
the
Authority
of
particular
Churches
,
or
the
ways
of
suppressing
Sects
;
then
how
insultingly
had
I
been
asked
;
What
is
all
this
to
the
Foundations
of
Faith
?
Excellent
Protestant
principles
of
Faith
!
They
begin
now
to
resolve
faith
into
the
Authority
of
their
own
Church
:
or
else
to
what
end
is
this
mentioned
,
where
nothing
is
pretended
to
but
laying
down
the
Foundations
on
which
Protestants
do
build
their
faith
?
But
although
there
be
no
way
of
escaping
impertinent
objections
,
yet
it
is
some
satisfaction
to
ones
self
to
have
given
no
occasion
for
them
.
2.
I
would
know
what
he
understands
by
his
effectual
means
of
suppressing
Sects
or
Heresies
.
We
are
sure
the
meer
Authority
of
their
Church
hath
been
no
more
effectual
means
,
than
that
of
ours
hath
been
;
but
there
is
another
means
they
use
which
is
far
more
effectual
viz.
the
Inquisition
.
This
in
truth
is
all
the
effectual
means
they
have
above
us
;
but
God
keep
us
from
so
Barbarous
and
Diabolical
a
means
of
suppressing
Schisms
;
The
Sanbenits
have
not
more
pictures
of
Devils
upon
them
,
than
the
Inquisition
it self
hath
of
their
Spirit
in
it
;
however
that
Gracious
Pope
Paul
4.
attributed
the
settling
of
it
in
Spain
to
the
Inspiration
of
the
Holy
Ghost
;
not
that
Holy
Ghost
certainly
,
that
came
down
from
Heaven
upon
the
Apostles
;
but
that
which
was
conveyed
in
a
Portmantue
from
Rome
to
the
Council
of
Trent
.
But
if
this
be
the
effectual
means
he
understands
,
I
hope
he
doth
not
think
it
any
credit
to
the
Authority
of
their
Church
,
that
all
who
dispute
it
must
endure
a
most
miserable
life
or
a
most
cruel
death
.
All
the
other
means
they
have
are
but
probable
;
but
this
,
this
is
the
most
effectual
.
How
admirably
do
Fire
and
Faggots
end
Controversies
!
No
general
Council
signifies
half
so
much
as
a
Court
of
Inquisition
;
and
the
Pope
himself
is
not
near
so
good
a
Judge
of
Controversies
as
the
Executioner
,
and
Dic
Ecclesiae
is
nothing
to
take
him
Gaoler
.
These
have
been
the
kind
,
the
tender
,
the
primitive
,
the
Christian
means
of
suppressing
Sects
and
Heresies
in
the
Roman
Church
!
O
how
compassionate
a
Mother
is
that
Church
,
that
takes
her
froward
Children
in
her
hands
to
dash
their
brains
against
the
stones
!
O
how
pleasant
a
thing
it
is
for
Brethren
to
be
destroyed
for
lack
of
Vnity
!
How
beautiful
upon
the
7.
Mountains
are
the
Feet
of
those
who
shed
the
Blood
of
Hereticks
!
Never
were
there
two
men
had
a
more
Catholick
Spirit
,
than
Dioclesian
and
Bishop
Bonner
.
Men
may
talk
to
the
worlds
end
of
Councils
and
Fathers
and
Authority
of
the
Church
and
I
know
not
what
insignificant
nothings
;
come
,
come
,
there
is
but
one
effectual
means
,
which
the
good
Cardinal
Baronius
suggested
to
his
Holiness
,
Arise
Peter
,
kill
and
eat
.
Let
the
Hereticks
talk
of
the
kind
and
merciful
Spirit
of
our
Saviour
who
rebuked
his
Disciples
so
sharply
for
calling
for
fire
from
Heaven
upon
the
Samaritans
,
and
told
them
they
did
not
know
what
Spirit
they
are
of
:
let
them
dispute
never
so
much
against
the
cruelty
and
unreasonableness
of
such
a
way
of
confuting
them
;
let
them
muster
up
never
so
many
sayings
of
Fathers
against
it
;
yet
when
all
is
done
,
what
ever
becomes
of
Christianity
,
it
was
truly
said
of
Paul
4.
that
the
Authority
of
the
Roman
See
depends
only
upon
the
office
of
the
Inquisition
.
And
that
we
may
think
,
he
was
in
good
earnest
when
he
said
it
,
Onuphrius
tells
us
it
was
part
of
the
speech
he
made
to
the
Cardinals
before
his
death
.
Was
not
this
think
we
,
a
true
Vicar
of
Christ
?
a
man
of
an
Apostolical
Spirit
?
that
knew
the
most
effectual
means
of
suppressing
heresies
and
Schisms
and
advancing
the
Authority
of
the
Roman
See.
And
that
we
may
not
think
their
opinion
is
altered
in
this
matter
,
one
of
the
late
Consulters
of
the
Inquisition
hath
determined
that
the
practice
of
the
Roman
Church
in
the
office
of
the
Inquisition
is
reasonable
,
pious
,
useful
,
and
necessary
;
Which
he
proves
by
the
Testimony
of
their
greatest
Doctors
.
And
by
which
we
may
easily
judge
what
N.
O.
and
his
Brethren
think
to
be
the
most
effectual
means
of
suppressing
Sects
and
Heresies
,
with
the
want
of
which
we
are
contented
to
be
upbraided
.
But
setting
this
aside
we
have
as
many
reasonable
means
,
and
I
think
many
more
of
convicting
dissenters
,
than
they
can
pretend
to
,
in
the
Roman
Church
.
3.
It
is
very
well
known
that
we
do
endeavour
,
as
much
as
lyes
in
us
,
to
reclaim
all
Dissenters
;
but
God
never
wrought
Miracles
to
cure
incorrigible
persons
,
and
would
not
have
us
to
go
out
of
the
way
of
our
duty
to
suppress
Sects
and
Heresies
.
The
greatest
severities
have
not
effected
it
,
(
which
made
one
of
the
Inquisitors
in
Italy
complain
that
after
40.
years
experience
,
wherein
they
had
destroyed
above
100000.
Persons
for
heresie
,
(
as
they
call
it
)
it
was
so
far
from
being
suppressed
or
weakned
that
it
was
extremly
strengthened
and
increased
.
What
wonder
is
it
then
,
if
dissenters
should
yet
continue
among
us
,
who
do
not
use
such
Barbarous
ways
of
stopping
the
mouths
of
Hereticks
with
burning
lead
,
or
silencing
them
by
a
rope
and
flames
.
But
we
recommend
as
much
as
they
can
do
to
the
people
the
vertues
of
Humility
,
Obedience
,
due
submission
to
their
Spiritual
Pastors
and
Governours
,
and
that
they
ought
not
to
usurp
their
office
,
and
become
their
own
Guides
:
which
N.
O.
in
his
conclusion
blames
us
for
not
doing
.
Yet
we
do
not
exact
of
them
a
blind
obedience
,
we
allow
them
to
understand
the
nature
and
Doctrine
of
Christianity
,
which
the
more
they
do
,
we
are
sure
they
will
be
so
much
the
better
Christians
and
the
more
easily
Governed
.
So
that
we
have
no
kind
of
Controversie
about
Church-Authority
it self
but
what
it
is
,
and
in
what
manner
,
and
by
whom
to
be
exercised
;
but
surely
N.
O.
had
little
to
say
,
when
from
laying
down
the
Principles
of
Faith
,
he
charges
me
with
this
most
absurd
consequence
of
destroying
all
Church-Authority
.
I
have
thus
far
considered
the
main
Foundations
upon
which
N.
O.
proceeds
in
opposition
to
my
Principles
,
there
is
now
very
little
remaining
which
deserves
any
Notice
:
and
that
which
seems
to
do
it
as
about
Negative
Articles
of
Faith
,
and
the
marks
of
the
True
Church
I
shall
have
occasion
to
handle
them
at
large
in
the
following
discourse
.
FINIS
.
Notes, typically marginal, from the original text
Notes for div A71070-e200
Ha●●●mull
.
hist
Iesuit
.
ordin
.
c.
8.
S.
C.
p.
79.
S.
C.
p.
46.
Roman
Doctrine
of
Repentance
,
&c.
vindicated
p.
19.
P.
44.
P.
47.
P.
●9
.
Et
quamvis
sine
Sacramento
Poenitentiae
per
se
ad
justificationem
perducere
peccatorem
nequeat
(
attritio
)
;
tamen
cum
ad
Dei
gratiam
in
Sacramento
Poe●ite●tiae
impetrandam
disponit
.
Concil
.
Trident.
sess
.
14.
c.
4.
*
Si
quis
dixerit
Sacramenta
novae
Legis
non
continere
Gratiam
quam
significant
,
aut
gratiam
ipsam
non
ponentibus
obicem
non
conf●rre
—
Anathema
sit
.
Sess.
7.
Can.
6.
Si
quis
dix●rit
non
dari
gratiam
per
hujus
modi
Sacramenta
semper
&
omnibus
,
qua●tum
est
ex
parte
Dei
,
etiamsi
ritè
ea
suscipiant
,
sed
aliquando
&
aliquibus
,
A●athemae
sit
.
Can.
7.
Sess.
14.
c.
4.
P.
45.
Melch.
Cano
Relect.
de
Poenit.
part
.
6.
p.
932.
Morinus
de
Poenit.
Sacramento
l.
8.
c.
4.
n.
27.
La
Morale
de
Iesuits
●●v
.
2.
ch
.
2.
●
.
253.
Layman
.
Theol.
Moral
.
l.
5.
tract
.
6.
c.
2.
sect
.
2.
Tolet.
Summ
Cas.
l.
3.
c
▪
4.
Morinus
de
Poenit.
l.
8.
c.
4.
n.
1.
Lugo
de
Poenit.
disp
.
5.
sect
.
9.
n.
130
135.
O.
N.
p.
45.
Lugo
disp
.
7.
sect
.
11.
n.
201.
Sect.
13.
n.
263.
Greg.
de
Valent.
Tom.
4.
disp
.
7.
q.
8.
pua●
.
4.
sect
.
Secundo
potest
.
Morin
.
de
poenit
.
l.
8.
c.
4.
n.
15.
Id.
ib.
n.
26.
Sacramentorum
Evangelicorum
supra
legaliaa
praestantiam
&
praerogativam
in
hoc
potissimum
fulgere
,
quod
Evangelica
gravissimo
Contritionis
,
&
Dilectionis
Dei
jugo
nos
liberaverint
.
Morin
.
de
Poenit.
l.
8.
c.
4.
n.
26.
Index
Exp●rg
:
Alex.
7.
n.
87.
88.
Ribadin
.
〈…〉
l.
5.
c.
●
.
P.
38.
P.
39.
P.
50.
P.
40.
P.
21.
P.
13.
Sanctissi●●●
Domini
N.
D.
Innocenti●
Divina
Providentia
Pap●
.
10.
Declaratio
nullitatis
Articulorum
Nuperae
Pacis
Germaniae
Religioni
Catholicae
,
Sedi
Apostolicae
,
Ecclesiis
,
aliisque
l●●is
piis
ac
Personis
,
&
Iuribus
Ecclesiasticis
quomodo
libet
praejudicialium
.
Romae
ex
Typographiâ
Reverend
.
Can●●●
Apostolicae
.
A.
D.
1651.
P.
312.
Book
of
Hom.
second
Tome
.
p.
46.
P.
214.
P.
19●
.
P.
30.
Appeal
p.
263.
Answer
to
the
Gagg
.
p.
319.
P.
110.
Concil
.
Trident
.
sess
.
7.
can
.
9.
sess
.
23.
can
.
4.
V.
Vasquez
.
in
3.
p.
Thom.
disp
.
137.
c.
3.
n.
20.
Vasquez
.
in
3.
p
Th.
disp
.
243.
c.
1.
Est.
in
Sente●t
.
l.
4.
disti
.
25.
sect
.
3.
Aug.
●l
.
2.
c.
Epist.
Pa●●ca
.
c.
13.
17.
c.
Donat.
l
1.
c.
1.
l.
3
c.
1●
.
Aug.
E●ist
.
50.
Epist.
162.
c.
c●ss
.
l.
2.
c.
11.
12.
Co●ex
Ca●
.
Eccles.
A●ic
.
c.
63.
Apud
.
Ba●samon
.
Et
Zonar
.
●
.
71.
Hallier
de
ordi●
.
sacris
.
p.
2.
Sect.
4.
c.
5.
ss
.
1.
n.
4.
P.
2.
sect
.
3.
c.
2.
sect
.
5.
6
7.
Sect.
4.
c.
5.
s●ct
.
1.
To.
Aquin.
suppl
.
q.
38.
art
.
2.
〈…〉
.
l.
4.
●●ist
.
25.
q.
2.
Mori●
.
d●
Sacris
Ordi●at
.
pa●
.
3.
Exercit
.
5.
c.
1.
n.
12
Exer●it
.
5.
c.
8.
n.
7.
Extra●
.
de
temp
.
〈◊〉
.
C.
quod
Trasl
.
Morin
.
de
sacris
ordinat
.
part
.
1.
c.
3.
4.
5.
Leo
Allatius
de
aetat
:
Et
inte●st
.
in
collat
:
Ordin
.
p.
5.
14.
Isaaac
.
Habert
.
Po●tifical
.
Graec.
in
praef
.
Morin
.
de
Sacris
Ordin
.
p.
1.
c.
4.
Notes for div A71070-e9260
§.
1●
Of
the
Nature
of
these
Answers
.
§.
2.
Of
their
common
way
of
Answering
our
Books
.
§.
3.
Of
their
Ca●●mnies
against
me
.
Mat.
26.
65.
1
J●h
4.
1.
§.
4.
Expo●ing
Fanaticism
no
disservice
to
Christianity
.
Dr.
〈◊〉
against
Dr.
Stilling●●●t
.
p.
11.
M●●●h
.
Ca●
.
loc
.
T●col
.
l.
11.
p.
534.
Lud.
Viv.
a●trad
.
〈◊〉
.
l.
5.
Dr.
〈◊〉
Princip
.
con●id
.
〈◊〉
.
Notes for div A71070-e10940
§.
1.
The
insufficiency
of
his
way
of
Answering
.
P.
14.
St.
against
St.
p.
14.
§.
2.
No
contratradiction
about
the
charge
of
Idolatry
.
Rational
Account
.
p.
596
,
606.
§.
2.
The
Sophistical
cavils
in
this
argument
.
Tit.
1.
16.
§.
3.
A
distinct
answer
to
his
propositions
.
§.
4.
In
what
sense
the
Church
of
Rome
is
owned
by
us
as
a
true
Church
.
Rational
Account
.
p.
47.
§.
5.
His
Appendix
considered
.
Dr.
St.
against
Dr.
St.
p.
21.
Roman
Idolatry
.
p.
55.
2.
edi●
.
Isa.
40
▪
19
,
22.
Deut.
4.
15
,
16.
〈◊〉
▪
20.
§
6.
The
second
contradiction
Examined
.
〈…〉
p.
293.
P.
295.
Arch
B.
La●ds
Conference
.
p.
280.
P.
282.
P.
285.
P.
299.
Rational
Account
.
p.
622.
St.
against
St.
p.
7.
P.
8.
§.
7.
The
charge
of
Fanaticism
de●ended
.
P.
8.
Fanaticism
of
Rom.
Church
.
s.
16.
p.
299.
2.
●d
.
St.
against
St.
p.
9.
1
King
19.
18.
Rom.
11.
3.
§.
8.
No
contradiction
in
the
charge
〈◊〉
divisions
.
Rational
〈◊〉
.
p.
56.
Divis.
of
the
Rom.
Church
.
s.
15.
●
397.
2.
ed.
§.
9.
The
Conclusion
.
P.
14.
P.
14.
Notes for div A71070-e20390
§.
1.
The
occasion
of
annexing
the
Principles
.
P.
483.
●
2.
ed.
Protestants
without
Principles
,
Chap.
1.
P.
17.
P.
18.
P.
19.
P.
20.
P.
21.
P.
22.
P.
23.
P.
24.
P.
25.
P.
42
,
43.
§.
2
▪
Or
the
notion
of
infallibility
.
§.
3.
N.
O●
.
concessions
.
Prop.
2.
Prop.
3.
Prop.
4.
Prop.
10.
P.
22.
S.
15.
P.
52.
P.
54.
P.
56.
P.
55.
Pro●
.
27.
P.
67.
P.
94.
●rot
.
without
Princip
.
Chap.
6.
Guide
in
Controv.
disc
.
5.
chap.
10.
S.
134.
Sect.
135.
§
4.
N.
O's
.
Principles
laid
down
.
P.
1●
.
§.
5.
N.
O's
.
exceptions
answered
.
Prop.
13.
P.
13.
Ioh.
20
,
31.
P.
13.
P.
14.
Luke
10.
31
,
32.
Mat.
25.
29.
P.
14.
Field
of
the
Church
l
▪
4.
ch
5.
p.
350.
Ch.
2
▪
Ch.
5.
P.
15.
Psal.
25.
9.
James
1.
5.
Luke
11.
13.
John
7.
17.
§.
6.
N.
O's
.
Proofs
of
Infallibility
examined
.
§
7.
Of
the
Arguments
from
Scripture
for
Infallibility
.
〈◊〉
.
25.
26.
〈◊〉
17.
10.
11
,
12.
〈…〉
.
Ration
.
Account
.
p.
1.
ch
.
8.
Sect.
2.
p.
239.
Prop.
16
,
P.
27.
P.
28
,
29.
1
Cor.
14.
22.
Heb.
2.
4.
P.
29.
P
30.
Prop.
17.
P.
37.
§.
8.
Of
the
Argument
from
Tradition
for
Infallibility
.
P.
38
,
39.
B●ll
de
Concil
.
l.
2.
c.
10.
Field
of
the
Church
,
l.
4
c
4.
Rat.
Account
.
part
▪
3.
ch
.
1.
Sect.
4.
p.
510.
Rat.
Acc●unt
.
p.
1.
ch
.
4.
p.
101
▪
P
43.
P.
44.
§
9.
Of
the
Argument
for
Infallibility
from
Parity
of
Reason
.
Prop.
13.
§
10.
Of
the
Authority
of
the
Guides
of
the
Church
John
5.
36
,
9.
1
Cor.
10.
15
1
Thess.
5.
21.
Acts
:
7
▪
11.
1
John
4.
●
Gal.
1.
8.
Jude
v.
4.
Mat.
24.
4
,
5.
23
▪
24.
Acts.
20.
29
▪
30.
1
T●m
.
4.
1
2
Thess.
2.
3.
2
Tim.
4.
3
,
4.
2
T●ess
.
2.
9
,
●0
.
Matt.
15.
14.
〈◊〉
1.
8.
●
Cor.
11.
1.
2
Cor.
1.
14.
〈…〉
.
Ba●o●
A.
D.
546.
547
55●
.
Petav
dogmat
.
Theolog.
Tom.
4.
l
1.
c.
18
Petr.
de
Marca
,
dis●rt
.
de
Vigilii
decr●to
.
Bell.
de
Rom.
Pon●it
.
l.
4.
c.
3.
B●lla●m
.
de
Concil
.
Auctor
.
2.
c.
12.
Concil
.
Constat
.
3.
Act.
13.
Can.
lo●
.
Theol.
l.
6.
c.
8.
Francise
.
Toa●●ens
.
de
6.
7.
8.
Synod
.
Flor.
A.
D.
1551.
P.
11.
12.
P.
14.
P.
24.
〈◊〉
.
Allocutio
3.
Hadriani
2.
ad
Co●c
.
Ro.
Tom
8.
Conc.
Gen.
●d
Lu●
.
Par.
1671.
P.
1●
91.
Baron
.
A.
D.
681.
n.
29.
Francis.
Combesis
Historia
h●res
.
Monotheli●●r
.
c.
2.
Alex
7.
Index
Expu●g●tor
.
p.
277.
Bellarm.
de
Rom.
Pontifice
l.
4.
c.
11.
Petav
dogmat
.
Theol.
l.
1.
c.
21.
s.
11
Bal●zius
de
vi
â
Petri
Marcae
p.
28.
29.
Petav.
ib.
●ect
.
13.
Combesis
.
c.
2.
sect
.
3.
Tab●lae
su●●rag
.
p.
130.
Iacob
.
de
Vitriaco
hist.
Orient
.
Cap.
77.
Bellonii
Obser
.
l.
1.
c.
35.
Article
21.
Articl
.
3.
Concil
.
Lateran
.
A.
D.
15
16.
s●ct
.
11.
§.
11.
Of
the
s●nse
of
Scripture
.
P.
37.
P.
6.
14.
P.
47.
Ephes.
4.
11
,
13
,
14.
2
Pet.
3.
16.
P.
67.
2
Pet
3.
17
,
18.
§
12.
Of
a
Judge
of
Controver●●es
.
§13
.
The
way
used
in
the
Primitive
Church
f●r
finding
the
sense
of
Scripture
〈…〉
.
●6
.
sect
.
2.
3.
〈…〉
〈…〉
C.
29.
L.
3.
c.
11.
Epipha●
.
hae●
.
42.
Iren
l.
3.
c.
11.
T●rtull
.
de
praecip
haeret
.
c.
38.
Eus.
b.
hist.
Eccl●s
l.
4.
c.
29.
〈◊〉
l.
1.
c.
1.
Iren.
l.
1.
c.
1.
Tertull.
de
praescrip
.
haeret
.
c.
39.
Pet.
Scrive
i●
fragmata
●●
Tragicorum
.
p.
187.
Isidor
:
Or●gin
.
l.
r.
c.
38.
Iren.
l.
2.
c.
46.
Iren.
l.
1.
c.
1.
C.
2.
C.
3.
L.
3.
c.
1.
C.
2.
C.
3.
C.
4.
L.
1.
6.
2.
L.
4.
Praebat
.
L.
5.
Praehat
.
Tertull.
de
praescript
haeret
.
c.
8.
C.
9.
C.
10
C.
13.
C.
14
C.
16.
C.
17.
C.
18.
C.
19.
C.
20.
C.
21.
22.
C.
23.
C.
24.
C.
25.
C.
26.
C.
27.
C.
28.
C.
29.
C.
30.
C.
32.
C.
33.
C.
36.
C.
37.
T●rtull
.
c.
Mar.
l.
1.
c.
2.
C.
4.
5
,
6.
C.
11.
12.
L.
3.
c.
5.
C.
8.
9.
L.
4
▪
c.
4
C.
5.
C.
7
&
●●
Tertull.
adversus
Hermog
.
c.
19.
C.
20.
21.
C.
22.
T●rtull
.
adversus
Prax●am
.
c.
20.
Clem.
Ale●
and.
Stro●
.
●
.
Cyprian
.
Epist
.
74.
Firmil
.
inter
e●pas
Cyprian
75.
Baron
.
Annal
.
ad
A.
D.
258.
n.
36.
n.
52.
Euseb.
●
.
l.
7.
c.
5.
Concil
.
Arelat
.
1.
c.
8.
〈…〉
2.
c.
16.
17.
Aug.
de
haer●s
.
cap.
44.
G●●ad
.
de
E●cl●s
d●gmat
.
c.
52.
Ba●il
Epist.
Ca●
.
1.
ad
●●●●●loch
.
Concil
La●di●ea
.
c.
7
▪
8.
Baron
.
Annal
.
Tom.
4.
in
Append.
〈…〉
.
65.
〈◊〉
Eccles●
.
●istor
.
l.
5.
c.
28.
〈…〉
b.
l.
7.
c.
30.
Epipha●
.
haeres
.
64.
Sect.
5.
Sect.
6.
Athans
.
Co●t
.
〈◊〉
Orat.
1.
p.
287.
Atha
.
Co●●
.
A●a●
.
〈…〉
.
p.
116.
&c.
Eph
4
16.
〈…〉
c.
〈◊〉
.
p.
549.
Ath●●
O●at
.
1.
C.
Arian
.
ad
Ad
●ph
.
C.
Paul.
Samosat
.
cp
.
ad
S●rapi
.
H●ar
.
de
T●ait
.
l.
1.
Hilar.
l.
9.
〈…〉
69.
●
50.
Co●cil
.
Gen●ral
.
Tom.
2.
p.
84.
Greg.
Nazia●
Ep.
●5
.
Bellar.
de
Co●cil
.
Author
.
l.
2.
c.
7.
August
.
C.
Maxim.
l.
3.
c.
14.
Aug.
de
Doctri
.
Christia●
l.
1.
c.
35
,
36.
L.
2.
●
.
7.
L.
2.
c
9.
Ib.
L.
3.
c.
26.
L.
2.
c.
6.
L
2.
c.
10.
C.
11.
L.
3.
c.
4.
L.
3.
c.
5.
C.
9.
c.
15
,
16.
L.
3.
c.
26.
L.
3.
c.
28.
Vincent
.
Lerin
.
Commonitor
.
p.
4.
Commonit
.
1.
c.
39.
●●
Commonit
.
2.
c.
〈◊〉
.
Vincent
.
Commonit
.
1.
a●
.
26.
ad
35.
Petav.
Dogm
.
Theol
Tom.
2.
in
praefat
.
L.
1.
c.
8.
sect
.
2.
Hier.
A
o●
.
2.
c.
Russi●
1.
C.
39.
C.
37.
C.
39.
§.
14.
S.
Augustins
Testimo●●
examined
p.
85.
Aug.
c.
Cresco●
.
l.
1.
c.
33.
Aug.
de
unit
.
Eccles.
c.
4.
5
,
19.
C.
10.
C.
16.
Aug.
de
Baptis
.
c.
Donat
.
l
2.
c.
1.
c.
9.
l.
4.
c.
6.
l.
2.
c.
4.
l.
3.
c.
10.
l.
6.
c.
2.
De
Bapt
●
Do●at
.
l.
2
c.
3
:
De
Bapt.
l.
3.
c.
4.
De
Baptis
.
l.
2.
c.
14.
C.
C●e●cor
.
l.
2.
c.
31.
32.
C.
Cr●s●on
.
Io.
de
Bapt.
C.
Do●at
.
L.
1.
c.
18.
L.
2.
c.
9.
L.
3.
c.
10.
L.
4.
c.
6
,
7
L.
5.
c.
4
L.
6.
c.
2.
L.
4.
c.
7.
De
Bapt.
●
.
Donat.
l.
5.
c.
23.
§.
15.
Of
Church
Authority
.
P.
50.
P.
84.
P.
98.
P.
99.
Art.
20.
P.
15.
Fanaticism
Fanatically
imputed
to
the
Roman
Church
.
p.
93.
P.
96.
P.
92.
P.
89.
P.
99.
Chrysost.
in
2.
〈◊〉
Thess.
Hom.
3.
S.
C.
p.
117.
Praeface
to
Principles
considered
.
P.
●98
.
Iacob
Simanca
Enchir
.
judic
▪
viol
.
Relig.
Tit.
68.
n.
18.
Luke
9.
55.
Onuphr
.
vit
.
Pauli
4.
Del.
bere
de
officio
Inquisit
.
part
.
1.
dub
.
162.
Petit.
5.
n.
8.
Ger.
●usdragi
Epistol
.
ad
Cardinal
.
Pisan.