presseth as the Church's Authority so yet further its Infallibility that is the Infallibility not of the Roman Church or of Pope as this Author will needs understand him though no such thing is once named in the Considerations but of the Church Catholick of the Catholick Church in her most Vniversal Councils and Courts that can be convened for deciding Controversies and for declaring the true sense of the Scriptures especially if these Councils and their Decrees have such a general acceptation with the Church Catholick diffusive as can be thought necessary to give us Its judgment at least as to a major part thereof And again Infallibility of such Councils not as to any Questions or Controversies whatever that may be proposed to them but of all such points as are any way necessary to salvation which necessity if any need to know it we are to learn from them And Necessary not as this word includes only those Articles without the explicite belief of which none can enter into Heaven but as it includes all those points also which either as to our belief or practice are highly beneficial thereto for in these also the right guidance of our Spiritual Pastors seems necessary and as is explained before § 2 c the Church also not undertaking as N. O. saith Consid p. 34. to end all manner of differences but so many wherein she findes on any side sufficient evidence of Tradition and for the gravity of the matter a necessity of decision The same Divine providence that preserves his Church perpetually Infallible in all things necessary to be determined disposing also that for all Necessaries there shall be a sufficient evidence of Tradition either of the Conclusion it self or its Principles § 50 Now for such Infallibility N.O. first presseth That the ordinary practice of General Councils Consid p. 40. which hath been constantly allowed and submitted to by the Church Catholick Diffusive necessarily inferrs their Infallibility viz. their inserting from time to time as they thought fit their Decisions in the Creeds and their Anathematizing Dissenters and the Church Diffusive afterward stiling such Dissenters Hereticks and opposers of the Faith That such assent and belief and submission of judgment if justly required by them Consid p. 32 inferrs such persons herein not liable to errour upon the Dr's own arguing For saith he ‖ Rat. Acc. p. 506. Where Councils challenge an internal Assent by vertue of their Decrees or because their Decrees are in themselves infallible there must be first proved an impossibility of errour in them before any can look on themselves as obliged to give it That Protestant's allowing only an External Obedience or Silence due to Councils fallible shews that Councils fallible can justly require no more and consequently that such Councils are infallible as do justly require more as did the four first Councils with the voluntary acknowledgment also and submission of the rest of the Body of the Catholick Church to such an Authority assumed by them That subordinate Councils when they have also sometimes stated matters of faith censured Hereticks and required assent to their Decrees yet did this still with relation to the same Infallibility residing in the General Body of Church-Governours and to their concurrence therein whilst they did not pass such Acta without consulting the Tradition and judgment of other Churches and especially of the Apostolick See § 51 That had there been no Divine Writings there must have been such a divinely-assisted Infallibility as for necessaries left in the Church-Guides Consid p. 38 for that without this the Christian would otherwise have been no stable or certain Religion at least as to many necessary points thereof so that all persons might have a right belief in them because that Tradition carries not with it a sufficient evidence as to all points of necessary faith especially as to all sorts of people several Controversies about Necessaries having been raised which have not been decided and ended by any then generally current Tradition Or the Clearness of Scripture supplyed this deficiency of Tradition as to the capacities of all the members of the Church without the convening Consultations of Councils who have cleared to their subjects the necessary Deductions from former Traditionals without which Deductions several most pernicious Heresies would have undermined the former Christian Faith that was in precedent times couched in more general Terms § 52 That Catholicks need not in arguing against Protestants who grant the Scriptures to be Gods Word Consid p 5. 7 to use any other testimony than that of these Scriptures for a sufficiently clear proof of such Infallibility residing in the Governours of the Church Which proofs out of Scripture every where obvious in Catholick Writers were by N.O. not thought so necessary to be produced where he made only some short Reflections on the Dr's Principles and not a set Discourse of Infallibility as this Author would misname it But since the Dr. so much misseth them though I cannot but wonder why he so earnestly calls for what N.O. hath not said whenas he so easily omits to speak to what he hath said he may find several of them put together in the first Discourse Concerning the Guide in Controversies § 7. c. and there vindicated also from the glosses put on them by this Authour in his Rational Account and may finde them mentioned also here below in the Annotation on p. 113. l. 15. And since the Doctor with other Protestants grants an Infallibility in Necessaries of the Church diffusive in all ages from our Lords Promise doubtless contained in some of these Texts I appeal to any after he hath read what is there alledged Whether such Promises in many of these Texts do not relate principally to the Infallibility of the Church-Governours And again Whether if the Common Reason of Christianity i.e. the Reason that is found in the major part thereof were to be consulted concerning the true sense of these Texts the major part of Christendome doth not and hath not believed Church-Infallibility at least in her General Councils established by them A sufficiently clear proof therefore of Church-Infallibility these Scriptures afford Consid p. 57 if that proof may be called so which by the most of the Christian World is taken to be so notwithstanding that a Party engaged by their Reformation in an apparent contrary interest do contradict it Or if whilst they deny a sufficient evidence of Church-Infallibility to be found in Scripture they would allow a sufficient evidence of Church-Authority established there to decide Ecclesiastical Controversies with obligation to External Obedience so it is that by this Authority they would be cast and silenced for the former if a much major part may be admitted as it ought to give law to the whole § 53 To this I may add that de facto the Dr. holds even the Church of Rome i.e. in its Councils and in the Pope as
States to change alter improve abolish according to several Constitutions of the Civil Government things that are not essential to Christian Religion nor expresly prescribed by our Lord or his Apostles but to say nothing meanwhile how what are or are not such Essentials or so commanded shall certainly be known and decided Yet which acting the other necessarily presupposeth the stating of this But wisely little talk they have of this because such thing would inferr a Judge in these matters beside Scripture § 10 To limit the Authority of such Spiritual Guides that it obligeth not when any thing is repugnant to plain Commands of Scripture which it seems either these Governours cannot see or will dissemble or when any other way found not agreeable to Gods Word and then judging themselves when it is or is not so Or if their own judgment may seem too partial making an appeale to the judgment of Common Reason against these Guides as if both they and the Major part of the Christian World that follow them had no such faculty or that this Common Reason were only in a few Again that such authority obligeth not in any thing repugnant to the Evidence of Sense as if either such evidence were not considered by these Persons in Authority or that they had not their senses so perfect as other men To distinguish between the several Ages of the Church and allow more Authority to the Governours of the past as thinking themselves more out of their reach than of the present To annul as much as in them is the Subordinations of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy or render them arbitrary and dependent on Civil States and to level as much as may be their authority and Jurisdiction introducing such a Polyarchy into the Catholick Church as would not be endured in a Temporal Government nor is indeed suffered by wise Princes in a National Church within their own Dominions I will have one Doctrine and one Discipline one Religion in substance and in Ceremony said King sames ‖ Conference at Hampt Court § 11 To inveigh against the Immunityes and priviledges of the Church either given at first by our Lord or added by the favour of Princes when become her sons and subjects and to suggest to them an invasion of their Rights To mingle and confound the Jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical and Civil state and borrow aids from the one as need is to relieve their subjection to the other To require a joint concurrence in the Secular Power for the ratification of all Clergy-Acts though in purely Spiritual Matters whereby neither any Church-Doctrine nor Government can be established in such State which It prohibits and contrary Constitutions and Laws and Reformations are introduced into the Church as the secular Magistrate is variously inclined or informed and Ecclesiastical Controversies transferr'd into the Civil Courts they not so well observing the Consequences hereof when a Julian or a Constantius appears and that if the secular Magistrate should be of a Religion or Sect disliked by them suppose a Presbyterian or a Roman-Catholick such his Spiritual Authority turns to their disadvantage and that the same Ecclesiastical Rights of the Civil Power will destroy Protestancy elsewhere as here support it And that as S. Austin ‖ Epist 48. minded the Donatists preferring a Secular judgment in their Cause before the Church's Judicium Illius scil Principis quem Vestri elegerunt quem Judicibus Episcopis praetulerunt justissime contra vos custodictur § 12 To press much the Scriptures that may seem to relate the Corruptions and fallings away of the Clergy Matt. 24.4 5 23 24. Act. 20.29 30. 2 Thes 2.3 1 Tim. 4.1 1 Joh. 4.1 Gal. 1.8 that bid us to beware of false Prophets and to try the Spirits and to adhere to the Gospel by which they can only mean to that which in their own judgment is the sense of it though an Angel from heaven should teach the contrary to take heed of Seducers and false Guides that should appeare in Christs name applying such things to the Canonical Judicature of the Church and not to themselves rather and to tell the people of Antichrists that are to come and store of false Miracles that are to be done That they are bid to prove all things and hold that which is good i.e. what they judge so That if the blind lead the blind both must fall into the ditch That the Apostles claimed no dominion over mens Faith c. All these for a Dirumpamus vincula eorum projiciamus a nobis jugum ipsorum I mean that Yoke of Church-Authority committed to these our Ecclesiastical Superiours by our Lord Christ Jesus and for the gaining freedome of judgment and liberty of opinion and declining of Obedience All which things any way vilifying Superiours and having somthing Satyrical in them are ordinarily received with much applause by our corrupt Nature uncorrected by Grace which loves to have a Soveraignty placed in it self and to be made Judge of its Judges and relucts against nothing so much as a captivating of the Understanding § 13 But indeed the effects of such yoke thrown off and of such a Liberty established in stead thereof seem to be very sad For besides * the Sin of Disobedience to those our Lord Christ hath set ever us if indeed they be such Spiritual Guides to whom we owe Submission of Judgment * the heaviness of the Church's Censures and Anathemas if these should be justly incurred by us * the liability of the more illiterate and ignorant sort of Christians which are the most of falling into farr more and more gross and fundamental errours than can possibly come from Obedience and Submission to the Church-Governours though supposed also fallible and * the great sins both in a Christian's Practice and in the Divine Service which such errours may bring along with them Besides a continual unsettledness in a belief that is founded on our own judgment very mutable as things are differently represented to it and hastily resolving many times only because seeing few doubts and not because there are not but because we perceive not the difficulties Besides the solicitude and jealousy that such persons ought to have concerning their not having sufficiently studied the grounds of their Faith or used a competent diligence to inform themselves of the truth without which they may still miss of it Besides all these I say it happens that several judgments reading the Scripture and understanding it in a several way all assured of its Clearness in Necessaries and confident of their own Sincerity which they cannot be of another's hence Sects and variety of Opinions according to men's different capacities become infinitely multiplied Hence Censuring also and vilifying of their Spiritual Superiours whose errours they think they clearly discover which Spiritual Pride and conceitedness in Religion and Contradiction to Superiours saith Dr St. ‖ Serm. on Act. 24.14 are to be reckoned among the worst
more prone when swayed by Interest or passionately addicted to a party to embrace and believe the most absurd opinions because they can discover and are furnished with more plausible arguments and Verisimilities to maintain them They press the necessity of an Unity both in Faith and Communion and of the latter its including also the first a varying of faith varying also the publick Divine Worship and Service They defend and urge a necessity also of the Church's many Definitions in the Faith from time to time as any dangerous opinions invade it and so the Faith also by the Divine Providence is continually made more distinct clear and illustrious and the Adherents to it more united from such oppositions and they maintain the Authority of the Church in all ages the same and equall and equally assisted from Heaven to crush the one and defend the other else that the giving way to diversity of Opinions would at last leave no Fundamental of the Christian Faith unshaken and unquestioned Atheism stealing in by certain degrees from indulging too great a latitude in the Faith Rom. 12.16 2 Cor. 2.9 Heb. 13.7 17. 1 Cor. 1.10 Rom. 16.17 Phi 3.16 They press the Scriptures that recommend Humility captivating the Intellect not being wise in our own conceit and that command in all things Obedience that they should all say one thing and that there should be no Schismes among them but that they should be perfect in one sense and one knowledg That they should continue in the same Canon or Rule And Mark those that make dissensions and scandals contrary to the doctrines which they had learned and avoid them Which precepts cannot be observed unless there be in the Church some Persons whose judgment doctrine faith spirit all the rest are to follow and conform to § 19 The effects also of which Obedience to those Guides seem to be quite different from those former ones of Liberty and as happy as the other unfortunate Great unanimity peace and concord in the Members of such a Church where in stead of continual consultations concerning his Religion and that made by every laick from Generation to generation without any settlement in those matters the consideration of which belongs to the Councils of the Church is a stable Vnion in Faith and Doctrine with such a well grounded confidence of these Guides their not erring herein as there remains no expectation of having something amended nor fears of having it altered Where the main business is to believe and practise as these teach him and a great readiness to part with any opinion which may perhaps be different so soon as the Church is known by him to teach the contrary And in any storm that happens to arise in the Church and divide these Governours He suffers no distraction to whom to pay this his obedience in any opposition of Inferiours giving it always to the Superiour Ecclesiastical Persons or Councils Again in any Controversy concerning the judgment or sentiment of Antiquity or former Church acquiescing in the Sentence of the present whose authority he esteems no whit inferiour to that of past Ages and both to be guided by the same Holy Spirit § 20 Thus the humble Christian by an happy resignation of his Judgment where our Lord seems to him to demand it enjoyes a perpetual peace and rest from dispute together with all his fellow-members of the same Body as to all those matters of greater moment wherein these his Spiritual Superiours have published their judgment with much less trouble to himself and more truth not by studying the Controversies but assenting to the Church's Decisions of them and so remaining safe in his Faith without being Learned And lastly this Unity of Faith and Doctrine in such a resolved Obedience is accompanied also with a much firmer league union of Charity the latter being hardly to be attained or long continued without the former and with a blessed Vniformity also of God's Publick Service and Worship and of the External Communion of the members of such a Church entirely the same in all Nations though no one Society Communion of Christians is so universally extended and diffused as it In which Communion and Worship the Faith being once changed presently makes some alterations as it did in Luther's days and none can continue long together in their Communion who are divided in their Faith By all these effects the security of such an Obedience seems much preferrable to the perpetual instability of private men's liberty and the plea for it much more preservative of church-Church-Authority the Authentick Conservator and Expositor of Holy Scripture and more becoming a Clergy man But as it seems much more to be desired so whether it be also sufficiently maintained I leave to the equal Reader 's judgment in the perusal of the following Concertations from which therefore I shall no longer detaine him Domine illumina tenebras nostras THE CONTENTS OF THE DISCOURSE CHAP. I. Concerning Points Necessary and a Right Vnderstanding of the Scriptures in them A Pre-Concession 1 That the Holy Scriptures contain all points generally necessary for attaining Salvation and 2 That some of these Necessaries are clear therein to all or most Capacities 1. Proposition That either a Writing so clearly delivering all points necessary as that no sober Enquirer can err in them Or an Infallible Directer where such Writing is not to all in all such points clear well consists with the Wisdome and Goodness of God in manifesting his Will to Men. § 1. 2. That the Clearness of the Scripture affirmed in Necessaries to Salvation cannot rationally be restrained only to the points expresly mentioned in the Apostle's or other ancient Creeds or to those only wherein all Christian Churches are agreed § 2. Where That believing the Ancient Creeds and Leading a Good Life abstracting from one duty of it viz. yielding a due Obedience to our Spiritual Superiours is not sufficient for attaining Salvation § 3. 3. That a Controversy supposed in a necessary matter of Faith cannot be decided when two contrary parties plead Clearness of Scripture on their own side without some other Judge beside the Scriptures § 4. As the Controversy concerning the Sense of the Text Hoc est Corpus meum § 5. Where That such Answers as these maintaining the contrary seem defective and unsatisfactory viz. * That there is no necessity that some Controversies in matters of Religion be decided § 7. Or * That there are other Means of attaining the certain Sense of Scripture i.e. in some things without such a Judge For the Question is made When after the using all such means or When to Persons whose condition permits not to use such means the Sense of Scriptures remains still doubtful as to many such it doth § 8. * Or That the Sense of Scripture may be certainly learnt from the Determinations of Ancient Councils or Vnanimous Consent of Fathers For as some Controversies in some Necssaries arose and were
discussed in the ancient so may and have some others in latter times and since there is Controversy also not unfrequently concerning what hath been the unanimous Consent of Fathers in particular points or the results of lawful ancient Councils there will yet be wanting a present Judge for determining these and since the Church of all times former or latter hath equal authority any present modern Determinations seem as authentick and obliging as the Ancient § 9. 4. That since the Scriptures are affirmed clear in Necessaries only upon the condition of a sincere endeavour one not assured first of this sincere endeavour yet of which there seems no certain means cannot be secure of his not erring in Necessaries For exampple the Socinian And this especially when a major part of Christianity understands the sense of such Scriptures against him And the same uncertainty holds of one's having sufficiently used other helps if these also be required § 11. Or if here such a lower degree of endeavour be affirmed only necessary and required as sutes with Christians of the meanest emploiments and capacities that such endeavour seems not sufficient for understanding all necessary points Or if it be that by such an Endeavour the Church-Governours may as well be presumed not to err in points necessary and so the other people way safely acquiesce in their Judgment § 12. CHAP. II. Concerning a Necessity of Church-Guides for instructing of Christians in Points Necessary THat the Clearness of Scripture in all necessaries upon a right endeavour to understand them if meant without the help of the Church-Guides renders their instructing of the people as to these points not necessary But if understood with the use of their help implies the Scriptures in such points not clear without their Exposition and inferrs a necessity of the not erring of such Guides in these points that the people by them may be rightly directed § 13. Where That such Answers as these in this matter seem not pertinent * That a manifold necessity of church-Church-Authority is still maintained i.e. as to other arts of it not this * That these Church-Guides are of great use also for instructing unskilful persons in Scripture doubtful and obscure but not said to be obscure and doubtful in necessaries which would overthrow the Supposition that they are herein clear § 14. CHAP. III. Concerning Obedience and Submission of Judgment due from the Church's Subjects to their Governours in Divine matters and in these the more the more they are necessary 1. THat the Church's Subjects have an obligation of Obedience and Submission of Judgment to their Ecclesiastical Superiours and this as to points necessary § 19. Proved by Scriptures Where the Texts Deut. 17.8 and 2. Chron. 19.6 are vindicated form Dr St's Exceptions § 22. And his other Objections of the erring of the Highest Ecclesiastical Courts under Moses's Law in Ration Account p. 241. answered § 25. 2. That such Obedience and Submission of Judgment if granted due to these Governours is in any Division of them to be yielded to the Superiour Persons or Councils § 26. Where Dr St's Pleas in behalf of the Church of England in order to this are considered Viz. * That there was no obliging authority extant at the Reformation Superiour to that of this Church § 27.32 * That It was then free from the Authority of the Pope and Church of Rome § 29. * That It submitteth to or consenteth with the Church Primitive and Apostolical or the truly Catholick Church of all Ages § 31. * That It hath not been so guilty of violating the Church-Canons as that of Rome § 33. * That Particular Churches may reform abuses and errours within themselves when a more General Consent cannot be obtained But not therefore when a more general Dissent is formerly declared § 34. 3. That Learned Protestants grant a Submission of Judgment due to church-Church-Authority from all such Persons as have no demonstrable Certainty that It commands them any thing contrary to God's Word § 35. 4. That setting aside any duty of Obedience the plebeian and unlearned ought for the understanding of Scriptures to acquiesce in the judgment of those more skilful and studied in them without distinguishing those Necessaries wherein is supposed any difference in mens Judgments § 37. And that what is to them using a due industry clear in Scriptures may be presumed will be so to their Guides Ibid. Where The Answer That Christians cannot be secure that their Guides though they do not mistake in necessary matters of Faith yet do not mis-teach others in them and the transferring Infallibility thus from the Vsual Notion of these Guides their not erring or being deceived in these matters to an Infallibility of their not deceiving others seems very unsatisfactory § 38. 5. That to whatever liability to mistakes and errours the Church-Guides are subject yet there is less hazard to the Vulgar in adhering to their's than to their own opinions Where Such Exceptions and Answers as these that follow against the former Obedience asserted in this Chapter seem not solid and pertinent Viz * That God hath entrusted every man with a Faculty of Discerning Truth and Falshood But this rightly used will discerne this truth that submission of judgment is due to our Spiritual Superiours § 40. * That Guides transgressing their Ride are not to be followed True when these Guides are certainly and demonstrably known to any to do so but who shall judge of such certainty and were any so certain or rather conceited that they are so yet all the rest will remain still obliged to Obedience * That the concurrent Sense of Antiquity is an excellent Means to understand the minde of Scripture in places otherwise doubtful and obscure But here not a Means which may be beneficially used but a Superiour that must be obeyed and submitted-to is demanded for ending Controversies § 44. * That no absolute submission can be due to two Church-Authorities contradicting one another But it is denied that the Supreme have done so and in those Subordinate contradicting submission is due to the Superiours § 46. * That in the present divided state of the Church a man must make use of his judgment in the choice of his Church But this judgment rightly used shews obedience and subjection due in any division to the Superiour Persons or Councils as the Communion we ought to live in and make choice of § 47. * That we may not submit to all those who challenge the authority of Guides nor to lawful Guides in all things they may require Which as thus spoken in general so will be willingly granted CHAP. IV. Concerning the Infallibility of these Governours in Necessaries THat the Church is infallible as to Necessaries in her Lawfull General Councils § 49. Proved * by the Practice of such Councils accepted and submitted to by the Church Catholick diffusive § 50. * From the Necessity thereof for the preserving the stability and certainty of the Christian Faith
cannot judge of their Judgment whether right by the Rule concerning the sense whereof they consulted them i.e. they cannot learn the sense of the Rule from their Guides and then know the truth of their sentence from the Rule p. 140. How or by what Marks the true Church is to be discerned from Sects from which Church first known the Enquirer may learn the true Faith p. 106. 152. 155. 209. And that In any difference or contrariety of Church-Governours the Superiour Authority is to be obeyed That Christians both prudently may and in Duty ought to subject their Judgment in Divine matters to Church-Authority though supposed fallible whereever they are not certain of the contrary to its Decisions p. 99 223. That all other Magistrates and Superiours are deficient and come short as to one branch of Authority belonging to the Church viz. the Deciding of what is Truth and errour Lawful and Vnlawful in Divine Matters for which Infallibility is necessary to them when not so to the others p. 222. That Church-Infallibility is clearly enough evidenced to Christians both from the Scriptures and from Tradition p. 109. And that Catholicks place this Infallibility in a lawful General Council p. 96 Where Concerning the Decrees of General Councils their being put in the Creeds And an Vniversal Assent required to them under Anathema p. 127. Concerning the Anathemas passed by inferiour and fallible Councils p. 127 129. Some Quotations out of Dr Field and the Text Gal. 1.8 considered p. 130 131. That Dr Field clearly maintains some Visible Church or other consisting of Prelates and Subjects and giving Laws to be infallible as to Necessaries in all Ages which Church the unlearned at least are advised by him to search out and so to follow her Directions and rest in her Judgment p. 103. The Deficiencies in his Tenent p. 105. That Miracles are not necessary in all Ages to attest the Church's Infallibility p. 116. That true Miracles for many good ends advancing the Glory of God and the Catholick Faith have been continued in the Catholick Church but not so elsewhere ever since the Apostles times p. Ibid. How Miracles signify the Infallibility of those by whom God worketh them p. 118. The Latter Times of the Church doing Miracles in all the same kinds as the Former and both as our Lord and his Apostles did p. 119. Several Controversies in Religion necessary to be decided and those respecting Manners as well as Faith p. 175. c. By what Authority General Councils assemble and decide Controversies p. 174. In what manner General Councils and the Church-Guides are an Infallible standing Judge of Controversies p. 132 238. Lawful General Councils of any Age since the Apostles times of equal Authority and Obligation p. 151 160 205. That we want a Judge for the necessary Decision of many Controversies As for instance Whether Latter Times have altered what Christ or his Apostles delivered or Have imposed things contrary to the plain Commands of Scripture Or Latter lawful General Councils contradicted former or What former Councils are to be accounted General Legal and Obligatory Whether what is pretended to be the concordant sense of Antiquity or to be contrary to it really is so Whether some things repugnant to Gods Word are not commanded by our Superiours as things Indifferent c. I say that the Christian World is destitute of a Judge to end such differences unless the Present Church be It and is in such Contests to be appealed and stood to p. 140. 141. That the present unanimous Agreement of the Apostolical Churches and especially the consent of the Prime Apostolick See joined with them was by the Ancients esteemed and urged as Infallible and to which all owed Submission of Judgment p. 180 181. Held so by those Ancient Writers cited by Dr St. By S. Jrenaeus p. 182. By Tertullian p. 185. By Clemens Alexandrinus p. 188. By S. Athanasius p. 190. 203. By S. Austin p. 194 206 By Vincentius Lerinensis p. 197. The place * in S. Gregory Nazianzen Ep. 55. concerning Councils considered p. 194. * In S. Austin Contra Maximin l. 3. c. 14. p. 194. De Vnitate Eccl. c. 19. p. 212. De Baptismo l. 2. c. 3. p. 213. Arguments used by the Fathers against Hereticks both from infallible Church-Tradition and from the Scriptures and that those from the latter notwithstanding the evidence of the former are necessary against persons not submitting to the other p. 190 191. The Places out of Petavius and S. Hierome concerning the Tradition of the Doctrine of the Trinity before the Council of Nice considered p. 201. c. Vnanimous Consent of the Fathers Primitive Times Catholick-Church in her Councils in order to Our Obedience how to be understood 159 200. And Vincentius Lerinensis his Rule Quod ubique quod semper c. Ibid not necessarily comprehending all particular Persons or Churches Vniversality understood of the Catholick Church distinct from Heretical never as to Necssaries dissenting from Antiquity p. 199. How the believing of the Determinations of General Councils is necessary to salvation p. 164. That Heretical and Schismatical Churches are no Members of the Catholick p. 154. That a Church committing and teaching Idolatry is no true Member of the Catholick Church p. 80. c. The Nicene Council to be obeyed suppose the Arian Councils more numerous as to the Bishops present in them because the Nicene more universally accepted and the Arian how numerous soever formerly declared Hereticks p. 146. 193. Of Pope Liberius and Honorius accused of Heresy p. 146. 149. That no Certainty from Sense or Reason can rationally be pleaded for any Doctrine against a General Council or Major part of Christianity having all the same means of Certainty from Reason and Sense and they maintaining the contrary Doctrine certain p. 143 145. Where Concerning Veneration of Images Communicating in One Kind p. 144. That our Senses are not to be credited where is the certainty of a Divine Revelation contrary Nor doth the Disbelieving them in such things prejudice the Certainty of their Evidence as to all other matters where no Divine Revelation opposeth p. 142. c. No Reformation lawful against the Definitions of a Superiour Church-Authority p. 236. In a Controversy Whether a National Church hath departed from the truly Catholick Church of former Ages who is to be the Judge p. 237. That National Churches and Councils are subject to Patriarchal and Generall p. 152. 226. That any particular Church may require Assent from all her Subjects to her Doctrines of Religion so far as such Church accords therein with the Church Catholick Because in these she infallible if the Catholick be so p. 222. Whether a fallible Church may require assent to her doctrines or to some of them at least as to matter of Faith where she as fallible confesseth she may err in such matters Or she not requiring such submission to them as to matters of faith Whether her Subjects are not left
to their liberty to believe in such matters what seems to them truest p. 228 230. Whether a Church fallible can justly require of all her Clergy the assenting to and maintaining of all her Articles of Religion And then How Errours can be rectified in such a Church where all the Clergy stand obliged to teach nothing contrary to the publick doctrines thereof And 2ly Whether if this be justly done by the Church of England it be not so by the Roman and by Councils as to the Clergy subject to them p. 228. Whether the Church of England doth not require Assent from all her Subjects to her Articles of Religion Or leaves all men at least saving the Clergy to their liberty of opinion p. 82. 227. Whether a Superiour Authority was not opposed by the Church of England in the Reformation p. 235. 238. How she Principles of some later English Divines are said to justify Sects p. 157. That private Men's relying on their own judgment in the Sense of Scripture believed clear to any sober Reader in all Necessaries against that of their Ecclesiastical Governours occasions a multiplication of Sects p. 221. 241. That the only effectual means in the Catholick Church for preserving her Communion from Heresies and Sects is requiring Submission of Judgment from her Subjects to her Definitions in matters of Faith and removing Dissenters from her Communion p. 241. Justified by the Apostolical Practice p. 242. And in any particular Church is its Adhering to and Vnion in Faith with the Catholick Of the Inquisition used in some parts of the Roman Church not used in others p. 242. Errata PAg. 29. line 26. reade assert p. 39. l. 6. after us so adde where also we are to believe our senses that it tells us so p. 53. l. 23. r. to Scripture p. 59. l. 10. r. did from p. 73. l. 4 r. to beare p. 87. l. 6 r. faith is Ib. l. 5 r. nor without p. 96. l. 20. r. n. 3. p. 105. l. 8. r. sorry p. 163. l. 8 r. praxi p. 164. l. 24. r. Patron p. 183. l. 6 r. thither from p. 207. l. 6 Salvator p. 258. l. 12. r. till that Contents p. 3. l. 13. r. parts of CHURCH-GUIDES Necessary for Directing Christians in Necessary Faith CHAP. I. Câ—ncerning Points necessary and a right understanding of the Scriptures in them AFter N.O. In his Considerations hath conceded to Dr. Stilling fleet 1. That the Holy Scriptures do contain all points of faith that are necessary to be of all persons believed for attaining Salvation § 1 2. And again See Consid p. 22. That in several necessaries the Scriptures also are so clear that a very mean understanding in his reading them needs no further Instructer therin Yet He there denies such an universal clearness of them in all necessary matters of faith as that they may be understood by all persons who sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their salvation And whereas the Dr. saith ‖ Princip 13 That it is repugnant to the nature of the design the wisdom goodness of God to give an infallible assurance to persons in writing his will for the benefit of mankind if those writings may not be understood by all persons sincerely endeavouring to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their salvation N. O. there answers Consid p. 13 that this may as well consist with the Design and the Wisdom and Goodness of God if in those things wherin these Divine Writings are clear only to some persons more versed in the Scriptures and in the Church's Traditional Sense of them and more assisted from above according to their Mission and Employment he hath commissioned and appointed these persons continued in a perpetual Succession to guide and instruct the rest of Christians many of whom are of a mean Capacity and no learning and hath appointed these others also to learn of them the true sense of those places or points of Gods written Will wherin to these it happens to be obscure As also it would had he left no Writings at all but only Teachers to deliver his will perpetually to his Church Either way I say sutes well with Gods Wisdom Goodness the writing his Will in all parts of it so clear as none sincerely perusing this writing can have in any necessaries to his salvation any doubt For this Will if supposed so written would render any further Ecclesiasticall Guide I say not as to many other parts of the Pastorall Office but yet as to the expounding of such Scriptures to such a person useless 2 Or the leaving a Standing Ministry to explicate this his Written Will the course taken also in giving the Law of Moses in any necessary matters wherin the sense of it is to some disputable and ambiguous Which of these two God hath done is the Question N. O. denies the former as the Dr. asserts it and for his disallowing it gives many Reasons and Evidences dispersed here and there in the Considerationâ—â—â— as the Doctors Principles ministred occasion which I shall endeavour here to recollect in some better Order and shall consider where I find any his Replyes Reducing the Considerations as relating to those Principles forementioned to these chief Heads or Chapters 1. Concerning Points Necessary and a right understanding of the Scriptures in them 2. Concerning a Necessity of Church-Guides for instruction of the people in points Necessary 3. Touching Obedience and submission of Judgment due from the Church's subjects to the Definitions of these spirituall Governors in Divine matters and this more in those matters which are more necessary 4. Concerning the Infallibility of these Governors herein 5. And the Impossibility of suppressing Sects Heresies and Schisms without admitting such an Ecclesiastical Judge § 2 1. First then N.O. observes here that in the Dr's mentioning Necessaries for Salvation Necessaries cannot rationally be taken so strictly as to include only those doctrines delivered in Scripture wherin all persons that bear the name of Christians do agree for this would be to say that whatever is any way controverted is not necessary which would conclude all controversies heretofore defined in General Councils to be of non-necessaries even those definitions of theirs put into the common Creeds and so it would become not necessary if any thing now generally consented-to shall happen to be disputed hereafter But that by the same reason as we do not bound necessaries with the Apostles Creed so neither can we with the latter common Creeds I mean in such a sense as some of the Articles of those Creeds are accounted necessary For some Heresies may arise in latter times as pernicious as the ancient were and as the four first Councils lawfully thereupon enlarged the former Creeds so may other Councils in latter ages enlarge those of these first Councils to preserve the Church's subjects from any such new corruption of such
Faith and one Communion from Heresy and Schisme in their several Councils Diocesan Provincial National Patriarchal Oecumenical and in any of these Courts which consist of many when any dissenting in its members here again our obedience due to the major part joined with the President thereof That therefore by the Church-authority to which Christians are to render their obedience is meant still 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 which hath hitherto in her Supremest and most generally accepted Councils in all ages from the beginning required such submission and justly assumed to itself the title of the only authentical Interpreter of Scripture and authoritative Teacher of Divine Verities And then Consid p. 82 That obedience being setled here he who hâ—th any small experience in Church-affairs and is willing to observe his duty cannot but discern what way the major part of Christendom and its higher and more comprehensive Councils that have hitherto been do guide him this being a Body not invisible or latent in a Corner or a few divided from the whole but a City always set on an Hill in such an extended Unity of an External Communion and such a dignifyed Preeminency and universality of its Prelats as no other Christian Society can equal a Candle on a Candlestick a perpetual erected Visible Pillar and Monument of Traditionary Truth Consid p. 89 frustra Haereticis circumlatrantibus § 27 To N. O's thus subjecting our obedience as to the deciding of Controversies in matters Necessary in any division of Clergy to the Superior and more comprehensive Body of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy according to the well-known Subordinations thereof and so excluding the liberty either of private persons or also of Churches or Synods any way subordinate from dissenting from the Judgment and Determinations of such as are their Canonicall Superiors which if observed would preserve the Catholick Church for ever in peace and from all Rents and Schisms the Dr. returns several Replies in justification of the proceedings of the Church of England as N. O. thought much concerned in it and not to be vindicated herein from a Schism in her Reformation not without but against a Superior church-Church-authority This matter he disousseth from p. 280. to p. 285. where he seems to me somwhat unresolved what answer to stand to One while he saith †p. 180. That the Church of England in reforming herself did not oppose any just authority then extant in the world Now that Patriarchal or General Councils are a Superior Ecclesiastical Authority to which National Synods or Churches owe subjection is granted by learned Protestants As concerning Patriarchal Councils thus Dr. Field ‖ p. 518. These Patriarchs meaning those chief Bishops of the Christian world that contained under them the Metropolitans and Bishops of many Kingdoms and States every Church as he saith being subordinate to some one of the Patriarchal Churches †p. 513. and incorporate into the Rules of it ‖ might convocate the Metropolitans of their several divisions and hold a Patriarchal Council which was of greater authority than either those in the several Provinces or of a whole Nation because it consisted of more and more honourable Bishops Again p. 557. That the Decrees of Popes made with the consent and joint concurrence of the Western Bishops did bind the Western Provinces that were subject to him as Patriarch of the West And thus Bishop Bramhal †Vind. p. 257. What power the Metropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province the same had a Patriarch over the Metropolitans and Bishops of sundry Provinces within his own Patriarchate And afterward That Patriarchs had authority to convocate Patriarchal Synods and preside in them when Metropolitan Synods did not suffice to determine some emergent differences or difficulties So in Schisme Guarded p. 349. he saith That the Ecclesiastical Head of the Church is a General Council and under that each Patriarch in his Patriarchate and among the Patriarchs the Bishop of Rome by a Priority of Order § 28 It is clear also that most of the Councils all either General or Patriarchal for the West and consisting of the Metropolitans and Bishops of many Kingdomes or National Churches those of the Church of England being also a part since theÌ„ 6th or 7th Age have determined several points of Faith rejected and opposed by the Church of England in her Reformation the obligation of which Definitions and Decrees also doth extend not only to the times wherein they sate but to all Posterity till an equal authority shall repeal them else the Decrees of Nice or of the other first Councils would not oblige any after-times Manifest also that the Council of Trent called by the Western Patriarch upon this discession and consisting of all or the most of the Churches in Christendome except those under the Mahometan tyranny not only of the Roman but other Italick Churches subject to other Princes of the Gallican Spanish German and other Western Churches and its Definitions in matters of faith generally accepted by these Churches hath made definitions contrary to the Reformation of the Church of England which Decrees to use Dr. Fields words made with the consent and joint concurrence of the Western Bishops I add or of the most part of them for of all is not necessary no more than in the first Councils for so no Metropolitans or Bishops could be liable to the censures of Councils without their own consent do bind the Western Provinces subject to the Patriarch of the West And therefore these things considered I see not how the Dr. can make good these his words that the Church of England opposed no just Superiour church-Church-Authority Afterward as not trusting too much to this Answer he pleads the freedom of the Church of England from the Pope and Church of Rome § 29 and from this discourseth of it as absolutely free To which purpose he saith p. 281. When it was thus agreed i.e. by the Church and State of England 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 Pope's 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 For this also he saith p. 285. that it enjoyeth the rights of a Patriarchal See And whereas N. O. in that very place the Dr. answers to †Pref. p. 5. expresly names for this Superiour Authority the most Supreme and most generally accepted Councils that have been in aâ—l ages which words might put him out of doubt what N. O. meant by more Superiour and comprehensive Body and by more Vniversal Church this Replier ‖ See p. 280. very conveniently omitting this closeth together what immediatly
precedes and follows it in N. O. of which the Reader if he pleases may inform himself by viewing the place and then takes the liberty to descant upon him in this manner p. 281. 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 Pope's breast And p. 283. That by the more universal Church N. O. fairly understands no more but the Church of Rome Whereas N. O. whether speaking of Superâ—our Authority or its Infallibility hath made no where in his Book any application of it to the Church of Rome or Pope at all but to Superiour Councils But hither it much concerned this Author to force N. O.'s discourse to be the better able to confute it So p. 282. he tels his Reader The plain English of all is the Church of Rome was against the Church of England i.e. in the Reformation But after all this excursion N. O. speaks of an obedience the Church of England owes to Superiour Councils Patriarchal or General and to those whether former or present and that shewing its Freedom from the Pope or Church of Rome as a Co-Metropolitan Church will not serve the turn nor yet its being a Patriarchal i.e. a Primatical Church or had it been yet in an higher sense Patriarchal for neither was Dioscorus excepted from such a Superiour Authority by being a Patriarch § 30 Another while p. 283. he conjectures N. O. by more universal Church may mean the greater number of persons or of Christians at the time of the Reformation and so he asks How he knows that the Eastern Armenian Abyssine and Greek Churches did agree with the Church of Rome against the Church of England But though this is a truth which the Reader may see proved at large in the Third Discourse concerning the Guide in Controversies Chap. 8. and that very considerable that the Church of England in many points of her Reformation opposed the general doctrines and practices of the Oriental as well as Occidental Churches and where a general consent is in the Church-Governours apart the same we may presume would be in a General Council yet N. O. letting this alone speaks not of a greater number of persons but of a Superiour Authority § 31 Another while he pleads p. 282. the Church of England's submission to or consent with the Church Primitive and Apostolical or the truly Catholick Church of all Ages which she hath always appealed to and offered to be tried by But the Catholick Church of all ages being taken here by Him not distributively for what the Authority of the Catholick Church in any age hath stated or determined For to this he often declines submission See in him p. 241.242 Where he saith That Vniversality in any one age of the Church taken without the consent of Antiquity is no sufficient Rule to us And That the Church in any one or more ages since the Apostles times may be deceived But only collectively for what it can be shewed to have held delivered and agreed-in in all ages Such a submission I say is not sufficient For as our obedience is due to the Decrees and Definitions of lawful General or other Superiour Councils of the Primitive Times so is it as well to those of any latter age the authority of them in any age being equal and the same and an equal necessity of it for deciding the Controversies in Necessaries that may arise in any age though these Points disputed do not appear save in the Traditional Principles from which they are deduced in any former Nor could the Arrians justly decline the Definitions of Nice because made in their times or in the same expressions not delivered in any more primitive age There also he saith that the Church of England rejected nothing but innovations and reformed nothing but abuses But none ought to be rejected or reformed by any particular Church as such which Superiour Councils in any times have declared to be otherwise especially where no contradiction of a Body of equal Authority can be shewed in times more ancient § 32 Another while ‖ p. 283. he urgeth that at the time of the Reformation there was no superiour authority to the Church of England extant upon this account because saith he This must either 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 thâ—n in the world therefore could not be opposed But here first if by the Councils of the Roman Church he means Councils assembled by the Western Patriarch and consisting of the Metropolitans and Bishops not only of the Roman but other Western Churches and Nations these must be confessed and so are by Protestant Divines Superiour to a National Synod of England And then as for these or for other General Councils in what former times soever held they are an Authority always extant and their decrees obliging so long as not by an equal authority repealed Otherwise the Obligation also to the Definitions of the first General Councils would be long since expired And also any particular Church is obliged to a submission to any superiour Council following such Reformation from the time of its Decrees passed and a due acceptation of them i.e. by a much major part § 33 After this he alledgeth That for the Canons of the Catholick Councils before the breaches of Christendome no Church hath been more guilty of a violation of them than the Church of Rome But first if this were granted another's faultiness excuseth not our's Next if he speaks of the Councils that have been in the Church till the breach made by Luther methinks this is enough to confute what he saith that the one Church the Roman owns and admits the Definitions and Canons of these Councils as true regular and obliging and so in its disobeying them condemns it self which the other the Reformed denies to be so § 34 Lastly p. 285. he pleads That 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 itself when a more general consent cannot be obtained But not I hope when a more general dissent is already declared I mean that the things so called are no abuses By all this I think appears no Answer as yet returned by this Author to the things objected which affords any reasonable satisfaction N. O. then proceeds § 35 That in Point of Obedience though it is most true that a Christian is bound to reject whatsoever is offred to be imposed upon his Faith which is certainly known to such Christian to have no foundation in or to be contrary to Gods Word ‖ See Dr. Stillingst Princ. 29. Consid p. 73 Yet learned Protestants do also require from such Christian that where not
demonstrably certain of the contrary he ought to submit to the judgment of this Authority for the knowing what things are revealed in this Word and what are contrary to or not founded in it and to use the Dr's expression ‖ Rat. Acc. p. 375.59 to be guided by the sense of Scripture as it is interpreted by this Authority And Dr. St. himself also Rat. Account p. 539. for preventing the exorbitancies and capricious humours of any fantastical Spirits for the knowledge of ones errors when these manifest intolerable what sober enquiry soever their sincere endeavours may pretend to cals for their conformity in interpreting of Scripture to the concurrent sense of the Primitive Church the Common Reason of Mankind that supposeth Scripture the Rule of Faith the consent of Wise and Learned Men Or on the side of these sincere endeavourers who shall disbelieve this authority he requires no less with the Archbishop and others than Demonstration for that wherein they dissent And this Demonstration not some improbable argument so miscalled but which being proposed to any man and understood the minde cannot chuse but inwardly assent thereto that is that which every reasonable man understanding the terms assents to § 36 Where Protestants may do well as to this duty of Obedience seriously to consider these things 1. Whether all those do not stand still obliged to obey the general Doctrines of the Church before Luthers's Reformation who can bring no demonstration of the contrary and Whether it is upon such a demonstrative certainty as this in the points controverted that they themselves oppose this church-Church-authority teaching them otherwise 2ly Whether since it is to be judged no Demonstration as Protestants define it that doth not convince all rational persons to whom it is proposed which the Protestants Demonstrations manifestly do not therefore the Demonstrations pretended by them be not even in their own judgment fallacious 3ly Whether the Common Reason of Christian Mankind Consid p. 74 and the common Consent of Learned and Wise Men named but now by the Dr for regulating a private man's belief ought not to be taken where all men are not united in the same judgment for the most common suffrage and testimony of the present Universal Church And then Whether we ought not to credit this present Vniversal Church sooner than any other touching what is the concurrent testimony of the Primitive Church in case this suffers any debate And then if particular Persons are not to depart from this judgment of Authority till they have Demonstration that is their own certainty as to such point to shew against it then Whether in stead of their calling for Church Infallibility that they may believe her the Church may not rather demand their Demonstrations why they believe her not See such things agitated by N. O. p. 74 75. passed over by the Dr in silence § 37 Next That setting here aside any Command or duty of Obedience in this matter Yet that in all prudence the Plebeian and unlearned for the understanding of Scriptures ought to acquiesce in the judgment of some that are more skilful and studied in them and this the more as the points are more necessary wherein is supposed any difference in Judgments for that argues some difficulty in the thing and that the Dr's Principle seems to afford a very good Reason of the Submission of Judgment to the Church which submission it opposeth Consid p. 17 For if Scriptures be maintained so clear in Necessaries that every one using a right endeavour cannot mistake in them then shall the Church-Governours much rather by reason of this clearness obvious to every rustick not err in them and so shall the people the more clear the Rule of faith is proved to be the more securely rely on and be referred in them to their direction and that we have 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 it 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 Or here whatever other thing is supposed necessary besides a sincere endeavour or is understood to be included in it as Freedome from Passion and Secular Interest or also a freely professing the truths which their sincere endeavour discovers to them none can rationally imagine but that these Supreme Church-Governours should be as much or more disengaged herein than private men as having in their already possessed Dignity and Preferment less ambitions or compliances and more freedom and less dependence on or subordination to others in their actions or fortunes Then concerning their integrity and sincerity in their Judicature it is said by N. O. that what they define for others they define for themselves also and that their own salvation is as much concerned as any other man's is in their mistakes I add or in their purposely falsifying Truth in their Decrees and deceiving others in what they are not mistaken or deceived themselves so as that their subjects satisfyed of their skil yet cannot trust their fidelity If any can be so uncharitable as to credit of them so great a wickedness that the Supreme Councils of the Church should with designe decree an errour contrary to their faith and that in matters necessary and then enjoin all their Subjects under Anathema to believe it wherein they most certainly do devote themselves if not believing such their Decree to Eternal Perdition § 38 To such things argued by N. O. D. St's answer p. 141. is this Granting that the Guides of the Church supposing the same sincerity shall enjoy the same priviledge as any private man hath of believing rightly in necessaries which saith he I know none ever denied them Yet what is this to their Infallibility in teaching all matters of faith supposing them to believe aright yet what is this to their teaching right matters of faith which is the only thing to be proved by N. O. So that all this discourse saith he afterward 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 Thus he Where first he corrupts N. O's express words and sense who argues from particular men's not erring in Necessaries by using a sincere endeavour the Church's not erring in Necessaries if using the like See Consid p. 17.18.19 The Church-Governour's not-erring saith N.O. not their not mis-teaching But indeed the first being granted N. O. thought the other also must be believed in the Church's General Councils Again in Necessaries saith N.O. not in all matters of faith which word All is put in by the Dr. several times perhaps to relieve himself for framing some Answer ' Next the Dr. denies not that
be both an act of prudence and of duty to submit our judgment to our Superiours in whatever they shall define and especially in matters of Necessary Faith § 42 Again p. 144. That the exercise of this Faculty was not to cease as soon as men had embraced the Christian Doctrine Granted as the former and yet our submission of this our Judgment to what doctrines our Superiours shall define be both our duty and a most rational act of this our Judgment and any perswasion of our judgment not rightly used to the contrary no way excuse our non-submission from guilt I say as the exercise of this faculty doth not cease so it must be rightly used which it never is when used it at any time dissents from the doctrine of our Lord or his Apostles or of lawful General Councils whereto is required its assent § 43 Again he saith p. 146. That the Authority of Guides in the Church i.e. for their determining truths in necessaries is not absolute and unlimited but confined within certain bounds and afterward he saith confined to a Rule which if they transgress they are no longer to be followed Be it so when they transgress against their Rule if this be certainly and demonstratively known by any such person is not to follow them this is confessed already by N. O. But Consid p. 73 who is appointed Judge of these Supreme Judges when they transgress against this Rule or when their Subjects have Demonstration for this Their Subjects who are from them to learn the sense of the Rule where difficult and disputed and who are bidden to follow their faith The right exercise of our judgment will not judge so but will judge that if Demonstration were on his side these Supreme Judges having all the same Evidences would have discovered it sooner than he or at least have discovered it when related to them by him and also the Protestants Definition of it concludes it none if these Judges do not discern it such Who then since he is not excused from sin and disobedience by using his judgment if he judge amiss will not think it the safest way still to continue his submission The Socinian in judging the Council of Nice in their Definition of Consubstantiality to have transgressed the Rule they are confined to and so not to be followed is not hereby released at all from his obedience to this Council or secured in his discession from it That authority is none that is only to be obeyed where the Subjects are to approve first of its sentence § 44 Again p. 148. he saith He allows a very great authority to the Guides of the Catholick Church in the best times of Christianity and looks upon the concurrent sense of Antiquity as an excellent means to understand the mind of Scripture in places otherwise doubtful and obscure First for the limitation of places doubtful and obscure This seems to render such Authority useless as to Necessaries in which this Author will have the Scriptures clear and perspicuous Next a right judgment cannot but account all those places so in the sense whereof either the ancient or present major part of Christianity are of a contrary judgment from himself Lastly the looking on such a concurrent sense as an excellent means c. is short and will not serve the turn for the unity of faith it must be looking on it as a Rule requiring our obedience when such sense is declared by their Councils § 45 He proceeds p. 149. That in matters imposed to be believed or practised which are repugnant to plain commands of Scripture or the evidence of sense or the grounds of Christian Religion we assent that no authority of the present Guides of a Church is to overrule our faith or practice But the same thing is here replied as before § 43. in answer to that in his p. 146. concerning the Guides transgressing the Rule § 46 P. 151. He goes on That no absolute submission can be due to those Guides of a Church who have opposed and contradicted each other and condemned one another for errour and heresy True not to both but to one part It is and N. O. hath told him that it is to the Superiour Or in the Supreme Court where a party dissents to the major part joined with the President Lawful Supreme Councils contradicting one another in matters of necessary faith are not by this Author nor cannot be produced § 47 P. 172. He saith That in the present divided state of the Christian Church a man that would satisfy his own mind must make use of his judgment in the choice of his Church and those Guides he is to submit to True now and in all former times wherein also have been Divisions and Anti-Communions in the Clergy and Guides against Guides that we are to make use of our judgment in the choice of a Church But our Judgment there must be used rightly and being so tells us both that we are to obey those who are found by this judgment to be our lawful Spiritual Superiours and which in such divisions be so And whenever in this our judgment is not used rightly but mistakes we are never a whit the more by this so used released from our Obedience Generally in these Answers here is the exercise of our Judgment or liberty to Judge pleaded against absolute Obedience or Submission of it as if the proving of the one annulled the other when as himself urgeth a ‖ p. 144. liberty of Judging may be used also concerning the Apostles Authority and their Doctrines and yet this liberty well consistent with an obligation of absolute Obedience to such their Doctrins Authority as infallible So then is it well consistent also with that to the Supreme Guides of the Church in their defining necessaries if they be in these infallible or if fallible yet with an obligation still of submission of Judgement to them where any are not demonstratively certain of the contrary Which demonstrative certainty of convincing all those to whom proposed no Protestants have in matters debated with Catholicks § 48 Again for qualifications of Obedience p. 178. he brings That we are not to submit to all those who challenge the authority of Guides over us though pretending to never so much power and infallibility And p. 179 not to submit to those who are lawful Guides in all things they may require Both which are most true and yet well consistent with this that we are to submit to our lawful Guides in all their Determinations in matters of necessary faith if they Supreme and Infallible herein and if they fallible in all things of which we are not demonstratively certain to the contrary Thus you see the Dr's Responsory Propositions are admitted and N. O's Obedience no whit lesse established CHAP. IV. Concerning Church-Infallibility as to Necessaries § 49 4ly AGainst such Principle and for submission of private mens judgements to that of the Church N.O.
in the Dr's Answers § 71 Lastly to the proof of the Church's Infallibility out of S. Austin mentioned before § 54. he returns an answer extended from p. 250. to p. 200. Where I find him p. 251. urging S. Austins words that In this matter we follow c. Sequimur sanè nos in hâc re i. e in Non-Rebaptization etiam Canonicarum authoritatem certissimam Scripturarum and there fore that men might attain a certainty of the sense of Scripture in this matter without the Church's Infallibility to decide it Thus the Dr. But this Father every where confessing the difference about Rebaptization to be a most difficult and obscure Question and not clearly resolved as to all apprehensions in the Scripture speaks this Sequimur sanê nos in hac re c. quite in another sense namely as he himself expounds it in the next words when the Donatists urged to him there was no proof or example thereof in Scripture Neque enim saith he parvi momenti habendum est quòd hoc per universam Catholicam ecclesiam quae toto orbe diffunditur observari placuit quod tenemus Explicating himself yet in the words following much more thus Quamvis hujus reicertè de Scripturis non proferatur exemplum â—arundem tamen Scripturarum in hâc re a nobis tenetur veritas cùm hoc facimus quod universae jam placuit Ecclesiae quam ipsarum Scripturarum commendat authorit as Commendat i.e. to be the true Church and then both S. Austin and the Donatâ—st were agreed that the true Church must or did in this matter hold and state the truth If this yet satisfy not see the same said again elswhere De vnitate Ecclesiae c. 22. where speaking of the non evidence concerning Rebaptization in Scripture Hoc apertè atque evidenter i.e. in the Scriptures saith he nec ego lego nec tu Nunc verò cùm in Scripturis non inveniamus c. putâ— si aliquis Sapiens extitisset cui Dominus Jesus Christus testimonium perhibet de hà c Quaestione consuleretur a nobis nullo modo deber mus dubitare id facere quod ille dixisset ne non tam ipsi quam Domino Jesu Christo cujus testimonio commendatur repugnare judicaremur Perhibet autem testimonium Christus ecclesiae suae Testimonium that we should follow its judgment facere quod dicit otherwise a testimony to it concerning somthing else would have been nothing to S. Austins puâ—pose Facere which is more than non-contradicere and which implyes also assentire verum esse quod dicit By all these passages we see the certissima authoritas Scripturarum is concerning the Church which is it i.e. the Catholick Church and then it discovered is concerning the matter in Question also as unerringly determined by it § 72 Again p. 253. he urgeth out of S. Austin That where the testimony of Scripture is very plain and clear 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 All which N.O. grants very true if understood as the Father speaks it of particular Doctors of the Catholick Church not of its General Councils Nor can one rationally plead the sense of Scriptures plain and clear on his tide where a General Council understands and expounds them contrary § 73 Ibid. He urgeth as S. Austins words That the true Church is to be proved and so the Dr would have it understood of other Controversies by nothing but plain Scriptures neither by the authority of Optatus or S. Ambrose or innumerable Bishops nor Councils nor Miracles c. But such words are not S. Austin's Nor doth he affirm that which is the true Church can be proved by nothing but Scriptures for himself saith elsewhere that he came to know the Scriptures from the Church first known to him and the Church by Miracles Nor speaks he here any thing derogatory to General Councils or the authority or infallibility of them of which see more in the Annotation on p. 251. l. 8. from the bâ— to But the Donatists with him allowing the Scriptures he urgeth the Church sufficiently demonstrable by their clear authority which if clear alone also sufficeth and therefore requires of them that he waving these other proofs viz of Councils Miracles c on his side wherein he had much the advantage of them by Episcopi innumerabiles and Miracula vera so they would wave the urging of their Councils far inferiour and their Miracles Visions c fallaciâ—us on their side which Arguments of theirs he calls morarum tendâ—â—ulâ— and that they should press Scriptures again 〈◊〉 Scriptures But if the Judgment of General Councils was denied by him to be any proof in Controversies why used he it as such in Rebaptization § 74 Again p. 254. he saith That all the proofs S. Austin brings for the Church relate to the Vniversality of it not to the Infallibility Where it is true that as to the Donatist the Vniversality of the Church was all the matter in controversy both sides bâ—â—â— fully agreed that that was the Truth in the Controversy of Râ—bâ—â—â—ization which the true Church which-soever it were held and taught Otherwise from the Church determining in its General Council this point of Rebaptization S. Austin could not have urged its determining a truth as he every where doth see the quotations in Note on p. 251. l. 8. from the bott and the Donatists would soon have replied that his General Council erred and that S. Cyprian's was in the right § 75 Again p. 255. he produceth that much-worn place of S. Austin Concilia plenaria sapè priora posterioribus emendari The Reader may view the place set down at large there by this Author which words of S. Austin p. 256. he afterward presseth cannot he understood of unlawful Councils of matters of fast or practice but do refer to the great Question then in debate about Rebaptizing Hereticks And that hereby S. Austin takes off the great Plea the Donatiâ—ts made from the authority of S. Cyprian and his Council which they continually urged for themselves But N.O. had already weighed this Common-place and replied to it ‖ Addit to p. 86. l. 11. That if such Plenary Councils as that which determined Non-Rebaptization were errable and amendable in these Dogmata fidei neither had S. Austin any reason to presume as he doth Ibid. c. 4. that S. Cyprian would have corrected his opinion concerning this Point or to charge the Donatists with Heresy for dissenting from it after the Determination of such a Council Nor had the 2d General Council any just ground to put it in the Creed Credo unum Baptisma in remissionem peccatorum No just cause I say
I find p. 267. mentioned An authority of inflicting censures upon offenders or of receiving into and excluding out of the Communion of the Church And That a Christian Society cannot be preserved in its purity and peace without it But looking further whether this Authority was extended to excluding from her Communion persons dissenting in their opinions from the received doctrines of such Church in matters of Faith which only serves the turn for curing Heresies and Sects of this I sind nothing but only this Power couched in these general terms To receive into and exclude out of the Church such-persons which according to the Law of a Christian Society are fit to be taken in or shut out § 101 I find him 2ly p. 268 allowing an Authority in the Church 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 inply a natural indecency but in continuing 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 But when these Sects deny those things to be of an indifferent nature which this Church declares such as he knows the Sects in England ordinarily do may the Church here lawfully require their assent acknowledgment that they are of an indifferent nature and so their practice of them upon penalty if non-conforming of ejecting them out of her Communion Nothing less than which can purge her communion of such Sects and preserve her in purity Vniformity and peace I do not find him adventuring thus far as to tell us whether the Church may require assent or submission of judgment which must necessarily precede that of practice from those perswaded that the matter by the Church declared indifferent is not so and may upon the disobedient inflict her censures when perhaps she as fallible not they is mistaken in it and it seems contrary to his Principles But here he seems to tread suspensopede and manage the Church's Authority somwhat timorously as we may see by those words of his that follow that in such matters required by a lawful authority there is an advantage on the side of authority I understand him that authority hath the advantage for challenging obedience against a conscience scrupulous or doubting but what for a conscience not doubting but fully perswaded otherwise As men may be free from doubting in a thing whereof they are not certain which authority ought to overrule the practice of such who are the members of that Church over-rule the Practice but what saith he of such Authority its over-ruling the Judgment Which standing contrary it is certain none may practise though that which is right against their judgment This wary Conclusion in the 2d Proposition concerning Church Authority is somwhat like to those general words in the first A power of excluding out of the Church such persons as are fit to be shut out according to the laws of a Christian Society I suppose he means such laws as are or else ought to be in a Christian Society Of which ought to be who must judge § 102 Again he affirms p. 261. an Authority in the Church of proposing matters of faith and directing men in Religion directing several ways by particular instruction of doubtful persons to whom the help of their Guides he saith is the most ready and useful by a publick way of instructing viz. in Sermons by the representative Clergy meeting together to reform any abuses in practice or errours in doctrine and when a more General consent cannot be obtained to publish and declare what those errours are and to do as much as in them lies to reform them viz. by requiring a consent to such propositions as are agreed upon for that end of thâ—se 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 designe of such a Reformation Here then we have an Authority allowed to propose matters of faith which proposal any Heresy or Sect can well comply with to instruct doubtful persons but in points necessary wherein Scriptures are clear according to him no such doubâ— needs to be in which doubting the help of their Guides is said to be the most ready and useful but for some reason or other this Author declines to say Necessary an Authority of Synods to declare what errours there are in doctrine or abuses in practice and in general he saith to do as much as in them lies to reform them by requiring a consent of its Clergy to such propositions as the Synod agrees upon § But meanwhile here occurrs nothing that such as said hold the errours in dâ—ctrine against which this Church declareth may not yet peaâ—â—ably enjoy her Communion He saith these â—ynods as much as in them lies may reform such errours but he saith 〈◊〉 this lies in their power to require any one to assent to the contrary truths upon penalty of being expelled from this Church's communion By which means only this Church can be purged and cured of the mixture of Sects and Heresies and be preserved in its purity and peace and consent of judgment in matters of Religion which the Title prefixed saith is the design of the Church of England's 39. Articles I say Whereas the Church hath no way for her preservation in unity of saith and worship but that of our Lord's and his Apostle's post unam aut alteram correptionem to shut such out of her Communion the Read er may observe here is no word of this I do not say of shutting any at all out of the Church's Communion this he allows in his first Proposition but not shutting any out on this account viz. their dissent and non-conformity to the Church's Articles of Faith and Religion § 104 For as for consent said to be required from the Clergy to such propositions as such Synods shall agree upon supposing here he means by this Consent a profession of the belief of the truth of them 1. This consent is required of the Clergy only hypothetically if they desire to officiate in the Ministry not absolutely that they may enjoy her Communion Nor will this remedy any Sect or Heresy as to such who for this cause decline the Ministry 2ly By the Church's requiring their consent he seems not to mean an assent to the truth of such Articles but either with Mr Chillingworth ‖ Pref. § 39. a consent to them or to the doctrine of this Church that who believes and lives according to them undoubtedly shall be saved and that there is no errour in them which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturb the peace or renounce the communion of this
their external disobedience or contradiction but their wicked errour The 39. Articles being declared in the same 5th Canon To have been by this Church agreed upon for the avoiding Diversities of Opinions and the establishing of Consent touching true Religion To which I add that Consent touching true Religion is Consent surely touching matters of Faith and again that establishing of Consent is to be understood amongst all the Members of the said Church all whom it concerns to be united and established in the true Religion as well as amongst the Clergy Therefore the Stile of the two Canons runs generally Whoso shall hereafter affirm the Articles c in any thing erroneous And the excommunicating of those who will not abjure their holding Popery or Socinianisme see Synod 1640. Can. 3. and 4. is not of the Clergy but any whatever Which may be confirmed also by the practice of the Synods of other Reformed Churches abroad proceeding to the excommunication of Dissenters from their Doctrine To this purpose in the Ecclesiastical Discipline of the Reformed Churches of France the 31. Article of the 5th Chapter Du Consistoire runs thus Si un ou plusieurs c. If any one or more of the people shall raise any debate to the breach of the Church's Vnity concerning any point of Doctrine the Form of the Catechism Sacraments Publick Service c. if matters cannot be otherwise composed in the last place a National Synod is to be assembled which shall give them an hearing with all holy liberty and in it shall be made a full and final Resolution by the Word of God to which resolution if they refuse to acquiesce in every particular point and with an express disavowing their errours recorded now surely this disavowing their errours is assenting to the contrary truths they shall be cut off from the Church Here then is required a punctual assent to what the sentence of the Synod not the persons convented shall judge to be the sense of God's Word as it is also there cautioned before sans que la decision en appartienne a autrez qu' au Synode And the same course is taken against the Remonstrants by the Synod of Dort See Acta Synod Dordrecht Sess 138. Synodus haec Dordrechtana pro authoritate quam ex Dei verbo in omnia Ecclesiarum suarum membra obtinet in Christi nomine injungit omnibus singulis in Foederato Belgio Ecclesiarum Pastoribus c ut hanc sacram veritatis salutaris doctrinam viz. that delivered in the 91. Articles concerning the five points in controversy sinceram inviolatam conservent illam populo juventuti fideliter proponant explicent c. which surely includes the requiring their assent to and belief of thesh Articles excommunicating the disobedient donec per seriam resipiscentiam dictis factis studiis contrariis comprobatam Ecclesia satisfaciant atque ad ejus communionem recipiantur This I have added to shew the same proceedings of other forreign Synods of the Reformed with these of England To which now to return Either in the forementioned expressions these English National Synods do excommunicate all those whoever affirm any thing in the former Common-Prayer-Book to be repugnant to the Scriptures as all those must do who affirm the imposing something there to be done or used in God's worship which he hath not commanded to be a thing repugnant to the Scriptures or who do affirm any thing in the 39 Articles to be erroneous and then what a number of persons are there at this present in this Kingdom of England that are excommunicated by the Church of England Or if no consent to her Articles is required in general of all her Subjects what an indulgence is here for variety of Sects every one being left in matters touching true Religion to Liberty of Opinion Yet for the avoiding of which this Church saith she composed these Articles This of the Doctors Passings-by in the Preface Pag. 76. l. 3. The Controversy in short is this Whether Protestants who reject the Roman Church's Authority and Infallibility can have any sufficient Foundation to build their faith upon There is no such Question proposed by N. O. And if there had it would have been proposed on this manner in order especially to the Doctors 13th and 15th Principles Whether a Protestant in refusing the submission of his judgment to the Authority or Infallibility of the Catholick Church in her Councils can have in several Articles of Necessary Faith wherein the sense of Scriptures is controverted as sure a foundation of his Faith as he who submits his judgment to the foresaid Authority or also Infallibility Ibid. l 11. Those of the Church of Rome charge us That we can have no certainty of our faith as Christians without their Infallibility The Certainty pretended by this Author in his Principles and opposed by N. O. is such a Certainty from the Clearness of the Sense of Scriptures in all points of necessary Faith to every person as that no person whatsoever what useth his best endeavour I suppose he means such endeavour as consists with his Vocation to understand them can mistake therein And this is denied by Catholicks and sufficiently confuted by Experience Ib. l. 9. The occasion was my Adversaries calling for Grounds and Principles c. This account that follows nor concerning N. O and those worthy Persons whom the Doctor opposeth being much better able to return an answer for themselves if perhaps they think this worth their pains I shall pass on to p. 79. Annotations on § 2. Of the Notion of Infallibility PAge 79. l. ult Sometimes they apply Infallibility to the Object that is believed And hath not our Author used this language of an Objective Infallibility himself in his 20th Principle where he saith Assent doth not depend upon the objective infallibility of any thing without us Whereby it appears himself hath a share in the Jargon And what thinks he of that of his Archbishop Lawd ‖ p. 125. We must distinguish of Infallibility For first a thing may be presented as an infallible object of belief when it is true and remains so c. Doth not this make the Arch-bishop also one of the Jugglers he talks of P. 80. l. 10. Infallible 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 Infallible is that which cannot be deceived I add or as applyed to things is that wherein we cannot be deceived and so may Propositions be infallible And is it then such a great absurdity to say This proposition Homo est anâ—mal is infallibly true Doth not himself say the Scriptures are writings infallible See his Princ. 12. And is not this â—re infallibly true N. 1 P. 84. l. ult And being deceived In these two or three leaves the Dr hath been â—aâ—ing and fixing as he saith the Notion of Infallibility where leaving the
more subject to mis-interpretations and where for the thorow studying the one or the other the vocations and employments of most Christians admit not a competent vacancy 5 Lastly the Questions that tend to void Church-Infallibility from the sufficiency of Tradition may as well serve for rendring useless the Infallibility of Scripture on the same account and the same Question that demands Why the Church is believed more infallible than Tradition which Church-Infallibility is proved only by Tradition may as well be put concerning the Scriptures Why these held more infallible than Tradition the strongest proof of which Infallibility of Scriptures among Protestants is from it Annotations on his §. 3. of N. O's Concessions PAge 85. l. 14. N.O. yields That there is no necessity at all of Infallibility under natural Religion 1 There are no words so put together in the Doctor 's 2d and 3d Principle conceded by N. O but by taking his own Principles in what sense he pleaseth he may represent N. O's Concessions of them what he pleaseth 2 If by what he saith N.O. yields he means this see his p. 86. l. 5. That we may have a sufficient certainty of some Principles in Religion without or antecedently to the Infallibility of the Church as it is assisted by Gods Spirit first known to us it is willingly granted him But meanwhile from the Beginning besides the Law of Nature teaching in general the Worship of a God there were also Positive Divine Laws concerning his Service conserved in that Body which constituted his Visible Church So we finde early in Gâ—nesis mention of Sacrifice Firstlings Holocausts Peace-offerings clean and unclean beasts birds in Sacrifice not divided not eating the bloud mention of Holy Times Places Persons Priests Prophets of Tithes paid to the Priest Purifyings Cleansings changing their garments Vows Prohibition of Polygamy as we may gather from Matt. 16.4 8. of contracting Marriages with unbelievers as may be gathered from Gen. 6.2 compared with 1. Excommunication or expulsion out of the Church as we may gather from Gen. 4.12 14 16. And these Laws we may presume were received from an infallible external Proponent and were preserved by the Ecclesiastical Superiours and Teachers of these laws in such a manner as those delivered since and for the certainty of Religion there seems an infallibility in these as necessary if not more for solving the great doubts arising therein before as after the times of a Written Law These laws and statutes are made mention of Gen. 26.5 when God promised his blessing upon Isaac and his seed because that Abraham had obeyed his voice and kept his Precepts and Commandments observed his Ceremonies and Laws Whose Service had been performed more publickly and solemnly from the times of Enos ‖ Gen. 4.26 and after that the days of Adam were half run out And of these Positive Laws and the Tradition of them and of these Ecclesiastical Superiors thus S. Athanasius †De Synod Nicen. Decretis Quae Moses docuit eadem ab Abrahamo observata sunt quae porrò Abraham observavit eadem Noe Enoch agnoverunt Abel quoque hujus rei testis habendus est qui ea quae ab Adam perceperat Deo obtulit Adam autem Magisterio Dei instructus fuit Pag. 86. l. 8. He yields That Reason is to be Judge concerning Divine Revelation i. e. as I understand him Judge whether that which is pretended be a true Divine Revelation or if such Judge again what is the true Sense of it To this I say 1. That whereas He collects this from N. O's granting his 4th Principle there is no mention at all of Reason in this 4th Principle from which this Author deduceth such a Concession 2. That N.O. upon the Dr's 5th Principle hath delivered the just contrary to this Concession imposed upon him in these very words ‖ Consid p. 6. Here if the Dr means that every Christian hath a faculty in him which as to all Revelations whatsoever proposed to him can discern the true and Divine from others that are not so and when a Revelation certainly Divine is capable of several senses can discern the true sense from the false and all this exclusively to and independently on the instruction of Church-Authority This Proposition is not true For then none will need as experience shews they do to repair to any other Teacher for instructing him in a dubious Revelation or the sense of any Divine Revelation controverted which is the true Revelation or which is the Sense of it 3. Yet however this shall be granted him in relation to that Principle that nothing ought to be admitted for Divine Revelation which overthrows the certainty of or is contradictory to true Reason But if the Revelation be of somthing above Reason Reason may be no fit Judge of it Ibid. l. 12 He yields That the will of God may be sufficiently declared to men by writing This and the following Concession That the written will of God doth contain all things simply necessary to Salvation I have re-considered and â—â—nd no advantage to our Author's cause from N. O's yielding them Pag. 87 l. 9. But he quarrels c. Whether the Dr's consequence Princip 21. drawn by him from what was said Princip 20. be well deduced or no which is called N. O's quarrel here I appeal to any judicious Reader reviewing these Principles after this our Author's defence Pag. 88. l. 11. As for instance that the Church is infallible is in the first place to be believed upon their principles Their Principles affirm no such thing c. See N.O. Consid pag. 37. saying the contrary in these words A Christians faith may begin either at the infallible Authority of Scriptures or of the Church and this infallible Authority of either of these be learnt from Tradition and that of the other from it Ibid. l. 10. 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 sorenders any other Infallibility useless Any infallible assent necessary to the right believing this Artiele of our faith the Church's Infallibility more than that which Tradition affords N.O. affirms not See what the Dr puts in the next page for N. O's 6th Concession As for the Dr's arguing here The ground on which c it is not good For every particular person's being antecedently infallibly assured i.e. by Tradition of this particular point of faith that the Church is Infallible renders not at all the Church's Infallibility useless as to the same person his being assured of several other points of faith only by the Church's Infallibility which according as the person's condition needs instruction may both ascertain him of many more points of Faith and more clearly ascertain them to him than Tradition doth Ibid. l. 3. Our only Question is about Infallibility whether that be necessary or no Writing thus
infallible assistance to the Guides of the Church in all ages of it for the direction of those who live in it Add here as to all Necessaries For it is thus frequently limited by N. O but such limitation every where omitted by Dr St. Pag. 96. l. 1.2 That without this infallible assistance there can be no certainty of the sense of Scripture No certainty add as to all Christians many of whom are unlearned yong or of small capacity Of the sense of Scripture add as to several points of faith Necessary not as to all For N.O. doth not deny the sense of Scripture as to several points of faith clear enough and amongst rational men not disputed Adde I say these and N.O. will own the Proposition Ibid l. 3.3 That all the arguments which overthrow the Church's Infallibility do destroy the Church's Authority There is no such thing said by N.O. Nay the contrary is often said by him that Church-Infallibility being destroyed yet the Church's Authority though fallible may upon many reasons justly challenge submission of judgement to her Decrees from her Subjects See N.O. p. 18. 26. 48. 50. and in the former Discourse § 35.37.39 But this is said by N.O. and must be still till the Dr better clears himself That some Arguments used by the Dr against Church Infallibility are as strong and stronger against church-Church-Authority as namely that made in his 19th Principle if any one please to read there Authority instead of Infallibility Ib. l. 16. If God hath not given an infallible assistance to the Guides of the Church the Principles laid down by me must hold No. For private judgments ought to submit to church-Church-Authority though fallible in all such points wherein such private persons have not demonstration against it much more if commanded to obey this authority and to follow its faith So where no infallible assistance yet we prudently submit our judgment to the advice of a more knowing friend and Children to the precepts and injunctions of their Parents though these fallible and that by the Divine command not enjoining them hereby to believe a lye or practise things unlawful but only to believe that to be most credibly true or just which their Parents and Superiours much wiser than themselves inform them to be so And where if there be some incertainty in following their Judgments this is not lesse but more in following their own Men rightly submit their Judgments to persons and things most credible as well as to the absolutely infallible Ib. l. 9 We do not dispute concerning the best helps for a person to make use of in a matter of this nature Whereas our Author here calls for the best helps a man can get naming these the directions of his Pastor the decrees of Councils the sense of the Primitive Church for the right understanding the Scriptures if he means in necessaries I appeal to the candid Reader whether the Reason given by him in his Principles for which he saith the sober enquirer cannot mistake in Necessaries doth not argue such helps needless namely this Princip 15. Because the whole will of God is in the Scriptures so plainly revealed that no sober enquirer can â—iss of what is necessary to salvation so that there can be no necessity supposed of any infallible I add much less of any fallible society of men either to attest or explain these writings So he then Which argues either no need of such Helps or if these usefull such Scriptures without them not clear And therefore if 1 such Helps are to be repaired-to for the true meaning of such Scriptures in Necessaries they ought to have been included in his Principle 2 But then the Quality or Profession and Condition of the farr greater part of Christians seems no way capable of using all such Helps 3 Or if they were yet all these helps being held by him fallible they will still after these be liable to errour in necessary faith All Christians then as to all necessaries to salvation are not free from erring without an infallibility in these points of their Guides neither the Scriptures being clear in these without Helps nor the Helps in them unliable to mistakes Pag. 97. l. 6. The decrees of Councils the sense of the primitive Church Surely such are not only helps for instruction of Christians but laws for Obedience Ib. l. 11. The foundation of this person's faith can be nothing else but a trembling quicksand The Foundation laid by the Dr thus expressed in his preface by N.O. viz. An Errability in Necessaries of the Guides of God's Church an Inerrability in the same by him attributed indefinitly to all sober Christians who without any necessary consulting and depending on their Teachers instituted for thâ—â— by God shall use their sincere endeavors to find out such Truths is rightly affirmed by N.O. Pref. p. 4. to be but a tottering and trembling foundation of their Faith N. O's words Ib. l. 17. The only certain way not to be mis-led I add where the sense of Scripture or Tradition is to any ambiguous will be the submitting our internal assent and belief to church-Church-Authority This is asserted Ib. l. 9 Here then two Questions necessarily arise 1. Whether there can be no certainty of faith i. e in several points of Faith where the sense of Scripture or Tradition is to any ambiguous and disputed without this Church-Infallibility 2. What certainty there is of this Church Infallibility The 1st is affirmed The 2d is spoken to below in Annot. on p. 113. l. 14. Pag. 89. l. 3. Every man hath in him a faculty of discerning truth and falshood What in all things of faith by his own sole ability No. Some helps I hope he must have in several things as Directions of his Pastor the sense of the Primitive Church Decrees of Councils as our Author saith p. 96. Annotations on his §. 5. N. O's Exceptions answered PAg. 98. l. 6 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 the Scriptures in order to Salvation Of some of these he may because there contained plainly enough of others not where rational Judgments dispute the sense Ib. l. 3 Our enquiry is not about the sense of the more difficult c But N. O's is Several points Necessary are difficult to many and controverted witness those contained in the Athanasian Creed Pag. 99. l. ult I desire to know whether things simply necessary ought not to be delivered with greater plainness than things which are not so No. But so as God pleaseth so he provide other ways for the explaining of what is obscure Pag. 100. l. 6. Whether our Saviours own Sermons were capable of being understood by those who heard them How capable soever of being understood they were not understood he said by all his Auditors in every thing nor by his own Diciples Ib. l. 5 Or can we have now
to the justifying of the Doctrine and Religion that such Heathen or Heretical Miracle-workers professed and of the Honour of those Gods they served suppose those Miracles of Pythagoras or Aesculapius or Apollonius Thyanaeus or of the Arian or Donatist-Bishops who urged them against S. Austin for a justification of their sect and orthodoxness of their doctrine Or on the other side * to shew that those who have related our Lord's and his Apostle's Miracles have to give these their just force and value expressed alwaies that they were done to this end the Dr mentions here and not to some other ends from which consequently nothing could be concluded concerning the truth of their doctrine Of which end of them therefore it concerned the world chiefly to be informed not of the fact Or * to shew that our Lord or his Apostles alwaies cleared this to be their end to their Auditors and spectatours which was in the first place necessary to be done But the people we see without examining this argued the men to be from God from their beholding the Miracles done And the Pharisees not dreaming of the necessity of such a circumstance never offered to elude any of our Lords Miracles as for example that done upon the blind man Jo. 9. alledging them to be done not in confirmation of his doctrine but upon some other by-account and so as they might possibly be done also in a false Religion and so his Doctrine to be rendred no way more creditable thereby Ib. l. 10 But such as the Church of Rome pretends scarce any Religion in the world but hath pretended to the same 1st Here that the same Miracles are pretended by other Religions that are by the Roman Church will signify nothing if they have not as good ground for or proof of what they pretend Or if those which are not only pretended but really done in the Roman be only pretended in the other 2ly The Roman Church pretends many such as the whole Catholick Church if such a Church there was in being did in many ages before Luther and even all along from the Primitive times as sufficiently appears in Ecolesiastical History 3ly These Miracles pretended both by the present Roman and by the Ancient Catholick Church were of the very same kind as those wrought by Christ and his Apostles i.e. giving sight to the blinde healing the sick raising the dead casting out devils Fiunt ergò nunc saith S. Augustine multa miracula eodem Deo faciente per quos vult quemadmodum vult qui illa quae legimus in the Scriptures fecit ‖ De Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 8. and which Miracles are such as this Authour here seems to say can never be done by any other Religions than the true 4ly That such Miracles were not only pretended but really done in the Church Catholick in the ancienter times as in S. Austin's this Authour I suppose will not deny or also hath granted See in his 2. Disc c. 3. p. 578.580 and then there seems no reason why he should deny the like in the Church of latter ages or in the present If there appear first as no absolute necessity of these Miracles in latter times so neither in S. Austin's 2ly If there be the same ends and benefit of them still in these as in his viz. the greater manifestation of Gods Presence and Providence in his Church the Honour he is pleased to do to his more extraordinary faithful Servants the rewards of a strong and unwavering Faith of obtaining what is asked for his better service and greater glory and lastly that end mentioned by S. Austin our greater edification in the true faith See De Cura pro Mort. c. 16. where he faith that Miracles are done Per Martyrum Memorias quoniam hot novit expedire nobis ad adificandam fidem Christi pro cujus illi confessione sunt paessi 3ly Where the Histories of latter times produce as evident and irrefragable testimonies of the truth of several of these Miracles done in them which is sufficient as those in S. Austin's days had Ib. l. 7 Who all pretend to Miracles as well as the Church of Rome Pretend as well but I hope not so truly nor 2ly so much the pretences of Heathens or Hereticks to Miracles being no way comparable for number or greatness to those pretended in the Church Catholick or Roman No more than Simon Magus his are to those of the Apostles and those few also that are said to be done by the Heathens after the Apostles days seem seigned in emulation of the great reputation of those of Christians But Pretences on any side signify nothing The Catholick and the Roman Church require belief of Miracles not upon pretence but a Rational Evidence Pag. 122. l. 15. But he saith a Christians faith may begin either at the infallible authority of Scriptures or of the Church i.e. That the first Article that a Christian believes or that in his learning the Faith is by his Parents or other instructers first made known to him may be this that the Scriptures are Gods word and infallible or may be this that the Church is Infallible I add or perhaps neither of these but some other As that God hath a Son and that he became Incarnate for his sake and the like Any of which Articles such Christian may savingly and with a Divine faith believe without being made infallibly certain thereof from some other formerly-known Divine Revelation on which this Article may be grounded As for example such person may with a divine and saving faith believe the Scriptures to be Gods word before he believe the Church to be infallible that hath defined the Canon of Scripture Or believe the Church to be infallible before he knows those Scriptures to be Gods Word by which Cnhurch-Infallibillity is proved Ib. l. 18. It seems then there may be sufficient ground for a Christian faith as to the Scriptures without believing any thing of the Church's Infallibility and for this we have reason to thank him whatever they of his own Church think of it Yes there may so A Christian not as yet believing the Infallibility of the Church as divinely assisted may both believe and have a sufficient ground of believing the Infallibility of Scripture viz. the forementioned Tradition And as Catholick Writers ordinarily state it to whom the Dr owes his thanks as well as to N. O It is not necessary that the first thing every Catholick believes or is sufficiently certain of be Church-Infallibility See the Catholick Authors cited in 3d Disc of the Guide § 129. n. 4. c. Ib. l. 3 Nay he goes yet farther and saith That the Infallibility of Scriptures as well as the Church may be proved from its own testimony And adds this Reason For saith he ‖ Princ. Consid p. 37. whoever is proved i.e. by some other medium or granted once infallible in what he saith the consequence is clear without
dissent from which he can justly anathematize Angel or Man and none may anathematize another for his dissent not receiving or for his not believing any thing of the truth whereof he himself is not certain much lesse if he doth not so much as hold himself so which latter will make the fault the greater Unless perhaps such were the supreme and unappealable Ecclesiastical Judge and knew that none other could be in such matter certain of the contrary But this I grant that who is certain and infallible in some things may not be so in all neither do I contend for an universal Infallibility even of General Councils in all things whatsoever but in all that are any way necessary to be determined See Note on p. 104. l. 15. Pag. l. 130. l. 7. Let the Reader now judge in his Conscience c. What thing is there more publick in the Church's Tradition and of which there hath been a more remarkable Testimony in all ages than of the repairing where the Ecclesiastical affaires required or times permitted it following the precedent of Acts 15. to General Councils or those some way equivalent for deciding the more important Controversies in Religion that disturbed the Church and than of these Councils when met their requiring a belief and assent from all Christians to their Definitions and this assent accordingly yielded by the Vniversal Church which inferrs also a General belief and acknowledgment of their Infallibility And Councils are as well known for thus deciding controversies in the Church as he saith the Judges are for trying causes in Westminster-Hall Ib. l. 7 I challenge him to produce any one age 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 Review the last Note 1 This standing Infallible Judge are affirmed to be Lawful General Councils Which though as being a Court consisting of many it is not at all times actually assembled and sitting Yet the Members of this supreme Ecclesiastical Court are alwaies existent and in being and retain their Authority from Christ for judging matters of Faith equally whether conjoined or distant in place from one another And when happens no conveniency of assembling such a General Council the Consent of the Body of the Catholick Clergy manifesting a concurrence in their judgment whether by several Provincial Councils or by any one that is generally approved Or whether by Communicatory and Synodical Letters or whether appearing in a general accord in their publick Writings Catechismes and Explications of the Christian Doctrine I say such Consent is equivalent to a General Council The Decrees also and Definitions of former General Councils are always standing in force and the execution of them committed to the care of the present Church-Governours This of the standing Judge 2 As for the Infallibility thereof the Vniversal consent of the Church hath admitted as the Authority and Infallibility of Scriptures so of Councils as to their defining points of necessary faith as hath been shewed before Note on p. 113. l. 14. 3 But in the 3d place it is not necessary that every point of Faith to have a sufficient Attestation or Evidence from Tradition have it as ample and Universal as some other point hath no more than it is for a just ratifying of the Canon of Scripture that all points of it be shewed to have alwaies had as General an Acceptation as any other Or that the Definitions of Chalcedon equall in this those of Nice Pag. 131. l. 5. The Infallibility of a standing Judge is utterly denied by one side and vehemently disputed between several parties on the other Not the infallibility of General Councils in all necessaries disputed save only by some Protestants agreed in by all the rest whether Eastern or Western Church And if the Common Reason or Body of Christianity were to decide this contest between N. O and Dr St Dr St. would be cast Pag. 132. l. 15. If the Infallibility of 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 Church's infallibility to prove the Scripture by It is true that the Infallibility of the Scripture cannot be proved from Infallibility of the Church to any that doubts as much of this as of the other till this proof is also proved to them But then it is true too that a Neophyte may first be taught from Tradition the Infallibility of the Church and from this so made known to him have the Infallibility of the Canon of Scripture proved to him as this Church hath in her Councils declared and delivered it for which Church it were to no end to define the Canon if the Canon thereby received no more certainty as to any Christian than formerly Ib. l. 3 N.O. turns my words quite to another meaning In the meaning the Dr now explains his words the sense of the latter part of this Principle which I leave the Reader to compare seems coincident with the former and so is granted to him Princip 17 as the former is And if N.O. not imagining such a reduplication mistook the Drs sense here from what he found him to say in another place ‖ Rat. Accountâ—p 512 the discourse is still pertinent if not to this to the other place and N.O. hath not lost his labour Pag. 133. l. 13. Men can have no certainty of faith that this was a General Couneil that it pâ—ssed 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 Christians have a sufficient certainty as to all the former particulars that the Council of Nice for example hath delivered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the true sense of the Scriptures which Sense of Scripture we believe with a divine faith and this divine faith relies on the word of God as thus expounded by this Council The same to which therefore may be said as to other points and other Councils Ib. l. 3 But I expresly mention such decrees as are purposely framed in general terms and with ambiguous expressions His words in Rat. Account are Suppose saith he p. 510. we should grant that you might in general be certain of the Infallibility of General Councils when we come to instance in any one of them you can have no certainty of faith as to the infallibility of the decrees of it For you can have no such certainty 1 that this waâ— a lawful General Council 2 that it passed such decrees 3 that it proceeded lawfully in passing them and 4 that this is the certain meaning of them Then examining these four particulars coming to the 4th he proceeds thus 4ly Saith he Suppose men could be assured of the proceedings of the Council yet what
Church where such Pleas as these are permitted to be urged in such a sense as to set men at liberty from the submission of their judgment to the Decisions and definitions of General Councils upon pretence that there shall be many seducers and a falling away and departing from the Faith and upon pretence of Force and Fraud used in the most General Counci's that could be convened for many past Generations Which falling away and departing from the Faith c. why should they not be rather applied to these New Sects and former Heresies and from them be inferred a closer adherence and Obedience to their lawful Church Governours Ib. l. 8 The Apostles told them they had no dominion over their faith What not so far as to oblige them to obey and submit to their Apostolical Doctrine What not such dominion as S. Paul urged 1. Tim. 1.20 to the blasphemers of the Gospel and as he commanded Titus to use Tit. 3.10 Consider the Acts of the Apostolical Council Act. 15. But the Text speaks here of any unjust dominion or authority to treat the faithful as he pleased in punishing or mulcting those who walk uprightly in the faith to alter change censure any thing therein for his own profit or advantage See Dr Hammond on the place Ib. l. 4. No present Guides whatever 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 If to yield up their minds be to submit their judgments were not Christians obliged in this to the very Apostles and their Doctrines See before Note on p. 144. l. 11. See we not the effects here of the Dr's 13th Principle in the people 's not needing Guides for understanding necessary Scriptures but meanwhile in the Scriptures being needful to them for trying by it their Guides Pag. 147. l. 7. Where there is a Rule for them the Church-Governours or Guides to proceed by there is a rule for others to judge of their proceedings If here He means by these others those who doubting of the true sense of the Rule repair to these Guides to learn from them the true sense of it which is only to the purpose that these are again to judge by the Rule doubted of whether the Guides have given the right sense what is this but that these are finally to determine the sense of the Rule for the determining of which they consult their Teachers As if the Consulters concerning the meaning of a Law when the Judge hath given them the sense of the Law should again by this Law examine the truth of the sense of the Judge and act finally according to their own not his sentence Ib. l. 13. 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 left wherein their authority could be shewn Doth not he say here the Church's Authority is to be submitted to in nothing but things left indifferent by the Scriptures Then it hath no authority in determining Controversies of faith but why then saith the 20th Article of the Church of England that the Church hath authority of expounding Scriptures in Controversies of faith and by what authority hath the Council of Nice determined Consubstantiation But so often as the sense of the Scriptures to any is doubtful may not the Scriptures here be said as to such persons to have deteâ—mined nothing and then are they not in these if in a Necessary point to repair to the determination of their Ecclesiastical Guides If so all will be well still and thus all come to submit to the sentence of the Judge but those who are certain before hand of the sense of their Rule Ib. l. 11 We plead for the Church is authority in indifferent Rites and Ceremonies But suppose the Question be whether such Rites and Ceremonies are indeed indifferent As they are taken by some not to be so because God will admit nothing into his worship but what himself hath first expresly commanded and prescribed What authority is to end this I say for such who hold some Ceremonie unlawful and repugnant to Scripture are they or the Church to judge of this unlawfulness and may the Church lawfully enjoin it and oblige them under excommunication to practise it Or will it not come at last according to these Principles that the Subjects not the Church are to decide the indifferency or non-indifferency of such Ceremonies Pag. 148. l. 7. Wee 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 In the best times of Christianity But do not you then in all times Or is not their authority the same in all times If various who is Judge of this their Subjects As an excellent means to understand c. This will not serve the turn it must be as an authorized Expositor of the true sense of Scriptures doubtful and obscure in Necessary matters to whose definitions all ought to submit not only to make use of their advice This Church-Tradition makes good this such Protestants as our Author oppose Ib. l. 13. We reject the ancient Heresies condemned in them But doth he acknowledge and reject all that as Heresy that hath been or shall be condemned by all lawful General Councils for such Ib. l. 11 We reject nothing that can be proved by an Vniversal Tradition from the Apostolical times downwards That can be proved But who shall judge of the proof where any thing is disputed whether it be Tradition Apostolick Our selves or the present Church-Governours Ib. l. 5 We see no reason to have those things forced upon us now which we offer to prove to be contrary to their the primitive times doctrine and practice Offer to prove To whom To any whose final judgment you will stand to Name them Shall it be to a General Council But this may err you say It erring shall it be to a Second But if one err so may all And who shall judge when It doth not err Demonstration shall decide it And who judge when it is a clear demonstration if any deny it to be so Pag. 149. l. 1. The Controversy is 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 Here again who shall judge this difference concerning their contradiction denied by Catholicks denied by the latter Councils of the Church that plead Tradition and their agreement with the former Ib. l. 8. 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 practice we look upon it as arrogance presumption in any others to alter what they have declared Where they have determined matters of faith or practice But who 's Judge of this what Christ and his Apostles have determined the Church's Councils or private men each for himself Ib. l. 13 Til ignorance ambition private interests swayed too much among those who were called the Guides These vices in all ages are found in some and are justly by others reproved But doth He charge these on the Church's Supremest Guides or its General Councils Then if we declining their judgment on this account to what other Courts or Persons will He direct us to apply our selves that are more free what private Person or inferior Court Ib. l. 3 In matters imposed upon us to believe or practise which are repugnant to plain commands of Scripture or the evidence of sense or the Grounds of Christian Religion no Authority of the present Guides of a Church is to overrule our faith or practice In things contrary to the plain commands of Scripture or grounds of Religion we join with him No church-Church-authority is to overrule our faith or practice But the former Question still returns Who shall judge among us what is or is not so contrary As for the other thing he mentions contrary to the evidence of sense If a Divine Revelation be contrary to such evidence I hope our Faith is to be over-ruled by the Revelation and for this I think I have the Dr's consent in these words in his Rational Account Where discoursing of Transubstantiation whether consistent with the grounds of Christian Religion he saith ‖ p. 567 That which I am now upon is not how far reason I suppose he will allow me to say or sense is to be submitted to Divine authority in case of certainty that there is a Divine Revelation for what I am to believe but how far it is to be renounced that is Reason or Sense when all evidence that is brought i.e. for such a Divine Revelation is from the authority of the Fathers So that that Question in short is Whether there be greater evidence that I am bound to believe the Fathers in a matter contrary to Sense and Reason or else to adhere to the judgment of them though in opposition to the Father's authority Where I understand him to say that he is to believe a Divine Revelation that is certainly such made known to him by one Sense the Hearing though against the perceptions of another Sense the Seeing but notwithstanding this that he is still rather to adhere to the judgment of his Senses than credit the Fathers concerning the truth of such a Divine Revelation as contradicts his Senses So The certainty of the Divine Revelation is here the only thing in question which once any way proved the evidence Sense gives-in against it is to be neglected Now of the certainty of the Divine Revelation or of the true sense of Scripture we reckon the unanimous consent of the Fathers or Primitive Church if such can be shewn so expounding it a sufficient proof And I think sometimes so doth Dr St. in these words Rat. Account p. 375. We profess to be guided by the sense of Scripture at interpreted by the unanimous consent of the Fathers and the four first General Councils And p. 56. It is a sufficient prescription against any thing that can be alledged out of Scripture that it ought not to be looked on as the true meaning of the Scripture if it appears contrary to the sense of the Catholick Church from the beginning And so laying the evidence of Sense here aside what their consent is is the first thing to be discussed Pag. 150. l. 4. For there are some things so plain that no man wil be guided by anothers opinion in them Catholicks willingly allow withdrawing obedience where you have Certainty But how vainly doth any one pretend or promise himself a certainty of any thing wherein a General Council or a much major part of the Church having all the same means of certainty as he judgeth contrary or fancy that such a matter carrieth the like evidence to persons as doth the Whiteness of Snow Ib. l. 12. I am certain if I destroy the evidence of Sense I must overthrow the grounds of Christian Religion What if I disbelieve Sense only in such a particular thing where Divine Revelation declares the contrary Though indeed the Sense in Transubstantiation is not deceived at all its Object still remaining there out the Person if from it He collect the Substance of Bread to be under it Ib. l. 19. To reject that authority which overthrows the certainty of Sense He must meane with his Exception unless it be Divine Ib. l. 3 We preferr the grounds of our common Christianity before a novel and monstrous figment Good reason but not before a Divine Revelation This Controversy therefore must first be decided before any argument from Sense can be used He goes on Ib. l. 2 Hutched in the times of ignorance and barbarisme fostered by faction and imposed by tyranny Speaking evil of Dignities Jud. 8. Concerning the evidence of Sense N.O. †Consid p. 92. had this Discourse on Dr St's 4th Consequence charging the Church of Rome as maintaining opinions repugnant to the principles of Sense and Reason 1. That the judgment of our Senses appointed by God the Instruments by hearing or reading them of conveying Faith and his Divine Revelations to us affords a sufficient natural certainty or infallibility whereon to ground our belief in all those things subject to our senses wherein the Divine Power doth not interpose But 2ly That where the Divine Power worketh any thing supernaturally that is contrary to our sense as it may no doubt here we are not to believe them And 3ly That we are to believe this divine power doth so so often as certain Divine Revelation tells us so though by the same senses it tells us so We believing our Senses as our Hearing or Reading for this as we ought where we have no Divine Revelation or other evidence concerning their deception when at the same time we do not believe the same Senses for some other thing as that that which we see is Bread when a Divine Revelation tells us the contrary The truth of which Divine Revelation in any non-evidence and questioning of the Sense of Scripture we are to learn from Gods Church infallibly assisted in necessary Faith c. For which I referr the Reader to what hath been said more at large in § 60.61.62 of the preceding Discourse Thus N.O. in his Considerations ‖ which the Dr passeth over in silence For it is better not to debate or acquaint a Reader with those Scruples we cannot easily satisfy Cosa ragionata via và P. 151. l. 1. We
wicked doctrines Here what should I trouble my self or the Reader in debating this controversy concerning Honorius with the Dr whose cause the Reader may see pleaded very plausibly by Cardinal Bellarmine i. 4. de Romano Pontifice c. 12. as to this freedome from Heresy being condemned hereof after his death before any Council had defined this matter upon some words of his which compared with others are capable of a sound meaning as arguing not against two but two contrary or repugnant Wills of our Lord and whenas there is some matter of fact in which may be mistakes contained in the Council's thus declaring him an heretick which thing occurs not in the declaring of Heresy I say what need I review this debate wherein the Dr only contends that is which the common opinion among Catholicks grants may be See Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 30. § Resp Sunt Pighius contendit Papam non posse esse Haereticum proinde nec deponi in ullo casu qua sententia probabilis est facilè defendi potest tamen non est certa communis opinio est in contrarium Where he quotes also the Canon Si Papa Distinct 40. Papa a nemine judicandus nisi deprehendatur a fide devius Pag. 167. l. 4. Pope Agatho did himself consent to the condemnation of Honorius Suppose this be granted why may not a Pope and a General Council judge a Pope See for this again Bellarm. de Concil l. 2. c. 19. Potest Concilium discutere causam Pontificis si inveniat reverâ esse infidelem potest declarare eum esse extra Ecclesiam sic damnare And the same he saith If the Council should discover him an Heretick De Conc. l. 1. c. 9. Quarta causa celebrandi Generalis Concilii est suspicio Haresis in Romano Pontifice c. Pag. 168. l. 19. The greatest strength he adds to Baronius is only saying without doubt it is so Let the Reader view Bellarmin de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 11. whether this hath not more drollery in it than Truth Pag. 170. l. 18. I desire therefore again to know whether he was rightly condemned or not Suppose I answer rightly what then Then the Pope is not infallible And what then What is this to N. O or his Considerations Ib. l. 8 In either case there was no Infallibility in the Guides Yes in one case if Honorius rightly condemned there was Infallibility in the Pope and Council Pag. 171. l. 8. The ingenuous concession of Mr White A great friend to Popes But by this he sees there are that confess Popes liable to Heresy Ib. l. 6. Councils against Councils Not lawful General Councils one against another Ib. l. 4 Church again Church especially after the Breach between the Greek and the Roman Not one of these Churches against the other in most of those things for which the Reformation hath left the Roman But supposing in some points they be so the Infallibility we contend for here as requiring our Obedience is only that of a General Council joined with and confirmed by the Bishop of the See Apostolick In the intervals of which Councils to matters clearly determined formerly by them the present Church Governours if no way supposed infallible may exact from the Church's subjects such an assent as the Councils have required Or in new Controversies arising and not formerly determined by any such Councils yet may justly impose silence till such Controversy shal be so decided Ib. l. 2 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 chuse his Religion and by that his Guide bound to rely only Who saith it He may rely on the Holy Scripture very safely in all points whereever it is clear but in his application to it when he meets with Scriptures the sense whereof is ambiguous to him as surely either it is or should be in case he sees a major part of the Church or of Christianity to differ from him in the sense of it he is to rely on his Guides And next in any difference among them he is not presently left to our Author's way to chuse his Religion or his opinion first and by that his Guides as they sit it for so in some places that our Author knows there is scarce any opinion so gross but some Guides may be found complying with it But in these Guide's differing and their just authority consisting in a most exact Subordination he is to rely on the Superiour as in England on a Provincial or National Synod rather than on the Rector of his Parish or a single Bishop and whereever its judgment can be had on the Supreme a lawful General Council confirmed by the Bishop of the See Apostolick Pag. 172. l. 8. 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 judgment I should make no scruple in all doubtful matters to resolve the affirmative supposing that all the Guides of the Catholick Church were agreed Will he submit his judgment then to lawful General Councils and the matters they have or shall agree in Since he hath great reason to doubt in all things where they judge contrary to his tenent He goes on Ib. l. ult For I should think it arrogance and presumptiâ—n 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 To the unanimous consent of all the Guides But will he submit to such a consent as hath been had in former lawful General Councils I mean such as in the four first for deciding Controversies viz. to that of a much major part For else if but one Bishop in the world shall oppose all the rest He is released from such his submission And 2ly Will he yield this for all matters whatever such Councils shall define For to repeat his words ought he not to think it arrogance and presumption in him to set up his own private opinion in opposition to such Councils in any thing for which they have the same evidence as himself And here observe also that in whatever times these Councils be held whether in the present or past ancient or latter times so as not contradicting one another in their definitions their Authority is exactly the same and so ought his Obedience to be and their Definitions also to be in all times after obliging those of Nice obliging now N. 1 Pag. 173. l. 5. We find the Christian world divided into very different Communions It is so But the forementioned ‖ Note on p. 172. l. 2. subordination of Church-Governours is still to be observed And our obedience in any clashing of these Church-Governours in several parts to be performed to the Superiours As for example The African Bishops and their Councils
Civil as Ecclesiastical Governours So that if the Catholicks seem to apply some Consciential obedience to the Ecclesiastical Judge disliked and denyed to him by Protestants so do they also to the Civil Ib. l. 10 They challenge likewise to themselves a power to dispense with the laws of God as in matter of Mariages The Church only dispenseth where antecedently no Divine Law but only a Church-law obligeth those about Marriages being many of them Levitical Judicial Laws obligatory only to the ancient Commonwealth of the Jews and not now to Christians But in impedimentis jure Divino naturali conjugium dirimentibus the Church pretends no dispensative power Ib. l. 8 And with the Institution of Christ as in Communion in one kind See this spoken to before in Note on p. 151. l. 6. Ib. l. 5 As in the five Sacraments they have added to the two of Christ As the Roman Church reckons Seven Sacraments so the Greek Sacramenta verò ritusque in hâc ipsâ Catholicâ rectè sentientium Christianorum Ecclesiâ sunt Septem saith Jeremias Patriarch of Constantinople against the Lutherans ‖ Resp. 1. c. 7. and so the Catholick Church before Luther appeared And this Author cannot be ignorant that Protestants also since that time as the Word Sacrament is taken in a more general sense have willingly admitted more than two and acknowledged this conformable to the language of Antiquity And in the short English Catechisme the Answer to the Question How many Sacraments Two only is made as Bishop Mountague observes ‖ Appeal c. 33. with this Limitation as generally necessary to salvation And on the other side the Council of Trent †Sess 7. c. 3. pronounces Anathema to those who shall make them all of an equal dignity And Baptisme and the Eucharist shall have the preeminency that Protestants desire Ib. l. 2 Setting aside these considerations we dare appeal c. For the extravagancy of the next page I referr the Reader to the Note on p. 180. l. 9. Pag. 185. l. 6. Whether our Church's Imposing of three Ceremonies declared to be indifferent by those who required them But denied to be so by those they are imposed-on who therefore complain of tyranny and of forcing the Conscience the enjoining the practice of them involving an assent also that they are lawful which they that cannot yield must sin if they practise them And in such a case who must decide this matter between these two I find him in his Irenicum c. 2. p. 63. nominating for this Judge the sense of the Primitive Church in the first four Centuries and the judgment of the other Reformed Churches There he proposeth That nothing be required nor determined by Church-Governours but what is sufficiently known to be indifferent in its own nature The only difficulty saith he is hâ—w a thing may be sufficiently known to be indifferent because one man looks upon that as indifferent which another doth not The most equal way to decide this Controversy is to make choice of such Judges as are not interested in the quarrel and those are the sense of the Primitive Church in the first four Centuries who were best able to judge whether they looked upon themselves as bound by any Command of Scripture or no and withal the judgment of the Reformed Churches So that what shal be made appear to be lefâ— indifferent by both the sense of the Primitive Church and the Churches of the Reformation may be a matter determinable by Law and which all may be required to conform in Obedience to But here 1st What if when this Judge the sense of the Primitive Church is admitted by both parties yet there happen dispute What or on which side this sense is Is it not so disputed and will not the deciding of this need another Judge 2ly For the Judgment of the Reformed Churches I suppose he means those abroad concerning the Controversies about Indifferents here in England they no way seem such as he here supposeth i.e. persons not interested in the quarrel some of them as to these things intertaining the opinion of the Prclaticks others of the Presbyterian party But were it not so their judgment being fallible It is contrary I think to this Author's Principles for others to be enjoined or constrained to conform to them either in their practice where their judgment relucts or in their judgment where their 's also may err 3ly The Judge in Ecclesiastical matters is not left to any ones arbitrary nomination but is alwaies the Superiour Prelates or Councils in respect of all others subordinate to them He goes on Can be thought so great a Burden to their Consciences as all the Load of superstitious fopperies in the Roman Church Supposing here not granting the Roman Ceremonies such yet some of which at least I hope this Author will protect because borrowed from her by the Reformed Church of England to the great grief of these Sects I ask to what end is it here to compare the Degrees of Burdens imposed where the Least if imposed against conscience is unsupportable Ib. l. 17. Whether Transubstantiation Image-worship c. be not somwhat harder things to swallow Some of these at least how hard soever they seem to you are the Definitions either of the Supreme Councils or those Superiour to a Provincial or National one of England And to these Councils therefore you owe obedience either of assent or silence and cannot separate from their Communion without Schisme Ib. l. 11 Be not somwhat harder things to swallow than the Church's power to appoint matters of Order and decency Is then the appointing matters of Order and Decency all the power the Church of England doth or may assume I mean hath this Church no power in Matters and Controversies of Faith Pag. 186. l. 1. Not for any difficulty objected by N.O. Which whatever it is is omitted here by the Dr. See Note on p. 180. l. 9. Annotations on §. 11. Of the means to attaine the sense of Scripture without an infallible Guide PAg. 186. l. 11. That is the second main Principle in N.O. that without this infallible assistance of the Guides of the Church there can be no certainty of the sense of Scripture There are no such words in N.O. N.O. denies a sufficient certainty of the sense of Scripture in several points of necessary saith ‖ See the former Discourse §. 2. but not in all especially as to some persons and capacities without the Church's exposition of them Ib. l. 17. He yields that the Church's infallibility is not necessary to the foundation of faith for mens faith he saith may begin at the infallible authority of Scriptures No such words are in N. O neither doth he call that a Foundation of Faith where Faith begins Which Faith begins at that particular Article thereof which is first taught to any by their Inâ—tructer Parents or Pastor and this happens to be somtimes one Article somtimes another N. O's
words there †are As all Articles of Faith are not by all persons learnt at once so neither by all exactly in the same order as is frequently observed by Catholick Writers A Christians faith therefore may begin i.e. in the order of his learning it either at the infallible authority of Scriptures or of the Church and this infallible authority of either of these be learnt from Tradition and that of the other from it Thus N.O. Concerning the Foundation of Faith I referr the Reader to the former Note on p. 84. l. ult Ib. l. 3 He often pleads for necessity of an external infallible Guide because God hath referred all in the dubious sense of Scripture to the direction of his Ministers their Spiritual Guides This is by N.O. given for the reason of another thing not infallibility where N.O. in answer to the Dr's 18th Principle saith in the immediate words preceding ‖ p. 46. Neither can such Promise viz. that whoso useth his best endeavour for understanding Scripture if meant exclusively to his consulting and embracing the Exposition of the Church either shall not err or not be damned for it be pretended necessary since God hath referred all men c. And here the Dr omits the vindicating of his Principle and applyes N. O's words to the proving of Infallibility Pag. 187. l. 9 Whilst the Scriptures are ambiguous c. N. O's words are whilst the Scriptures in such points at least to persons unlearned or of weaker judgments which are the greatest part of Christians are ambiguous which words are here left out by our Author Ib. l. 6 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 Nay comes to this that persons unlearned and of weaker judgments can arrive to no certainty of the sense of Scripture in some matters of necessary faith without an external Infallible Guide and therefore such a Guide is necessary Pag. 188. l. 1. Point to be Discussed What necessity there is for the Salvation of persons to have an infallible interpretation of controverted places of Scripture Salvation of persons he should add persons unlearned and of weaker capacitie and doubting of the sense of such places Of controverted places of Scripture He should add in points necessary of which N.O. every where speaks see his words but now quoted by himself whose Words one would think but that the Dr surely is a man of more integrity that he on purpose to make his Answers more plausible almost every where as to both these omitteth Now the necessity of such an infallible interpretation is this that such person may not err in such Necessaries Ib. l. 8. Men may attain a certain sense without an infallible Guide Here again want words Men all men the vnlearned those of weakest judgment employed in a secular vocation c. attain to a certain sense in all places of Scripture concerning Necessaries Ib. l. 13 1st We are to enquire into the necessity of such an infallible interpretation of doubtful places of Scripture Add in necessaries Pag. 189. l. 1. N.O. Must prove not that there are doubtful and controverted places which no one denies N. 1 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 1 Why it lies more upon N.O. to prove that the sense of Scripture is not clear as to some persons in some points necessary than on the Dr to prove that the Scripture is clear to them in all points necessary I see not since he affirms these plain to all N.O. denies it and Affirmers as he saith ‖ p. 193. ought to prove 2 Here what thinks He of several of the points of the Athanasian Creed urged by N. O much controverted in Antiquity and by the first Councils inserted in this Creed as thought necessary for mens salvation to be known Are the Scriptures so clear in all these as all capacities using an endeavour sutable to their vocations cannot mistake in them Then what thinks he of his own words Ration Account p. 58. urged by N.O. p. 63. and cited before in Note on p. 126. l. 2. The Deity of Christ and the Trinity are they not points necessary to be rightly believed for attaining Salvation And Doth not the guidance of the Church-Governours set over the Church by God Eph. 4.11.13 relate to Necessaries Or where the erring of the unlearned which always many Christians must be 2. Pet. 3.16 tends to mens destruction is not the knowing of the right sense necessary to their salvation What thinks he of the sense of Hoc est Corpus meum urged by N.O. p. 20 Is it clear on the Protestants side to all using a just endeavour when the much major part of Christianity and before Luther's time the whâ—le understands it in the contrary And if none of this world of men hath used a right endeavour how shall any be secure of such a right endeavour used by him that he may be confident in such clear Scripture he is not deceived Or is the true sense of this Text not necessary to be known where such a gross Idolatry is affirmed by our Author to be the necessary consequent of an erroneous sense But if he will restrain Necessaries to the Apostles Creed or perhaps only to three or four principal Articles thereof the pure nescience of which excludes from salvation then as he contends these are clear in Scripture so why will he not allow that General Councils are in these infallible and so the Church in Necessaries an Infallible Guide But then let him consider in any such restraint of necessaries yet whether there are not many other points at least so highly beneficial to salvation as that the Divine Providence is engaged to leave the truth of them also either clear to all sober enquirers in Scripture or to Guides that shall not err in expounding such Scriptures to the people Indeed after so much clamour against the pernicious doctrine of the Church of Rome our Author seems to have a hard task of it and also very unsutable to so much choler to maintain that none of the points agitated between it and Protestants is so necessary for attaining salvation at least with less difficulty to be believed on the Protestant side that God should either leave Scripture for it clear enough to the sober enquirer or else in the sense of Scripture doubtful some living Guide unerrably to determine it Or if he shall say God hath left Scriptures clear to all capacities well-endeavouring in all such points he seems to have as hard a task again to maintain this when the major part of Christianity reading these Scriptures do think against him the contrary to be clear in them But lastly if what He over-lavisheth
to these also this Infallible Guide is necessary to supply the effect of such studies N. 4 As for the 2d means viz. The Ancients urging the general Exposition and sense of Scriptures testified in the Apostolical Churches to be conformed to Catholicks affirm that this viz. the Apostolick Churches their unanimously delivering such a doctrine or sense of Scripture as received first from the Apostles was always held to be infallible and not liable to errour and all Chri tians held oblâ—ged to believe or embrace such a doctrine or sense of Scripture so generally consented in and the dissenters and opposers thereof always held by the same united and consenting Apostolical Churches for Hereticks in the Faith To which Traditive Doctrine I add here or any necâ—ssary and evident Deduction made by them from such a tradiâ—ive doctrine In both which the Tradition or the Deduction the Câ—urch was con tantly believed to be so preserved by God's providence over it and his Holy Spirit abiding with it as not to err in any necessaries And the unanimous consent of these Churches concerning any doctrine to be Apostolical however their minds were made known whether by Communicatory Letters or Provinciâ—l Synods for it could not be in these times of persecution by a Council General had then the self same authority as afterwards the Decrees and Definitions of Councils And thus is the Dr in urging the 2d means of knowing the true sense of Scripture fallen upon the Infallibility herein of the Church And this was the Infallible Guide in the first times whose Tradition and Ordination for matters of our faith Irenaeus saith ‖ l. 3. c. 4. Chriâ—tians muâ—t have followed and believed had the Apostles lest us no Scriptures and consequently Dissenters had been held no less Hereticks Siquibus saith he speaking of the present Churches de aliquâ modicâ quaestione how much more in greater disceptatio esset nonne oporteret in an iquissinas i.e. by succession recurrere ecclesias in quibus Apostoli conversati sunt ab eis de praesente quaestione suâ—ere quâ—d certum re liquidum est what was the certain and cleare tâ—uth to which he was to adhere Quid autem si neque Apostoli quidem Scripturas reliquissent nobis nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis quam tradiderunt iis quibus committebant Ecclesias cui ordinationi assentiunt multae gentes Barbarorum corum qui in Christum creâ—unt sine charactere vel atramento scriptam habentes per spiritum in cordibus suis salutem veterem traditionem diligenter custodientes c. N. 5 Neither was this general Consent of Churches then consulted or repaired-to only concerning their conserving of the Written Rule of Faith the Canon of Scripture or the Creed that they received from the Apostles the perpetual conservation of which in the Church the Fathers urged against some grosser kind of Hereticks denying the same Creed and some part at least of this Canon but also was consulted and repaired-to concerning the sense wherein the Scriptures and this Creed were understood by these Churches so often as disputes in those times were raised about it by other Hereticks more refined and who admitted the Scriptures and the Creed but varied concerning the sense of them in several points Against both which Hereticks the Fathers urged the prescription of the present testimony of these Churches to those who would consult them concerning the Tradition descending to them from the times of the Apostles And Tertullian frequently complains as of some Hereticks not reâ—eiving the Scriptures so of others misinterpreting them ‖ De praescript adv haeres c. 17. c. Ista Haeresis non recipit quasdam Scripturas siquas recipit adjectio ibus detractionibus ad dispositionem instituti sui intervertit si recipit non recipit integras si aliquatenùs integras praestâ—t nihilâ—minùs â—iversas expositiones commentata convertit Tantum veritati obstrepit adulter sensus quantum corruptor stilus And afterward Dicunt a nobis potius adulteria Scripturarum expositionum mendâ—cia inferri And ubi apparu rit esse veritatem disciplinae fidei Coristianae illic erit veritas Scripturarum omnium traditionum Christianarum Where I note his urging the Church's consenting Exposition of Scriptures as well as reception of Scriptures as prescribing against Hereticks Ib l. 11. It will not I hope be denied that the Primitive Christian Church had a cercain way of understanding the sense of doubtful places as far as it was necessary to be understood and that they wanted nâ— means which Christ had appointed for the ending of controversies This is willingly granted and it is contended that this inerrability in Necessaries accompanied the Clergy and preserved the Church in the unity of a true faith in all even the Primitive times being annexed to the whole Body or much major part of this Clergy not only when met in a General Council but out of it also whenever and however they manifested a concurrence in their judgment and agreement in their doctrine whether it were by several Provincial Councils assembled or perhaps only by some one convened in the place more infested with some new and dangerous errour and ratified by the Apostolick See and other coordinate Churches or not opposed and censured but taciâ—ly admitted by them Or by their Communicatory and Synodical Letters Or whether in their publick Liturgies and Offices Or in a general Consent in their publick Writings and explications of Christian Doctrine In none of which as to the Doctrine Necessary the whole Body of the Clergy or that which in any dissent is to be accepted for the whole did ever erre Of which times before Constantine and the first General Council of Nice thus Mr Thorndike in his Epilogue l. 1. c. 8. The daily intercourse intelligence and correspondence between Churches without those Assemblies of Representatives we call Councils was a thing so visibly practised by the Catholick Church from the beginning that thereupon I conceive it may be called a standing Council in regard of the continual settling of troubles arising in some part and tending to question the peace of the whole by the consent of other Churches concerned which settlement was had and obtained by means of this mutual intelligence and correspondence The holding of Councils being a way of far greater dispatch but the express consent of Churches obtained upon the place being a more certain foundation of peace And afterward he affirms That the succession of Pastors alledged by Irenaeus and Tertullian to convince the Hereticks of their time by S. Augustine and Optatus to convince the Donatists to be Schismaticks proceeded wholly upon supposition of daily intercourse and correspondence between Churches as of force to conclude particular Churches by consent of the whole And this agreement in all times hath kept the Faith of the Church steady and uniform Ib. l. 4 If no such thing was then heard of as an
their testimony when pretending one thing Tradition Apostolical than when another though these things perhaps be not of an equal importance Pag. 208. l. 1. Which Tradition they the Hereticks accounted the key to unlock all the difficulties of Scripture Hereticks indeed so accounted their false tradition but so the Churches also their true Tradition Ib. l. 12. Irenaeus appeals to the most eminent Churches And especially that of Rome because of the great resort of Christians thither where he omits the Necesse est No. Propter potentiorem principalitatem saith the Father which Pricipalitas potentior a Petro Paulo fundata caused the great resort of Christians thither propter quam ad hanc necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam c see the words at large cited before Annot. on p. 201. l. 5. Ib. l. 17. And knew of no such tradition as the Valentinians pretended to But this was not all the Fathers pleaded also in the Churches an Anti-tradition true and Apostolical witnessed by the unanimous testimony of the present Apostolical Churches as the others did a false and untestifyed Ib. l. 9 And supposing no Scriptures we must then have followed the Traditien of the most ancient and Apostolical Churches Thus said Irenaeus I add and this Tradition witnessed by the present Churches must be in necessaries infallible else Christian Religion would be liable to errour in such necessaries Pag. 209. l. 14. But Irenaeus knew nothing of any infallible Judge to determine the sense of Scripture For the contraty see Note on p. 197. l. 7. and l. 11. Pag. 210. l. 2. There must be a certain unalterable Rule of faith c. Now this Author removes his discourse from Irenaeus to Tertullian Who also as Irenaeus speaks not only of the Creed professed in Baptism nor of some chief Articles but of the whole doctrine of faith and manners necessary to salvation as also of the right sense of Scriptures controverted that it was delivered to and deposited in the Christian Churches by our Lord and his Apostles and from the unanimous agreement of the same Churches therein in any controversy made concerning it might be certainly learnt and known What hath been said of Irenaeus needs not be repeated concerning him both do tread in the same steps and Tertullian had perused the works of Irenaeus ‖ See contra Valentin c. 5. both referr Christians to the consentient Testimony of the Apostolical Churches in any doubting in matters of faith or disputed sense of Scripture a these Churches firmly conserving and rightly delivering the Tradition Apostolical and as not liable to errour herein Of these Churches thus he De praescript c. 19. Vbi or apud quos apparuerit esse veritatem disciplinae fidei Christianae delivered to them by the Apostles illic erit veritas Scripturarum expositionum omnium traditionum Christianarum And how this if these consentient Churches not held infallible in rightly delivering such Tradition c. 21. And Quid Apostolis Christus revelaverit hic praescribam non aliter probari debere nisi per easdem Ecclesias Proinde constare omnem doctrinam quae cum illis Ecclesiis Apostolicis matricsbus originalibus fidei conspiret veritati deputandam id sine dubio tenentem quod ecclesiae ab Apostolis Apostoli a Christo Christus a Deo suscepit These Churches therefore in no age are errable in conserving or delivering such such doctrine for else how any certain that not in Tertnllian's Superest ergo uti demonstremus an haec nostra doctrina cujus regulam supra edidimus de Apostolorum traditione censeatur Which he demonstrates thus Communicamus cum Ecclesiis Apostolicis quod nulla doctrina diversa facit hoc est testimonium veritatis And after c. 36. speaking of the Apostolical Churches in any diversity of doctrine to be consulted he goes on thus Proxima est tibi Achaia habes Corinthum Si non longè es a Macedoniâ habes Philippos c. Si autem Italiae adjaces habes Roman unde nobis Affricanis authoritas praesto est where he advanceth this Church above the rest as also Irenaeus Faelix ecclesia saith he cui totam doctrinam Apostoli cum sanguine suo profuderunt Videamus quid didicerit i.e. haec ecclesia quid docuerit cùm Affricanis quoque ecclesiis contesserarit Then naming some part of Its Faith and doctrine against the contrary of the Hereticks of those days adversus hanc institutionem saith he neminem recipit into its communion Then concludes Si haec ita se habent ut veritas nobis adjudicetur c non esse admittendos haereticos ad candem de Scripturis provocationem quos sine Scripturis i.e. by the infallible Testimony of the Church discovering their faith not right Probamus ad Scripturas non pertinere And Illic or apud cos igitur Scripturarum expositionum adulteratio deputanda est ubi diversitas invenitur doctrinae from the consentient Churches This occurrs in his Book of Prescriptions against Hereticks In his Books against Marcion are found like things From which authority also of the Apostolical Churches he saith there ‖ l. 4. c. 5. we receive the Canon of Scripture Eadem authoritas ecclesiâ—rum Apostolicarum cateris quoque patrocinabitur Evangeliis quae Evangelia proinde per illas secundum illas habemus Ib. l. 9 He Tertullian shews this Rule of Faith is by repeating the Articles of the Ancient Creed See Note on p. 207. l. 4. I hope He will not confine the consentient Church's authority and testimony only to the express Articles of the Creed used in Tertullian's time for then its testimony will not or may not have the same verity in those of the Athanasian Pag. 213. l. 11. Discovers their imposture Let the Reader well consider whether the Dr's translation in this and the precedent page doth not also make Tertullian clearly enough affirm Church-infallibility and whether he brings not witnesses against himself Pag. 214. l. 14. Thus Tertullian lays down the rules of finding out the sense of controverted places of Scripture without the least insinuation of an infallibility placed in the Guides of the Church for determining the certain sense of them Contrary If we Review what hath been said Tertullian lays down a certain Rule of finding out the sense of controverted places of Scripture viz. a general Consent of the Apostolical Churches touching such sense traditional and descending from the Apostles which Consent ought to determine such sense unto them Ib. l. 5 Prescription or just exception against their pleading for so prescription signifies in him The Plea Tertullian useth against the novelty of ancient Hereticks as also Roman-Catholicks do still against the Protestants namely this Mea est possessio olim possideo prior possideo c. 38. And this ‖ c. 31. Id est dominicum verum quod est prius tradtum id autem extraneum falsum quod est posteriùs immissum I say
necessaries In the Declaration of both which they are always preserved from error by the super-intending of the Divine Providence and the assistance of the Holy Spirit And that supposing the sense of Scripture without recurrence to such Tradition be cleare enough to some yet that it is not so to all who therefore in their faith of such necessaries must depend on the authority direction infallibility of their Guides Unless our Author will say the Condition of all Christians is well capable of using all means possible Pag. 232. l. 5. The same course is taken by Epiphanius c. S. Hilary and S. Epiphanius it seems do endeavour to confute Hereticks out of the Seriptures What then Ib. l. 18. After the Guides of the Church had in the Council of Nice declared what was the Catholick faith yet still the controversy 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 Was not the Decree of this Council after it held perpetually by the Catholicks urged against them And if not submitted to by them the more to blame the Hereticks of those days as now also the Proâ—estans after the 2d Nicene Laterane Florentine and Trent Councils who did not acquiesce in such a just authority as that of Nice and though I think Mr Chillingworth would not yet will not Dr St. as to the Nicene Council say the same with me These then though denying submission to Councils yet not to Holy Scriptures the Fathers did in those daies as Catholick Doctors do now out of Principles coneeded by them and common to both endeavour to convince them Ib. l. 4 That none of the Catholick Bishops should once suggest this admirable expedient of Infallibility Did not these Bishops continually press to them the consentient Tradition of the Churches and the Definition of the Council of Nice To what end this if it acknowledged by them fallible Might an Authority not infallible put their definitions in the Creed and so it remains to this day in the Dr's Creed upon that account Could it exact belief and anathematize all Dissenters and not profess itself Infallible Pag. 233. l. 7. When they so frequently in Councils contradicted each other See this great Friend of Councils Before ‖ p. 149. the charge was Ancient Church and Councils contradicting those of latter times but now it is grown higher to the Ancient contradicting Ancient without any qualification of Councils held by Hercticks contradicting Councils Catholick for then the sense had been lost But I hope our Adversary is not yet gone so far as to affirm any Council equal in authority with that of Nice contradicting it but if unequal that of Nice only will stand in force Ib. l. 13. 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 i.e. If the sense of the Scripture concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were to be taken from the Guides of the Church met in the Council of Nice what security from thence could we have against Arianisme since the Arian Councils were more numerous than that of Nice and therefore more obligatory than it Doth not our Author here a litle too sar unmask himself Doth he hold then Christians to owe no obedience to the Definition of the Council of Nice against Arianisme Time was when he said ‖ Rat. Account p. 375. We profess to be guided by the sense of Scripture as interpreted by the unanimotes consent of the Fathers and the four first General Councils will he say here If these Councils interpret the Scriptures in the right sense i.e. in his And That the Church of England looks on it as her duty to keep to the Decrees of the four General Councils and so of Nice the first of them Then either the Arian Councils must not be more numerous as here he affirms they were or the more numerous I mean as to the persons present in it not always the more valid which is true But if we are now to defend the authority of the Council of Nice againâ—t the Dr. we muâ—t know that if he there speaks of the plurality of the Arian Councils they many and that of Nice only one this number is no prejudice to any one Council that is of greater authority if he speaks of the plurality of Bishops in some one Arian Council then though there were present in the Nicene Council not above four or five Bishops from all the West Yet that the whole West and all its Bishops accepted it which they never did any of the Arian Councils Therefore Athanasius ‖ Epist ad Episcop Affrican after those Arian Councils held speaks thus of that of Nice Huic certè concilio universus orbis assensum praebuit And Verbum illud Domini per Occumenicam Niceae Synodum in aeternum manet Sive enim quis numerum cum numero comparet tanto major est Nicena Synodus particularibus Conciliâ—s quantum totum sui aliqua parte And 2ly That had the Arian Bishops throughout the whole world at some time outnumbred the Catholick yet these after once pronounced Heretical by the lawful General Council of Nice were invalidated hereby whilst such from having any lawful Vote in a future Council the Catholick Clergy and Bishops remaining a distinct Body from them to whom and not to them the Christian world owed its obedience Ib. l. 9 S. Gregory Nazianzen ‖ Epist 55. declares he had not seen a good issue of any one of them c. He spake this of the many Arian Councils of his time ful of faction and ambition the chief leaders being great Favorites to Constantius an Heretical Emperor Or perhaps of some Council also held at Constantinople wherein he by such contention amongst the Bishops there suffered much but this he said exclusively doubtless both to the first General Council that of Nice Of which he saith ‖ Orat. in laud. Hiero. that Paâ—res nostri pinsque ille hominum mundus qui Nicaeam perrexerunt certis finibus ac verbis Divinitatis doctrinam circumscripserunt And †Orat. in laud. Athanas Sanctum Concilium Niceae habitum at que illum lectissimorum virorum numerum Spiritum Sanctum in unum coegisse and exclusively again to the 2d General Council that of Constantinople which he was a member of and subscribed What need I now trouble my self or the Reader with vindicating Bellarmine on this matter Meanwhile would not the Dr here have his Reader believe that this Father had a mean esteem of the first and second General Councils Pag. 234. l. 7 S. Augustine ‖ Cont. Maximin l. 3. c. 14. in dealing with Maximin as the Arian expresly sets aside all authority of the Guides of the Church as to the sense of Scripture
in the places controverted between thâ—◠〈…〉 Story in brief is this Maximinus an Arian in the beginning of their dispute hath these words Si quid de divinis Scripturis protuleris quod commune est cum omnibus necesse est ut audiamus Hae verò voces quae extra Scripturam sunt homousion nullo casu a nobis suscipiuntur alluding to the definition of homousion by the Nicene Council S. Augustine takes his challenge and as he waved the Council of Nice so did S. Augustine that of Ariminum Upon which here lib. 3. c. 14. after he had said Hoc est illud Homousion quod in Concilio Nicaeno adversus Haereticos Arrianos a Catholicis Patribus veritatis i. e of the Scriptures authoritate authoritatis i.e. by the just authority of a lawfull free General Counci veritate firmatum est quod postea in Concilio Ariminensi c. multis paucorum fraude deceptis Haeretica impietas labefâ—ctare tentavit He condescends thus I say after this uttered in Justification of Nice Sed nunc nec ego Nicaenum nec tu debes Ariminense tanquam praejudicaturus proferre Concilium Nec ego hujus authoritate nec tu illius detineris he saith not tu non teneris but nunc non detineris Scripturarum authoritatibus non quorumque propriis as the two Councils were sed utrisque communibus testibus res cum re causa cum causâ— ratio cum ratione concenset That is this our conference or dispute shall only be as you desire from Authorities of Scripture Of the sense of which Scripture it is willingly granted that in many things many persons may be sufficiently certain without the directions of a Guide but not therefore all persons in all points necessary See before Note on p. 230. l. 15. Mean while none more than S. Austin pleads or vindicates the Authority of the Council of Nice needless to be further proved one would think to Dr St. Pag. 236. l. 1. This is in terms asserted by him ‖ De Doctrin Christian l. 2. c. 9 as a fuundamental principle that in those things which are plainly set down in Scripture all things are to be found which concern our faith and rule of life S. Austin doth not meane that all things containing our faith or manners are so plainly set down in Scripture as to all capacities that many do not need the direction of an infallible Church-authority for settling a certainty of their faith in them a thing affirmed by the Dr To which infallible Authority that this Father referrs such persons for learning the true Faith see that excellent Treatise of his De Vtilitate Credendi i.e. of believing Church-authority Where he saith Cûm res tanta sit ut Dens tibi ratione cognoscendus sit omnes ne putas idoneos c. And Tu in cos libros qui Sancti divinarumque rerum pleni c. sine duce irruis And Omnesne putas idoneos esse percipiendis rationibus quibus ad divinam intelligentiam mens ducitur humana an plures an pnucos paucos ais existimo Quid caeteris ergò hominibus qui ingenio tam screno praediti non sunt negandum Religionem putas Whom therefore he refers to this security of believing Church authority For In religione quid iniquius fieri potest saith he ‖ Ibid quà m ut Dei Antistites nebis non fictum animum pollicentibus credant nos eis praecipientibus nolimus credere And c. 16. that for such persons non esse desperandum ab eodem ipso Deo authoritatem aliquam constitutam quâ velut gradu certo innitetes aâ—â—ollamur in Deum Hanc autem authoritatem seposu â rationc quam sinceram intelligere ut diximus difficillimum stultis est dupliciter nos movere parâ—â—â— miraculis partim sequentium multitudine And ‖ Ib. c. 17. Quid est aliud ingratum esse opi atque auxilio divino quà m tanto labâ—re nost praedictae authoritati velle resistere And De Baptismo l. 3. c. 14. Fieri potest ut integra teneat verba Symboli I may say or of Scripture tamen non rectè credat sive de ipsâ Trinitate sive de Resurrectione vel aliquid aliud Neque enim parva res in ipsâ intus Catholicâ tenere integram fidem ita ut omnino non de aliquà creaturâ sed de ipso Deo nihil aliud credat quà m veritas hâ—bâ—t And in this book de Doctrinâ Christianâ l. 3. c. 2. he joines these two the clearer places of Scripture and the authority of the Church for our learning the Rule of Faith Cùm adhibita imentio saith he incertum esse providerit quomâ—do distinguendum aut pronunciâ—ndum sit consulat Regulam fiaci quam 1 de Scripturarum planioribus locis 2 Ecclesiae authoritate percepit More of this needs not Many excellent Rules this Father gives by which to understand the Scriptures i.e. for the more prudent and learned but not this exclusively to those person 's submitting their Judgments to the Church's authority who have no leisure or parts by these Rules to study the Scriptures or else to other's repairing to it where any thing in the Scriptures after their study still seems to them obscure Pag. 238. l. 12. ‖ S. Austin de Doctrin Christian l. 3. c. 16. Which words ‖ Jo. 6.53 seeming to command somthing 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 And not imagining as the words strictly taken sound that our Lords Body and Bloud in a carnal or natural and sensible manner as other flesh is to be eaten and drunk by us as some of our Lords Auditors grossly mis-understood him and so forsook him in which sense Dominus flagitium videtur jubere saith S. Austin Not imagining thus I say but yet believing that his flesh and bloud is there really exhibited to us and fed on by us This Real so as also ineffable Presence of Christs Body and Blood though not to the Symbols yet in the Eucharist and so a reall participation thereof the Church of England and her learnedst Writers have much spoken of and contended for heretofore as well as Catholicks before that the Rubrick or Declaration about kneeling in receiving the Communion was by the importunity of some later Sects admitted a second time into the Common-Prayer Book A.D. 1660. Which Rubrick contrary to the Real Presence in that it denies that Christs substance can be both in Heaven where certainly it is and on earth at the same time was first contrived and published in the 5th year of the Reign of King Edward 6. in the new-moulding and correcting of the former Common Prayer Book published in the first yeare upon the Exceptions and complaints of some forraign Reformed Divines made against it and was then backed also with the 28th Article of Religion under the same King in
a wrong one to posterity If we do not reverence them on this manner and that our obedience be yielded only to what they shall first prove to us the Arian where he thinks nothing proved to him for of this he is to judge is as innocent in dissenting as we in assenting Ib. l. 9 Vincentius Lerinensis his words What either all the Fathers 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 Vndoubted câ—rtain and firm Upon what account Surely on the Infallibility of something whatever it is 〈◊〉 and this not of Scripture the sense of which is here contested Pag. 248. l. 7 He saith we have no way to deal with them but either only by Scripture or else by plain Decrees of General Councils By these decrees then Vincentius at last hath left us to discern Heresies I would this Authour would do so too Pag. 249. l. 7. And very far from the least supposition of Infallibility Not so surely if our Author remember Vincentius his former words affirming such Infallibility to be in General Councils as that what is delivered by them ought to be held for undoubted certain and firm And we require no more Ib. l. 2 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 the Which had greater opportunities of knowing the sense c. But what if latter General Councils of latter ages have determined any thing should we not yield to them also for these times also are nearer to the Apâ—stles than the present And if eight hundred or a thousand years be thought by him too great a distance for deciding such matters why may not an Eutychian think so of four hundred It is reasonable we should yield to them He saith not what Means he yield our Assent No more is desired but that this be yielded to all lawful General Councils in what age soever which Councils may be in any age necessary and in any age are of an equall authority and equally Judges of the sense of Scripture and former Tradition The Council of Nice was submitted to by the Christians of that age though a Council held in their own times He goes on Pag. 250. l. 3. But if there have been none such then the unanimous consent of Fathers is to be taken Page 197. the enquiry was about the means used by the Ancients of attaining the certain sense of Scripture in doubtful places without the supposition of an Infallible Guide the resolution here is that where after examining and comparing places of Scripture the dispute still remains concerning the certain sense thereof that we are to acquiesce in the Decree of a lawful General Council if any such have been concerning it or if not in the unanimous Consent of Fathers I ask and are not those recommended by these Ancients as Certain and Infallible in such matter that is Decreed or Consented in suppose in the matter of our Lord's Divinity wherein the sense of Scripture was disputed by the Arians and Anti-Arians But then concerning this unanimous Consent of the Fathers since the illiterate cannot examine this whom are they to rely on but on the Consent of the present Church Ib. l. 13. If all these meanes were sufficient then theâ—â— is no necessity of infallibility in the Guides of the Church One Exception is here to be put in Viz. Unless N. O. will call the Testimony of General Councils delivering a certain sense of Scripture or the unanimous Consent of Catholick Churches which the Ancient Authors this Author hath quoted do maintain to be firm certain and free from doubt an Infallibility in the Guides of the Church as he doth So that it seems to follow just contrary to our Author If these Means are prescribed by the Fathers then there is a necessity of an Infallibility in the Church-Guides Annotations on § 14. S. Austins Testimony examined Annotations on §. 14. S. Austins Testimony examined PAg. 250. l. 11 Infallibility in delivering the sense of Scripture in obscure places Add In points necessary Pag. 251. l. 12. S. Austin doth not suppose that man cannot attain to any certainty of the sense of Scripture in this matter concerning Rebaptization without the Church's Infallibility for he saith in the Chapter preceding that in this matter we follow the most certain Authority of Canonical Scriptures But S. Austin ‖ Cont. Crescon l. 1. c. 32. declares his meaning in the next words to be only this Viz. Quia hoc per universam Catholicam observari placuit quod tenemus which N. 1 he proceeds to explain further in the words following cited by N. O. Quam vis hujus rei i.e. concerning Non-Rebaptization certè de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum earundem tamen Scripturarum etiam in hâc re à nobis tenetur veritas cùm hoc facimus quod universae jam placuit Ecclesiae quam ipsarum Scripturarum commendat authorit as ut quoniam Sancta Scriptura fallere non potest quisquis falli metuit hujus obscuritate quaestionis not cleared in Scriptures eandem Ecclesiam de illâ consulat And what the Father saith here of our retaining the verity and authority of Scriptures in our obeying the Decrees and Resolutions of the Church to which Church we are referred by them the same saith he elswhere ‖ De Vnita Eccles c. 22. concerning our obeying the authority and verity of Christ when Christ also referrs us to the guidance of his Church in these words Dicat mihi nunc haereticus Quomodo nâ—eâ—suscipis Citè respondeo sicut suscipit Ecclesia cui Christus perhibet testimonium Nunquid tu meliùs potes nosse quomodo suscipiendus sis quà m Salvator noster medicus vulneris tui Hic fortè dicis Lege ergo mihi quemâ—d â—odum Christus suscipi jusserit eos qui ab haereticis transire ad Ecclesiam voâ—unt Hoc apertè atque evidenter nec ego lego nec tu i.e. in the Scriptures Here we see is neither example nor any other plain direction in the Scripture or from our Lord himself concerning this matter He goes on Nunc verò cùm in Scripturis non inveni amus aliquos ad ecclesiam transisso ab haereticis sicut ego dico aut sicut tu dicis esse susceptos puto si aliquis sapiens extitisset cui Dominus Jesus Christus testimonium perhibet de hâc quaestione consuleretur à nobis nullo modo dubitare deberemus id facere quod ille dixisset ne non tam ipsi qùam Domino Jesu Christo cujus testimonio commend ibatur repugnare judicaremur Perhibet autem testimonium Christus Ecclesia suae Quomodo ergo suscipit ista Ecclesia peromnes gentes incipientibus ab Hierusalem remotis omnibus
quo velut gradu certo innitentes attollamur ad Deum And c. 17. Quid est aliud ingratum esse opi auxilicque Divino quam praedictae authoritati velle resistere In respect of which Authority he saith that In Catholica Ecclesia there is sincerissima sapientia which also he defines adhaesio veriâ—ati And Turbam non intelligendi vivacitas sed credendi simplicitas tutissimam facit Ibid. he saith he believes the Gospel from this Authority of the Catholick Church Quâ authoritate Catholicorum infirmatâ Contra Epist Manich c. 4. jam nec Evangelio credere potero quia per eos illi credideram Of which see more in his 11. l. Cont. Faustum c. 2. c. N. 6 And the Motives he saith that induced him to credit and follow such Authority are such as these urged by N. O. ‖ p. 87. Ibid. Besides the Wisdome he observed in the Church Tenet me saith he consensio populorum atque gentium tenet authoritas miraculis inchoâ—ta spe nutrita charitate aucta vetustate firmata tenet ab ipsà Sede Petri Apostoli cui pascendas oves suas post Resurrectionem Dâ—minus commendavit usque ad praesentem Episcopatum successio Sacerdoâ—um c. Where we may observe him as also Irenaus Terâ—ullian and Cyprian giving a special Principality amongst other Churches to that of Rome for which likewise he cites that Text Jo. 21.15 of our Lord 's giving a special charge to S. Peter of feeding his Sheep which special Commission of our Lord to Peter also S. Paul seems to relate-to Gal. 2.8 where he saith the Apostleship of the Circumcision was given not to all the Apostles but to Peter and so this Father in his 162. Epistle against the Donatists naming this See amongst others with whom Caecilianus was joined in communion he saith In quâ Ecclesiâ Romanâ semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit Principatus Again in his Book De Vtilit Credendi speaking of the same Church Authority Hâc autem saith he sepositâ ratione dupliciter nos movet partim miraculis partim sequentium multitudine And Hoc ergo credidi famae celebritate c. 14. consensione vetustate roboratae And Quae ab ipso Christo per Apostolos ad nos usque manavit abhinc ad posteros manatura est c. 17. And yet more fully Dubitamus nos ejus ecclesiae condere gremio quae usque ad confessionem generis humani ab Apostolica Sede per successiones Episcoporum frustra haereticis circumlatrantibus partim plebis ipsius judicio partim Conciliorum gravitate partim etiam miraculorum majestate i. e by Miracles done in this Church after the Apostles times of several of which S. Austin himself was an eye-witness and also of some an Instrume damnatis culmen authoritatis obtinuit Whereas he observes of the Donatists ‖ Epist 48. That in their discovery of which is the true Church they declined Vniversality and appealed as Protestants do to the Marks of its true observance of the Divine Precepts and right administration of the Sacraments marks according to their different perswasions some men find in one Church some in another Vos estis saith he qui non ex tetius orbis communione sed ex observatione praeceptorum omnium divinorum atque omnium Sacramentorum tenetis Catholicam fidem And Acutum aliquid videris dicere dum Catholicae nomen non ex totius orbis communione interpretaris sed ex observatione praeceptorum omnium divinorum c. And I have thus copiously cited him the more fully to satisfy the candid Reader in this matter of the greatest consequence and that the places in him that seem more clear may prevent the mistaking glosses that may be made on some other This of S. Augustine's being no stranger to the Church's Sovereign Authority and Infallibility in her Definitions and that the obeying Her was the obeying the command of our Lord and conforming to the verity of Scripture and the knowing of her easy by the forementioned marks Pag. 252. l. 14. S. Austin 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 As a Truth So may that which indeed is an errour But S. Austin every where contends as was but now shewed that it must be a most certain truth which a General Conncil of the Catholick Church agreed in and determined so and in this had the Donatists no way contradicting him So Cont. Crescon l. 1. c. 28. He saith to the Donatist Vnam fidem esse Vnam incorruptam i.e. not errin Catholicam ecclesiam Haec inter nos conveniunt And De Vnit Eccl. c. 24. Doce huic Communioni tuae apertum aliquod manifestum testimonium a Scripturis Canonicis perhiberi fateor ad te esse transeundum nec aliter esse suscipiendos Haereticos quà m sicut suscipit Ecclesia in quâ es quia tali testimonio Scripturarum declarata est i.e. to be the true Church and consequently that Truth to be maintained in it which all are to follow This then whether the Catholick Church always defines a certain Truth was no Question between them but Whether their's or his were this Church Catholick which Catholick Church these Churches being divided in Communion was but one of them This therefore the Father endeavoured to prove to the Donatist And if it be not a certain truth that such Councils determine for any thing I know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also for Scriptures concerning it are still eagerly disputed on both sides and this point of Non rebaptization found in the Creed as well as it may be brought in time only to be received as a truth but not certainly concluded a Truth And all this for avoiding Church-Infallibility and maintaining an ill-grounded Principle Which Church Infallibility once cashiered what would become of the Christian Faith in so many Sects daily rising up and after a new mode still interpreting the Scriptures Ibid. l. 9. S. Austin doth not hereby intend to make the Church's Authority to resolve all doubts concerning Scriptures No but to resolve all doubts in matters necessary Pag. 253. l. 11. For neither saith S. Austin ‖ De Vnita Eccles c. 11. 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 This is most certain Certain I say though understood of a General Council of these Catholick Bishops upon the supposition that these should hold what is contrary to Canonical Scriptures but S. Austin is farr from supposing here or in any other place that these may hold so especially In manifestissimâ Voce Pastoris in voce ejus clarâ apertâ in a matter wherein the Scriptures are very clear of which he there speaks Or if these General Councils should interpret any such Scriptures in a contrary sense
comprehension amended by the 2d General Council of Constantinople and that at Sardica For as is said if we understand saepè here of legal plenary Councils we find none at all before his times either as to Rebaptization or any other points of faith amending one another These things then being left to the Reader 's consideration which may best fit the place I add N. 4 4. Lastly That whatever the sense be this place can never be understood of Lawful General Councils amending one another as to any matters of necessary faith that such Councils when defining any thing to be by all Christians believed and assented to when declaring Hereticks all that dissent and perhaps inserting such their Definitions into the Creed yet may be amended after this by latter For this would overthrow the old foundations of the Nicene and Athanasian Creed and whatever could be shewn of one such Council thus erring Hereticks at their pleasure would apply to any other This also would overthrow particularly S. Austin's Veritas eliquaata declarata And plenarium Concilium confirmavit consolidavit for Non-rebaptization the chief if not the only argument he useth for convincing the Donatists whilst they might here plead this was still latens and clausum till more experience in a latter Council should open and disclose it and so must all before cited out of S. Austin be also reversed and all the former Heresies revive again which pretending Scriptures for their Tenents have been quelled by the judgment of such Councils Pag. 256. l. 4. 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 i.e. Supposing S. Austin here to speak of absolutely General and Legal Conncils would he assert that in some things as in matters of fact a Council may possibly erre and so may be amended by others following which Council in some other things its Definitions of faith delivers the unalterable will of God cannot be amended Yes This may well be But I conceive this Father not to speak here of absolutely General and legal Councils their being amended by others The Council of Nice preceded the Arian Councils which pretended to amend it Did not S. Austin bind men to believe the Decree of Nice which Decree he saith ‖ Contra Maximin l. 3. c. 13. In Concilio Nicaeno adversus Haereticos Arianos a Catholicis Patribus veritatis authoritate authoritatis veritate firmatum est How is that so confirmed that is still liable to amendment Or if all decrees are not how know we when they are so Or are those Decrees that are so liable universally to be believed Dissenters anathematized the Creeds enlarged with them till such time as they be amended Ib. l. 11. 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 If S. Austins words touching former General Councils erring and being amended by latter do reser as our Author here saith to the point of Rebaptization the Father hath destroyed his great Argument of the Donatists their certainly erring in it because a General Council had defined the contrary to it the Decree of which Council might err and be repeal'd by another And this after that his former words namely that Provincial Councils are to yield without dispute to those which are General if he had stopped there had clearly confuted them 2ly S. Austins words also as applied to this point would be false for never was any former General Council concerning this point of Rebaptization corrected by a latter the first decreeing for it the latter against it Ib. l. 11 He S. Austin grants that the arguments drawn from the Church's authority are but humane Humane authority saith Archbishop Lawd ‖ p. 124. may be infallible enough and an argument drawn from it convincing Especially from that of General Councils which are divinely assisted not to err in necessaries But this Authority meanwhile is no hindrance that S. Austin may not also urge with and rather than it but he never doth as contrary to it the Divine Authority in Scriptures where he thinks them to all Rational men cleare and manifest Pag. 257. l. 6. And elswhere he appeals not to the judgment of men but to the Lords ballance None of these instances imply any comparison or opposition made by S. Austin between the Scriptures and the judgment of a General Council as if these Scriptures might be cleare where the Judgment of the Council contrary but imply that these Scriptures where cleare may be disceded from by some private though learned mens judgments and in any such case are doubtless to be preferred before them But whither tend these quotations To the liberty of private men to judge of the definitions of General Councils That is of Donatists to judge of that of Nice made against them in Rebaptization This destroys S. Austins whole designe which was to have them to acquiesce in the Decree of a General Council Ib. l. 12 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 spred 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 an 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 Here our Author saith that in a Question of so doubtful obscure a nature and that had been first so much discussed it is a reasonable thing to presume a reasonable supposition not then a certain Position that all the Churches in the world will not consent in a thing repugnant to any Apostolical Doctrine or Tradition so Non-rebaptization put in the Creed may be a presumed Truth and the Donatist's a presumed Heresy Where I think he will not say we do presume things that we are certain of Is then S. Austin's In hac re tenetur à nobis veritas Scripturarum and Christus perhibet testimonium Ecclesiae suae Columna firmamentum veritatis And veritas eliquata consolidata come to this a reasonable supposition and a fair presumption of Truth But yet will He stand to this that whatever the Church in her General Councils shall consent to it is a reasonable supposition that she consents to nothing repugnant to any Apostolical Doctrine or Tradition and that such may be presumed a Truth If so will not this inferr a duty of Assent also to all her Decrees at least as presumed truths And if in a Question of so
doubtful and obscure a nature as Rebaptization is our Author allows this presumtion on the Church's side ought he not much more in a clearer Pag. 258. l. ult S. Austins words The custom of the Church having been confirmed by a General Council c. It may now 〈…〉 now said that we follow what Truth hath declared Doth not S. Austin here from Non-Rebaptization being confirmed by a General Council which examined Custome and Scriptures declare himself secure of this truth not to be amended by latter Councils Pag. 259. l. 13. That in a matter of so doubtful and obscure a nature c. we are to believe that to be the truth which the Church of Christ agreed in c. And afterward he faith In such a case as this and so he saith before ‖ p. 257. in a question so doubtful he agrees to what S. Austin saith and thinks a man very much relieved by following so evident a consent of the Vniversal Church but the not so relieved S. Austin declares Hereticks not by vertue of any Infallibility but the unreasonableness of believing that so many so wise so disinteressed persons should be deceived That in a matter of so doubtful and obscure a Nature What means this limitation Are we to believe that to be truth which Councils determine in matters obscure I suppose he means generally obscure but not so in matters more clear One would think the contrary rather But who is to judge when the Question or matter is obscure since on this depends our assent to the Council The Donatist for example in this matter of Rebaptization But he will say This matter is clear enough on his side And so this Author promising as to present Controversies the same submission in case of obscurity to a General Council this case here of obscurity will not be found because these points they say are clear on their side and they offer demonstration of them But if Protestants will affirm that we are to believe that to be the truth which General Councils resolve without limiting it to certain cases because it is as he saith unreasonable to believe so many so wise so disinteressed persons should be deceived and then grant that consequently in necessaries these Councils must not err for so we should be obliged to believe in necessaries something wrong and false this would be as much as we desire Ib. l. 3 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 controversy of Infallibility may be laid aside What was the Consent of the universal Church from the Apostolical times was the Question between S. Austin and the Donatists For the Donatists also pleaded a contrary Tradition against the Catholicks See Firmilian Ep. 75. â—pud Cyprian Caeterùm nos veritati consuetudinem jungimus c. as also the same Consent is controverted now concerning Now for a sufficient and certain decision of the truth in this Question viz. what the former Tradition was or what was our Lords will in this matter S. Austin urgeth the consent of the present Church met in a General Council and there discussing the matter Where S. Austin doth not require the Donatists submission to the Consent of the universal Church from the Apostolical times first proved to them i.e. they confessing it so for this if proved to them Donatists did not nor could not decline as now neither doth the Dr. Let the Pope's Supremacy c be proved by an universal consent of Antiquity c. p. 244. and here Let the same evidence be produced for the consent of the universal Church from the Apostolical times c. that is as I understand him Let such a consent be evidenced to us But S. Austin requires their submission and belief to the latter General Council of Nice or Arles or both it matters not declaring what was the former Apostolical Tradition Which if the Infallibility of this Council needs not be stood on as to the Donatist's obedience yet it is in the Council's determination of any necessaries as to Christians believing in such necessaries a Truth of which necessaries also this Council not their Subjects is to judge And the Father's words would have weighed little with these Affricans perswading them to obey the Councils Sentence though an errour Therefore he fortifies the Councils Decree with the former expressions Christus perhibet testimonium And In hâc re tenetur Scripturarum veritas Pag. 260. l. 9. Let them never think to fob us off with the consent of some latter ages for a tradition from Apostolical times But He ought to admit and submit to any universal consent of the Apostolical Churches of any latter age concerning what is the Tradition from Apostolical times as S. Austin admitted it and declared the Donatists Hereticks for not admitting it He goes on Ib. l. 10. Nor of a packed company of Bishops for a truly General Council He hath reason But surely there will need no packing of Bishops for their voting such a matter in Council which all the Bishops of the Christian world or if it be but the much major part of them have abetted and maintained taught and practiced before such Council And so it was in the Councils held before Luther's appearance and also afterward in that of Trent that for the greatest part of the Western Bishops who could only be convened in it but the same may be said as truly of the Eastern too were in most of the controversies there decided against the Protestants so perswaded in their judgment before their meeting in that Council as they or others afterward voted in it Annotations on his §. 15. Of Church-Authority said not to be destroyed by the Dr's Principles PAg. 260. l. 15. The last thing to be considered is whether the same arguments which overthrow Infallibility do likewise destroy all church-Church-Authority N.O. sheweth some reasonings in the Dr's Principles with which he endeavoured to destroy Church Infallibility to ruine also as much or more church-Church-Authority viz. as to their office of Teaching Christs flock and expounding to them the Scriptures These particular reasonings of the Dr questioned for this N.O. expected should in an Answer to him have been resumed by the Dr and justified But in the first of these quotations that follow out of N.O. p. 50. he finds our Author mentioning N O's Consequence indeed but omitting the Argument immediately preceding from which he inferred it viz. First Observe that whatever Divine assistance is advanced here viz. in the Dr's 19. Principle against the assurance that can be received from Church-Infallibility the same is more advanced against any assurance that may be had from Church-Authority And so Church-Authority as to this matter is thrown off by him as well as Church-Infallibility To this Observation the Dr saith nothing In the 2d Quotation out of p. 70. he finds him mentioning the Charge
of Supremacy which Supremacy is therein given to the Civil Magistrate without any exception of these the Church's fundamental Rights unless the Dr with Bishop Bramhal holds the sense of this Oath to maintain only an external coactive power in such spiritual matters belonging to the Civil Magistrate which I suppose no Catholick will deny to him Or unless he will say that the Oath excludes a forreign Church-Supremacy distinct from that of the State but not so a domestick one as to some fundamental Church-Rights But then how can the Ecclesiastical Supremacy of a General Council though forreign be excluded where the Supremacy of an inferiour and subordinate Church-authority is admitted 2 Or 2ly means he that the Church hath such fundamental Rights given her by our Lord but so that she may not actually exercise them in these things whenever the Civil Power if Christian doth oppose and prohibite them But then what if such Civil Power should happen to be as possibly it may Heretical Here may the Church in such a State neither declare still such Truths nor inflict any Censures I mean of Excommunication on such as are reall Delinquents And to use the Dr's words ‖ Irenicum p. 422. Can we imagine our Blessed Saviour should institute a Society and leave it destitute of means to uphold it self unless it be sustained by the Civil Power Whenas saith he before the Church flourished in its greatest purity not only when not upheld but when most violently opposed by the Civil Power Ib. l. ult Of which Rights 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 Then I hope that this Society may also keep Assemblies as a fundamental Right though these prohibited by the Commonwealth and that the highest Courts thereof may exercise the foresaid Jurisdiction over its members into whatever Commonwealth though opposing this Church these members be incorporated Pag. 268. l. 12. And in establishing those ancient Rites of the Christian Church which are in themselves of an indifferent nature But what if this Authority being fallible judge somthing indifferent that is not May any be forced to obedience and the practice thereof which he calls below over-ruling the practice and consequently first to assenting to the lawfulness of a thing wherein this Authority is fallible And if such Authority execute its Censures on such persons disobeying it is not this Tyranny Or if not why is that of the Roman Church so Ib. l. 5 The Church hath an authority of proposing matters of faith and directing men in Religion But so may any one more learned than others propose and direct them But what thinks he of the Church s defining or imposing any such matter of faith to be believed Surely either the Church hath by Right such an Authority or the first four General Councils usurped it And doth not such an Authority if justifiable inferr an Infallibility But then this directing and proposing is as to Necessaries needless where all is clear and plainly proposed in Scripture for every ones capacity without repairing to this Authority But if he means so plain in Scripture that men following these their Guides cannot mistake in it the plainness lies not in the Text but in their Exposition Pag. 269. l. 15. Authority to declare what the mind and will of God is contained in Scripture c. And are the people to receive what they declare as such Or have they authority to declare what they think the mind of God is and their Auditors to judge whether it be contained in Scripture every one for themselves But this latter must multiply Sects and the former includes Infallibility in Necessaries Ib. l. 6 Especially having all the ancient rights of a Patriarchal Church I suppose He here by the word Patriarchal claims no other rights or priviledges for the Church of England than those of a Primatical Church such as those of the Churches of France Spain or Affrick and that the Primate of Canterbury is no higher elevated by him than the Primate of Carthage or Toledo and that notwithstanding any such Primateship the Church of England and the Prelates thereof are subject as also those of Spain France or Africk to any Reformation of errours made by Superiour Councils whether Patriarchal of the West or General of the whole Church Catholick both which Councils also are acknowledged Superiour to National or Provincial by learned Protestants Ib. l. ult 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 N. 1 Here he allows a just authority in Anglican National Synods to agree upon declare and publish any propositions for reforming or correcting of errours in the Doctrine of Religion i.e. as I understand him only or chiefly in matters of faith though he doth not name it the care of the preservation of which faith in their several precincts is committed to the Bishops of the Church To publish and declare he saith what those errours are and to reform them it is said also in the 20th Article of the Church of England that the Church hath authority in Controversies of faith but not so as to ordain any thing contrary to God's written Word i.e. as I imagine hath authority in deciding of such Controversies For what authority else can be shewed in matters of Controversy since teaching must follow the deciding what is to be taught and the Article requiring that they do not ordain or decree any thing contrary to Gods written word or enforce the same to be believed for necessity of salvation seems to imply they may decree what they think is his Word This Author also saith such Synod may require consent to which I suppose is the same as assent or belief of the truth of such propositions as such Synod hath agreed on from those who are to enjoy the publick offices of teaching and iustructing others i.e. from all the Clergy Now to this I have these things to reply N. 2 1st In this his stating of the Church's Authority to do as much as in them lyes to reform errours in Religion or Faith here is no restraint of any who live in its Communion save only of the Clergy from erring their former errours No consent to its Decrees required of the rest but that they may be Arian Socinian Nestorian and what not yet enjoy her Communion may be partly compounded of Orthodox partly Hereticks as to the Laicks in whom all opinions are tolerated This I say follows according to his stating this Authority here for the Canons of this Church seem contrary and to require assent from all and according to what this Dr hath said also elsewhere Ration Account p. 133. where he describes the Church a Society of
them if the whole be so It follows Pag. 270. l. 3. Not to the end that all those propositions should be believed as articles of faith Not that all but doth the Church of England then require that some of her propositions in the 39. Articles should be believed and assented to by them as Articles of her Faith His saying not all seems to imply as much and see Art 8. which saith the three Creeds ought thorowly to be received and believed This and believed being added by Queen Elizabeths Divines to the former Article as it was penned in King Edwards dayes And several of the other Articles are required to be assented to as things contained in Scripture and so as infallible and these things such as the Church of Rome's errour in them is called erring in matter of faith See Art 19. and since the principal reformation of errours that belongs to church-Church-authority is of those that are contrary to the doctrine of faith the preservation of which faith is chiefly entrusted to the Church's care surely it would seem a piece of strange subtilty to ty her Clergy to assent to that which is matter of faith in which faith also the Roman Church hath erred and yet not to oblige them to assent to it as a matter of faith If then she doth require Assent to some of her Articles at least as of faith upon what ground may a fallible Authority do this and why may not other Churches do this as inculpably as that of England Or if she doth not require an assent to any of her Articles as of faith of which Bishop Bramhall ‖ Reply to Chalcedon p. 350. speaks thus diminutively We do use to subscribe to them the 39. Articles indeed not as Articles of faith but as Theological Verities for the preservation of unity among our selves then the Clergy of England as to faith receiving the words of the Creeds are as for all other things permitted to believe what or how little they please Ib. l. 17. 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 Non prudentes apud vosmetipsos Rom. 12.16 See Note on p. 263. l. 10 and on p. â—60 l. 15. Ib. l. 4 As that it were the foundation of all the Heresies and Sects in the world See before Note on p. 263. l. 2. and on p. 271. l. 2 n. 2. Ib. l. 3 This Principle he saith makes all Ecclesiastical Authority useless All Ecclesiastical Authority N. O. saith not this frequently imposed upon him by the Dr See before p. 262. 267. thereby to shape a thing like an answer to him in shewing the Church's Authority usefull or necessary as to several other things And the words following here that are truly cited out of N. O. do limit this uselesness of Ecclesiastical Authority to the Office of Teaching and that in matter necessary according to Dr St's limitation in his Principle of the Scriptures being as to these necessaries clear the words are clear to all persons have a limitation also in N. O. which he is pleased to leave out and conceal from his Reader viz. this I mean exclusively to their repairing to these Pastors for the learning of the meaning of such Scriptures N. 1 Ses Fanaticism fanatically imputed p. 99. Pag. 271. l. 2. For since that Train of my Principles hath been laid nothing like the old Church of England hath been seen Mr. S. C. professeth himself to think more honourably of the Church of England than to follow or maintain these Principles of the Dr and that the regard Its Governours have both to the King 's and Kingdome 's safety and their own Character will not permit them to yield to an Anarchy first in the Church and presently after in the Kingdome He saith not that since the Dr's laying his train c. nothing like the old Church of England hath been seen but that upon his ground if received and practised in this Church all would be reduced into meer Fanaticisme for saith he § 91. To make every Christian soberly enquiring into Scripture to be his own Teacher in all necessary points of faith and it is no matter what becomes of unnecessary points and to be a competent Judge of the true sense of Scripture in them all this without any regard to all External Authority infallible or fallible either for an infallible one being unnecessary what necessity can there be of a fallible authority which none is or can be bound to believe can be nothing but Fanaticisme in the heigth of its Notion Thus he N. 2 And indeed 1st For matter of fact it is manifest that several Sects of late have much more multiplied in the Church of England than in former times 2ly Manifest also that since Chillingworth's taking this way of answering church-Church-Authority when much pressed on him these Principles have been more in vogue and more openly maintained viz. 1 That For points necessary and for others no matter if controversy still remains Scriptures are clear to all capacities using a due diligence therein without any expressing or explaining of themselves in this manner that they mean using a due diligence to be instructed by their Spiritual Pastor in the right sense thereof which limitation should it be added would seem to make more for Church-Infallibility than against it Again 2 That every Christian is bound to reject whatever is offered to be imposed upon his faith which hath no foundation in Scripture or is contrary thereto as Dr St. in his 29th Principle i.e. if we make any sense of it which he such persons do think hath no foundation in Scripture c. for if he means here which the Church judgeth to have no foundation in or to be contrary to Scripture so say Catholicks but when will the Church judge thus and impose the contrary Again That in the Church all men are left to judge according to the Pandects of the Divine Laws because each member of this Society is bound to take care of his soule and of all things that tend thereto ‖ Rat. Account p. 133. That men are to try the Doctrines of their Guides for that many false ones are gone out into the world c. See before the Texts urged to this purpose by the Dr p. 144. c. Manifest I say that more of late such propositions and Principles as these have been much divulged and propagated But whether such Principles or some other things have actually caused such a licentiousness in opinions as hath been of late I cannot determine only this I may affirm and do appeale to the candid Reader 's judgment therein that such Principles do much invite and encourage such a Self-guidance in Spiritual matters and diffidence in and independence on our Lord's Clergy whilst Chillingworth freely acknowledgeth ‖ c. 2. §.
17. if no infallible then no Ecclesiastical Judge Pag. 273. l. 3. 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 Yes for the understanding the sense of Scripture in all necessary Faith For you both in your Principles and in this Book ground the sober Enquirer's not erring in necessaries upon the plainness of the delivery of not some or many for this will be granted to you at least for persons of a good capacity but all such points in Scripture which plainness in Scripture where it is renders an Expositor of such Scripture needless upon such diligence used Or if you mean a plainness by using the help of the Clergy the plainness now is had not in the Text but from the Clergy the mentioning therefore of which by you would have prejudiced such plainness in the Text. Ib. l. 14. 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 I hope in your Principles or Foundations of Faith that you intended to set down all things necessâ—ry to a Christian's having a true Faith as in your 13th Principle that you intended to set down all things that were necessary that a sober requirer might not err in necessary Faith without leaving any of them out Now a most exact and perfect Rule of our Faith if it be not also clear to us requires somthing besides for our belief of its true sense namely an Expositor where this Rule is obscure and then that we may not err in this our belief an Infallible One. For the Scripture or Principle here when obscure abstracted from this Expositor is of it self indifferent between the sense which we receive and which we reject In obscure Scripture we resolve our faith into God's Word indeed but as this is related or expounded to us by the Church And this Church therefore is necessary to be mentioned where we speak of the Resolution of any such part of our Faith Pag. 274. l. 2 Doth this make the whole Profession of Physick useless No. But If Hippocrates his Aphorismes are set down so plainly as that every one that will take the pains to read and compare them may understand them I may safely say an Expositor of these is useless to so many as will take this pains The same is said of Expositors as to plain Scriptures What followes here in him is very true but nothing to our business Pag. 276. l. 11. How comes it now to pass c. Mr. S. C. pitcheth here that as to the knowledge of all necessary faith the guidance of Church-Governours is by Dr St. rendred useless For other matters how great soever Dr St. may make or prove the authority of these Church-Governours to be he troubles not himself Pag. 277. l. 7. S. Austin in his books of Christian Doctrine already mentioned See before Note on p. 236. l. 1. Ib. l. 9. And S. Chrysostom in as plain words as may be c. ‖ Hom. 3. in 2 Thess S. Chrysostome's words in that place reprehending the peoples neglect in the hearing the Scriptures read if there were no Sermon a great fault which the present times are still subject-to are these Cur inquit ingredior si non audio aliquem verba facientem saith he that stayes from Church Hoc saith the Father omnia perdidit corrupit Quid enim opus est aliquo qui verba faciat sermonem habeat Ex nostrâ socordiâ hoc usu venit Quid enim opus est sermone Omnia sunt dilucida recta quae sunt in divinis Scripturis manifesta sunt quaecunque sunt necessaria Sed quoniam estis auditores delectationis propterea haec etiam quaeritis i.e. Sermons Which words taken in a rigid sense prove more than Dr St. doth pretend to make good out of them making such a plainness in the Scriptures as that there is no need of any Sermons But the Eather seems here as Sixtus Senensis on this place hath observed not to speak so much of Dogmata fidei wherein it were strange if in all the things that are controverted and Scriptures urged on both sides nothing should be a necessary or that any simple person needed therein no teacher as of praecepta Morum historiae sacrae formandis moribus utiles his Sermons chiefly aiming at the forming of Manners not stating points of Faith And so in another place where the Father speaks much what the same things he seems to explain himself in Concio 3. de Lazaro Luc. 16. Cui enim saith he there non sunt manifesta quaecunque in Evangelio scripta sunt Quis autem audiens beatos esse mites beatos misericordes beatos mundicordes caeteraque hujusmodi desiderabit praeceptorem ut aliquid eorum discat quae dicuntur Quinetiam signa miracula historiae nonne cuivis nota manifestaque sunt Praetextus iste est causatio pigritiaeque velamentum Yet there he supposeth they may meet with difficulties such wherein it is necessary they should be instructed also and so adviseth them to repair to a Doctor Quod si non peteris saith he assiduitato lectiâ—nis invenire quod dicitur accede ad sapientiorem vade ad doctorâ—â— coâ—â—unica cum his ea quae scripta sunt giving them the example of the Ethiopian Eunuch Nay in this very place cited by the Dr the Father seems to explain himself chiefly of the clearness of Scripture-Stories from whence they might learn instruction of manners in the words following where replying to those who pretended obscurity in the Scriptures read to them Quaenam ea obscuâ—itus saith he Dic quaeso annon sunt historiae Nostine i.e. have you already sufficiently learnt those things quae sunt clara dilucida i.e. that you cannot deny to be so ut de iis quae sunt obscura perconteris i.e. afterward Historiae innumerabiles sunt in Scripturis i.e. very plain Dic mihi unam ex illis c. Ib. l. ult And for the finding out the sense of Scripture without the help of Infallibility I have produced more out of Antiquity in this Discourse He might also as truly say or without the help of Church-Authority He proceeds Pag. 278. l. 2. Than he or his whole party will be able to answer Of this let the Reader judge Mean while let us remember the Apostle's advice Phil. 2.3 Nihil per inanem gloriam Pag. 279. l. 10. I dare appeale to any person whether the Bishops deriving their authority from Christ or from the Pope be the better way of defending their power These two do well consist as also doth an English Bishop's deriving his authority from Christ and from the Metropolitan and his Synod Pag. 280. l. 1. If there be any other Power beside the Pope's in the Church the denying the Pope's Authority cannot in the least diminish
the just authority of Bishops To this nothing to N. O's Considerations I say Let him perform his duty to Superiour Councils and to the Pope so far as he is obliged by the Church-Canons and concerning any Controversy of other usurped Authority let him acquiesce as a regular Son of the Church in the Council's Decisions those as well of any of its latter Councils so lawful as of the former and all is well Ib. l. 14. N. O's words Which more Comprehensive Body in any dissent and division of the Clergy according to the Church Canons ought to be obeyed It follows in N. O. and which hath hitherto in her supremest and most generally accepted Councils in all ages from the beginning required such submission under penalty of Anathema Which words expressing more plainly what N. O. means by the more comprehensive or universal Body of the Church's Hierarchy the Dr omits here And it seems was willing to mistake his meaning by what he saith below p. 283. That by the more universal Church N. O. fairly understands no more but the Church of Rome Ib. l. 8 I answer that the Church of England in reforming herself did not oppose any just authority then extant in the world Yes The Church of England then reformed and changed several matters of Doctrine against the Definitions of many former Superiour Councils which were accepted and unanimously obeyed by the whole Body of the other Churches viz. by all those that were free from the Mahometan yoke and among those by the Church of England also till Luthers appearance to which Definition and unanimous consent of these Churches in them she stood obliged as a part to the judgment of the Whole But many of which Doctrines also reformed by her were and are still to this day believed and practised by the Eastern Churches also under the Mahometan servitude which he who is curious to inform himself may see sufficiently cleared in the 3d Discourse Concerning the Guide in Controversies ch 8. This then the departing in their doctrine of the two Metropolitan Churches of England from the greater Body of these many Co-Metropolitan Churches all accepting and submittingto the Decisions and Determinations of many former superiour Councils even all those from the 2d Nicene called the 7th General Council to that of Trent to which Councils the Church of England was and still is obliged as well as the rest and did also submit till the times of Luther is the Discession from the more Comprehensive and universal Authority and from the Holy Catholick Apostolick Church if any then extant which Catholicks charge upon them And perhaps it is the consciousness of the truth of this discession that makes this Author in several places before maintain ‖ p. 242. That the Church he means Catholick in any one or more ages since the Apostles times may be deceived and †p. 241. that Vniversality in any one age of the Church being taken without the consent of Antiquity is no sufficient Rule to interpret Scripture by and that when he speaks of standing to the judgment of the Church he declines that of the present Catholick Church unless joined with the judgment of the Catholick Church of all ages past till that of the Apostles to the constant doctrine of all which first proved to him he is content to yield See for this what he saith by and by ‖ p. 282. 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 tried by The truly Catholick Church of all ages that we utterly deny to have agreed in any one thing against the Church of England And before p. 244. Let saith he the Popes Supremacy c be proved by as universal consent of Antiquity as the Articles of the Creed are and then let them charge us with Heresy if we reject them And p. 259. Let the same evidences be produced for the consent of the Vniversul Church from the Apostolicat times in the matters in dispute between our Church and that of Rome and that controversy of Infallibility may be laid aside Where still a proof not of the decision of the Catholick Church in some latter age but of the Consent of the Vniversal Church from the Apostolical times is demanded for his yielding a submission to it Nor will the Judgment of the present Church be current with him for deciding what was the Consent of the former the judgment of this he reserves to himself Pag. 281. l. 1. The dispute was then concerning the Pope's Supremacy over our Church The reforming Articles of the Church of England not only opposed this but many other Definitions of the former Church But neither could they justly reject this Supremacy so far as it was by the Canons of former superiour Councils established That only could be ejected that was unjustly usurped Ib. l. 11. Which is sufficiently known to have been the beginning of the breach between the two Churches The breach of the Church of England in the Reformation was not only from the Communion of the Roman concerning the Popes supremacy but of the Gallican Spanish and all the other Occidental or Oriental Churches in matters wherein they were united in the Resolutions and Decrees of several former Councils Where or at what point the Breach began matters not so much as where it ended Or the full charge that the whole breach contains Ib. l. 15. What should hinder our Church from proceeding in the best way it could for the Reformation of it self The Canons and Definitions of former Superiour Councils should hinder the Church from reforming any thing contrary to them as this Church did It follows Ib. l. 17. For the Pope's Supremacy being cast out as an usurpation our Church was thereby declared to be a free Church The Pope's Supremacy established by the Canons of the Church in Superiour Councils cast off by whom It can by none lawfully unless by Church-Councils of equal authority to those that allowed it The Church of England was thereby declared to be free Free what from the authority of superiour Councils and the Bishop of the Prime Apostolick See presiding in them By whom so freed 1 By Itself or by the Governours of this particular Church i.e. by one member declaring against the whole or 2 by the Secular Magistrate abrogating Church-Canons and Constitutions and Decisions made in Ecclesiastical and spiritual affairs Neither valid Ib. l. 6 Authority to publish Rules and Articles But not contrary to the Rules and Articles of Superiour Councils Pag. 282. l. 3. His unjust power was cast off and that first by Bishops who in other things adhered to the Roman Church Their adhering in other things justifyes not the Catholick Bishops for their breach in this This Author well knows the first casting off the Pope's power began not at the Bishops and he hath heard I suppose of their great Reluctance and Cromwel's negociations with
and Doctors met in Oecumenical Councils in all ages I would you could prove a truly Oecumenical Council in any age He proceeds Ib. l. 17. But we cannot endure to be abused by meer names of Titular Prtriarchs with Combinations of interested Parties instead of General Councils You do well in this But not so if you charge any such things on those former Councils whereof the more universal judgment of other Metropolitan Churches cleareth them in their accepting them for lawful and obliging and conforming in their belief and practice to their Decrees which general acknowledgment of them supplies also any defect that might have been in the management of them Ib. l. 3 If we then oppose so general a consent of the Christian Church let them charge us with not submitting to all the Authority extant of the world And what then when you are so charged Then you will say as you have said ‖ p. 241 242 That the Church in any one or more ages since the Apostles times may be deceived And That universality in any one age without the Consent of Antiquity which Consent you not It shall judge of is no sufficient Rule to interpret Scripture by nor consequently to decide the Controversies arising therein Pag. 285. l. 6. And every free Church c. See Note on p. 281. l. 1. It follows Ib. l. 9. Hath a sufficient power to reform all abuses within it self when a more general consent cannot be obtained But not to reform any thing contrary to such doctrines c to which a more general consent hath already been obtained in several Councils that before the Church was divided were generally received A Metropolitan Church may have a sufficient power to reform somthing without but nothing contrary to the Decisions or Canons of a Superiour Authority Ib. l. 14. How very pitiful an advantage can from hence be made by the dissenting parties among us For the advantages dissenting parties make hence see before Note on p. 180. l. 9. p. 263. l. 2. p. 271. l. 2 It follows Ib. l. 12 Who decry that Patriarchal and ancient Government as Antichristian which we allow as prudent and Christian But doth this Author allow it as of Divine Institution and necessary I mean the Government of the Church by Bishops Ib. l. 9 N. O. saith my Principles afford no effectual way or means in this Church of suppressing or convicting any Schisme Sect or Heresy or reducing them either to submission of judgment or silâ—nce Therefore my Principles are destructive to all church-Church-Authority Destructive to all authority N. O. makes no such Consequence But the immediate words following those cited by our Author are these ‖ Princip Consid p. 98. For where both sides contend Scripture clear for themselves the clearness of such Scripture how great soever on one side can be made no instrument of conviction to the other Here therefore things must be prosecuted further than Scripture to a Dic Ecclesiae And then for the convicting and suppressing such Heresies and Schismes this Church appealed and complained to must have authority and infallibility at least as to necessaries to decide truly such contests about the sense of Scripture which may happen to be in them and justly to punish with her censures as the useth to do those that are Hereticks i. e. dissenters from her definitions and so preserve the Church in the unity of the true Faith things denied to it by the Dr. Ib. l. 2 The design of my Principles was to lay down the Foundations of faith and not the means of suppressing heresies But his Principles laying down the foundations of Faith if good must be such as consist with the foundations of Peace also and with the means of suppressing Heresies And to his Instances I say Aristotle may be justly blamed for his Logick or Hippocrates for his Aphorismes if the one be found to contain any thing contrary to Civil Government or the other to the Colledge of Physicians Pag. 286. l. 2 We are sure the meer authority of their Church hath been no more effectual means of suppressing sects than that of ours hath been N. 1 I think He hath yielded the contrary before p. 136. where being pressed that the subjects of the Roman Church however their other private opinions may differ do all submit their judgments to the determinations of her Councils which takes away all Divisions in her as to such matters this being not so in the Church of England he hath these words I do not say that the Church of Rome hath no advantage at all in point of Vnity but that all the advantage it hath comes from force and fraud viz. such force as the Council of Niee used to its subjects viz. Anathemas to Dissenters And We do not envy them the effects of tyranny and deceit It is the Vnion of Christians we contend for not of Slaves or Fools And I freely yield that they have a juster pretence to Vnity without Truth than we Where this effect a greater Vnity is granted by him but that this is without Truth is denied by us But N. 2 setting this aside we contend that where it is affirmed 1. That Scriptures are so cleare in all necessaries that none of what condition soever using their right endeavour to understand them can mistake 2. And again that there is no other Infallible Judge to determine certainly any sense of Scripture in such necessaries where it is controverted nor which may require submission of judgment from their subjects to their sentence and so the people left to their own judgment one man upon using as he thinks a just endeavour being confident of one sense of Scripture plain to him another of the contrary which judgment of particulars the Church fallible hath no power to sway or correct Nor on the other hand the Scripture doth decide to them at all on which side it is clear Here we say is left no effectual way which yet always the Church must have one or other for clearing and purging itself of Heresies and Schisms by which the opinion of either of these and so of any Sect of them erring in some necessary points or by which any Heresy may be suppressed or the persons so perswaded severed from the Church's Communion and so the Principles must be unsound that inferr such Consequences N. 3 But there is such an effectual way in the Church which is maintained to have power as it is by Catholicks to determine in all Controversies about necessaries and in this amongst others concerning the Apostolicalness of a former Tradition or the legitimacy of a former Council what doctrine is true and Apostolical and to Anathematize all Dissenters whereby she either reduceth Sectarists if submitting to her judgment or separateth them from the Church if opposing it And such way accords very well with our Lords Sit tibi sicut Ethnicus Publicanus Mat. 18.17 2 Cor. 10.6 Tit. 3.10 and with S. Paul's In
to the end of the world on purpose to expound the Scriptures and out of these to teach them all Necessaries for their salvation and to keep them stable and fixed from being tossed to and fro with every winde of doctrine that capricious fancies may imagine there or malicious pretend Necessary to inform them that are to learn of these Pastors the true sense of Gods Word according to former Church-Tradition and that they are to rest in their judgement as Dr Field hath and follow their faith as the Apostle ‖ Heb. 13.7 that they may not usurp their Office c. Lastly that supposing these Guides also should erre yet it is better for them still that all erre one errour which is the errour of their Guides because there will be at least some unity and peace in that and some excuse for the errour of Inferiours yea also in probability more verisimilitude than that every one should erre a several and his own errour to the utter ruine of Peace and a greater deviation from Truth But that which our Authour hath changed here and in stead of submission of judgement put only in general terms due obedience and submission and this due to be stated as I apprehend not by these Governours but those that owe it leaves all Sects still to enjoy their own tenents how absurd or impious soever and with these also to enjoy the Communion of the Church notwithstanding a due submission called for by it So that its subjects are still left to be tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine that blowes though the Apostle saith God hath appointed Governours to prevent it nor are tied to follow the Faith of their Guides as the Apostle requires nor to learn the sense of Scripture where this is disputed from those whom our Lord hath appointed to teach it them So that notwithstanding this latter defence made here by this Author I see no reason but that I may conclude these Notes on his Reply as N.O. doth his Considerations on his Principles That since it is the Church's Authority that must rectify such diversity of Opinions for the attaining unity and peace in the points controverted this Authority is necessary in the first place to be established in stead of leaving every fancy to perspicuity of Scripture And that the prudent may consider whether the authority of a Church must not necessarily be much debilitated and brought into contempt and daily like to wane more and more where such a new way is taken up of its Defence that he thinks himself its best Advocate and Pleader of its cause who doth most endeavour to set forth the defects and failings of all Ecclesiastical Societies Prelates and Councils in which office I appeale to the candid and equal Reader whether this Author hath not in this Discourse vigorously emploied his Pen and who best proves no Scripture-Promises made to them Nay where to the end to evacuate the Infallibility of any Society or Church in Necessaries is set up a Counter-Lay-Infallibility of private men if onely sincere endeavourers for understanding Holy Writ in all the same Necessaries Where therefore such new Maxims are still spread abroad and received with applause which were first made more current and common by Mr Chillingworth forced to it as the last refuge left to shelter him from Obedience to a just Church-Authority it is no great wonder if the broachers of new Sects and extravagant fancies in Religion the Contemners of Church-Authority and of the Clergy who first contemned and vilified themselves do daily in such parts so exceedingly multiply and increase Sed Tu Pastor Bone adduc istas oves perditas in Ovile tuum ut vocem tuaem audiant fiat unum Ovile unus Pastor Amen Pag. 290 l. ult Dr St's Conclusion 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 I have perused his following Discourse in Vindication of the Protestants Grounds of faith and find nothing answered to what N.O. hath objected p. 76. concerning the Protestants Negative Articles of Faith or hath urged p. 86. concerning the Marks or evidences by which among many pretenders that Church may be known from which known we are to learn Truth But I wonder not at it since in this Discourse pretending to answer N. O's Considerations no reply is returned to a greater part of them Nor the arguings in his Principles justified where they are by N.O. questioned Which perhaps may be the reason why he saith here only that he hath thus far considered the main Foundations upon which N.O. proceeds the Structure it self remains yet unconsidered and as for his digging here at the Foundation it hath been but lost labour If the Church be a sure Foundation N. O's must stand FINIS
A DISCOURSE OF THE NECESSITY OF Church-Guides For Directing Christians in Necessary Faith WITH Some ANNOTATIONS on Dr Stillingfleet's Answer to N. O. By R. H. Matt. 18.17 Si ECCLESIAM non audiverit sit tibi sicut Ethnicus Publicanus 2 Cor. 6.8 Vt Seductores VERACES Printed in the Year MDCLXXV THE PREFACE BEfore my entrance upon the following Discourse it seems necessary to pre-acquaint the Reader with the occasion thereof § 11 Doctor Stilling fleet at the end of his Book of the Roman Idolatry upon his Adversary's importunity published Thirty Principles drawn up as he saith immediatly before them ‖ p. 557. to give an Account of the Protestants Faith in the way of Principles In the 13th of which he affirms That the Scriptures may be understood by all persons who sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their salvation Again in the 15th That these Writings contain in them the whole Will of God so plainly revealed that no sober enquirer can miss of what is necessary for salvation Again in the 19th That the assistance which God hath promised to those who sincerely desire to know his Will where I suppose he means such assistance as includes not that which God hath promised to Christians from the direction and instruction of his Ministers for this assistance here is opposed by him to that may give them greater assurance of the truth of what is contained in the Books of Scripture than it is possible for the greatest Infallibility in any other persons to do supposing they have not such assurance of their Infallibility Where you may observe that it follows much more may give them greater assurance than it is possible for the highest Church-Authority Wisdome Learning or Divine assistance short of Infallibility in any other persons to do And so in his first Consequence he saith There is no necessity at all or use of an infallible I add much less of a fallible society of men to assure men of the truth of those things of which they may be certain without them and cannot have any greater assurance than that they have already supposing such Infallibility to be in them § 2 These his Principles were considered and especially the forenamed opposed by a Roman Catholick as appearing to him not only untrue but of most dangerous consequence as being very derogative from church-Church-Authority as to these chief parts of their Office the Expounding of the Scriptures the Teaching and Guiding Christ's Flock in all Truth necessary to be known by them and their Defining also matters of Necessary Faith as Controversies in them do arise and Requiring from their Subjects a Belief of them and also very hazardous to mens salvation in leaving each private person to entertain in Religion especially as to points thought more necessary in which therefore the Scriptures also are affirmed by the Doctor more plain what in his own judgment after a to him-seeming sincere perusal of them he likes best even though a much major part of Christianity reading the same Scriptures assert the contrary and this without any obligation of submitting his judgment in such things to his Spiritual Superiours § 3 And indeed from some such Principle it seems to be that Luther when he had said to himself ‖ De abrogand Missâ privat praefat Tu solus sapis Totne errant universi And Quoties mihi palpitavit tremulum cor reencouraged himself to proceed in his Reformation though contradicting the whole World viz. Because the Scriptures were cleare and for him against them all often using S. Paul's Licet Angelus de Caelo c. Gal. 1. The Holy Scriptures the rest of the Christian World had read as well as himself but he meanwhile was conscious only of his own sincere endeavour and so the Principle secured him that he did not mistake if any such point were necessary wherein he opposed them From such Principle was the confidence of the Protestants then but a very few against the sacred Council of Trent i. e. all the other Church-Governours of that Age Soave Hist Couc Trid. p. 344.641 when they desired that the Authority of the Fathers might be qualified with a Fundantes se in Scripturis Of which fundantes whether it were so or no they themselves for themselves at least would be the Judges From such a Principle the Socinians departed from the whole Church of God Ancient Modern only pleading the Scriptures clear on their side See Volkelius De Vera Relig. l. 5. c. 7. Praesertim saith he si sapientiam a Deo petat quam ille nemini denegat i. e. if using their prayers and sincere endeavours though not consulting or obeying any Guides or the Church Quam in iis quoque rebus quae ad salutem sunt necessariae errare constat From such Principle it is that the Presbyterians ‖ Reasons shewing Necessity Reform p. 5. denied Subscription to the 39. Articles except this clause were added so far forth as the same Articles were agreeable to Gods Word of which how farre they make themselves the Judges And so also do the many latter Sects who for a sufficient knowledge in all necessary points and triall of the Doctrine of their Teachers therein need nothing more than a Bible and learning to read From such Principle that Mr. Chilling worth denies that any Church-Authority not excepting the first four General Councils hath just cause to oblige others to receive their Declarations in matters of Faith ‖ c. 4. §. 18. And elsewhere saith †c. 6. §. 5◠That the Bible the Bible only is the Religion of Protestants and that the belief of any thing besides Scripture and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it indubitable i. e. to those on whom they are imposed cannot i. e. by Protestants with coherence to their own grounds be required of any without most high and most Schismatical presumption From such Principle that Dr Stilling fleet accuseth the whole Church Catholick Eastern and Western for so many Ages before the Reformation of so manifold an Idolatry where his own sincere endeavour to understand the Scriptures in so necessary a point he holds cannot be mistaken and therefore all that World must be so And thus what opinion may not One maintain against all if he have first a confidence concerning himself that he hath used a requisite industry which industry also must not be maintained greater than the meanest condition of life may practise and so that Scripture is clear to him in all necessary matter and Next the consequent of this if he have a perswasion concerning others how many soever whom by their differing from him he knows to be in an errour that either they have been defective in a sincere enquiry or having with him discerned the Truth yet for some secular ends falsify it § 4 From this Principle also proceeds that Assertion That there is amongst Christians no Necessity
of any other Judge infallible and much less fallible save Scripture only for deciding Controversies in any points necessary which seems to engage the Assertors to the maintaining also of one of these two very harsh Propositions either 1 That all such points as are in controversy among Christians are no Necessaries but that it must pass for a matter of less moment as any thing becomes disputed and particularly No necessity of believing or practising on the Protestants side for his attaining of salvation any of the points agitated between them and the Roman-Catholicks Which Proposition seems of a very hard digestion to be allowed abetted by those Reformers especially who make such Declamations against the hainousness of the Roman corruptions of the sense of Scripture even in the highest matters of God's Worship and Mysteries of our Redemption As in giving the Divine Worship to a Creature in the doctrine of Justification Merit of mens good Works c. Or 2 engageth them else to the maintaining of this other proposition that though the Scriptures are so clear in some of those points in controversy for so they say they are in all Necessaries as that no illiterate person using a convenient endeavour can mistake in them yet de facto that the much Major part of the Christian world having and perusing the same Scriptures is and hath been mistaken in them for many ages and hath thought the Scriptures clear to the contrary which seems on the other side a thing as hard and incredible viz. to deny to so many Men and Ages for understanding the Scriptures the using of such a just endeavour as any unlearned Protestant doth or may employ § 5 Lastly from this Principle seems naturally to proceed in such a Church as holds it a Toleration of all Opinions that pretend Scriptures for themselves however it comes about that those of Roman-Catholicks find little favour by it because there is no just reason of suppressing the assertions of any party where is no competent Judge of deciding the truth in them save the same Scriptures which read by both sides yet do not end the Debate A Toleration of all Opinions I say save perhaps such as invade and disturbe the Civil Peace and Government Among which opinions tolerated also some will be Heresies ‖ 1 Cor. 11.19 unless these men tell us by what Judge these shall be declared such and so excluded That Toleration of opinions was a Consequence of this Principle Mr Chillingworth †See ch 4. clearly saw and so pleaded much for it as only well consistent with Protestant Grounds Of which see more below §. 38. c. 96. § 6 Vpon such Consequences as these then N.O. was moved to write some brief Considerations and Reflections on these Principles observing herein the Method that they prescribed to him But now since Dr Stilling fleet hath not at all followed the same though his own order in his Reply whereby would more clearly have appeared the many things therein that have received no answer I also in this Rejoinder shall take the liberty to change the former method of the Considerations and briefly to repeat N. O's Conceptions especially such as relate to the forementioned Principles reduced into such an order as they may be more applicable thereto and then consider how far the Dr's Replies have rebated their force or confirmed his own Positions And after this done lest a considerable part of the Dr's Book expatiating to other subjects which if nothing pertinent to N. O's Considerations yet may appear to some very important to the Protestant Cause may seem unspoken to I shall accompany the Reader through his whole Book with Annotations following his Discourse whither it leads me on the passages that appear to me more remarkable and so I shall leave all to the judgment of the prudent and piously disposed of what present perswasion soever who not zealous for a party seeks after Truth § 7 Only I am first to acquaint him with this in general That the two main Pleas of the Dr and N. O as to a Christian's attaining a right belief in all necessaries to salvation are Obedience and submission of Judgment to the Church's Determinations on the one side and every Christian's Liberty of Judgment in their perusing the Scriptures on the other Where he will easily discover that the interest of those who contend for Liberty engageth such persons to deny and evacuate the Infallibility and non-mistaking of any Ecclesiastical Guides even as to the same Necessaries wherein yet they affirm the Clearness of Scripture to every Christian using a right endeavour so that none can safely herein adhere to their sentence and judgment wherein yet he may to his own Again their interest to set forth to the uttermost the defects and failings of these Guides their oppositions and contradictions and of every one so much the more as he claims a greater Authority and therefore no wonder if the Pope is no better treated by them To charge them whether Prelates or Synods with passion ambition covetousness or the like in their proceedings To rip up and publish any their infirmities or vices whereby they may be thought less fit to be Guides of other mens Ignorance or Conscience or Judges of their Differences as if inferior and private persons were free from such passions and self interests and not born in a state where some opinions better served their profit preferment than others where such engagements clouded their Judgments § 8 To press a non-necessity of Deciding Controversies For this thing would call for some publick Judge And To diminish and abridge points of necessary Faith as much as may be Because all such points must be affirmed so clear that no honest endeavour can mistake in them and because thus the Liberty of Opinion in all other points may the better be justifyed upon the account of their not being necessary and to inveigh much against the Multiplicity of the Articles of Faith that have been imposed by the Church's Councils To extend the Title of Catholick to all Churches professing Christianity Because these men allow no certain Judge to determine Heresy or Schisme which may exclude any Church from being Catholick and because they hold only those points to be necessary to salvation that are so cleare in Scripture as that all Churches agree in them § 9 To plead much the Liberty and just authority of Particular Churches and of Civil States to correct and reform within their Dominions whatsoever Errours and Corruptions in Religion As indeed it is most necessary they should those which first by a Lawful Ecclesiastical Authority are stated to be so But how such Errours and corruptions shall first be certainly known and distinguished from what are certain Truths and lawful-practices which ought to precede a proceeding to reform them This useth to be passed over by them in silence So To speak much of the lawful liberty and power of particular Churches
§ 51. * From the Promises in Scripture § 52. Where That Dr St. holds the Roman Church hitherto never to have erred in Necessaries § 53. * From the Testimony of S. Austin in his proceedings against the Donatists § 54. And of the Greek Church § 56. * From Archbishop Lawd's and sometimes Dr St's holding the Catholick Church not only in its Being but as to its Teaching and Determinations Infallible § 57. Dr St's Replies considered * Concerning the Practice of Councils § 64. c. * Concerning the Certainty of the Christian Faith without Infallible Church-Governours § 63. * Concerning S. Austin § 71. * That the Argument from the Evidence of our Senses urged by Dr St. and others disproves not the Infallibility of the Roman-Catholick Church CHAP. V. No Supressing of Sects and Heresies without admitting an Ecclesiastical Judge THat all Sects for their Tenents equally appeal to the Clearness of the Scripture § 81. That the leaving all men for knowing Necessaries to the clearness of Scripture therein without requiring their submission to the Judgment of the Church can afford no effectual remedy of Heresies and Schismes § 83. That the Constitutions of the Church of England seem contrary to this and to require Submission of Judgment § 84. Dr St's Replies contending that his Principles no way justify Sects considered § 86. viz * That there is a great difference between the Church of England's separation from Rome and that of the Sects from Her § 87. * That no Infallibility is challenged by her in respect of her Subjects as is by Rome § 89. * That her Doctrines are not made necessary to salvation nor any excluded from it meerly because not being in her Communion § 90. Nor any immediate authâ—rity challenged by her of obliging the Consciâ—nces of Men. § 91. Where That though none of these things could be charged on her by the Sects that have left her as they are by Her on the Church of Rome left by Her yet still by her example as also by these Tenents of hers the Sects though agreeing with her in these may think themselves at liberty to depart from her for other things wherein to them she seems faulty or defective as She for this cause did depart from her Superiours His Replies contending that his Principles afford a just and sufficient Means of remedying Sects considered § 93. Where That the Recommending of Humility Obedience and a due Submission to our Spiritual Pastors and the not usurping of their Office c understood exclusively to submission of private mens judgment to them and to restraint of Liberty of Opinion or of contradiction as to any of the Church's Definitions and Doctrines in matters of Faith are no sufficient means of suppressing Heresies and Sects Yet That if Protestants would only admit this latter of not contradicting there could have been or can be no Reformations at any time against any such Doctrines of the former Church § 94. And That the Church's Authority of making Rules and Canons of Reforming any abuses in Practice or errours in Doctrine of inflicting Censures upon Offenders of Receiving into and Excluding out of the Church such persons which according to the laws of a Christian Society are to be taken in or shut out c. if not extending to Excluding Dissenters from her Doctrines and Definitions in matters of Faith is still deficient as to the same purpose § 100. c. Concerning the Consent said to be required from all her Clergy by the Church of England to her Articles of Religion § 104. Mr Chillingworths Proposal in this matter for procuring a general Vnity in Communion and Peace in the Church considered § 96. The vanity and uneffectiveness of it as to the End aimed at § 97. A Table of the Principall CONTENTS of the ANNOTATIONS THat Tradition qualified with the other Motives is a sufficiently certain Evidence Of the Infallibility of the Church as Divinely assisted Or Of the Canon of Scripture Or Of any other Divine Revelations testified by it to be such p. 85 94 97. That either Infallibility of the Church or of Scriptures may be the first thing believed from Tradition And either of these proved from the other as either is first known p. 123 133 169. The expression of a Moral Infallibility vindicated p. 94. And that as Moral Infallibility is applied to Tradition so not to Church-Infallibility as Divinely assisted Ib. That an Assent built only on a morally-infallible Evidence never comes to be more than morally infallible Or that an Assent never riseth higher than the Evidence p. 96. The several ways How in a Divine Faith an Infallible Assent is said to be yielded to Divine Revelation p. 87. On what account Church-Infallibility necessary notwithstanding the Certainty and self-evidence of Tradition And that Christians without this Church-Infallibility are no way certain or secure as to several necessary points of their Faith because not so clearly delivered or manifested as to all persons by Tradition p. 89 93 97 98 125. That all Necessary Points of Faith are not clear in Scripture to all capacities without the assistance of their Guides p. 98. 170. The Text 2 Pet. 3.16 considered p. 173. The Testimony * of S. Austin De Doctrina Christiana l. 2. c. 9. p. 195. And * of S. Chrysostome in 2 Thess Hom. 3. concerning Clearness of Scripture considered p. 233. That several other Means of understanding Scripture void not the Directions and Decisions herein of Church-Guides where either the other means cannot be used by Secular Persons of manual emploiments or used leave the sense of Scripture still ambiguous to meaner Capacities And that the more certain such other means are the more they assure us of the Church-Guides their not erring herein p. 179. That the Canons of Councils do clearlier decide some necessary points controverted than the Text of Scripture and so effect a greater union of Doctrine in a Society submitting to them than is among those submitting only to Scripture p. 133. That Positive Laws besides the Law of Nature were from the Beginning in Gods Church and the Church-Guides then as to necessaries infallible p. 91 124. That under Moses's Law the people were enjoined Submission of Judgment to the Decisions of an Ecclesiastical Judge p. 113. That from Private Men's when using a right endeavour the Argument holds to the Church-Guides if using the like their not erring or being deceived in Necessaries but is not extended so far as that therefore they are infallible in another sense also viz so as that they cannot deceive others in mis-teaching them in Necessaries p. 136. That the Exercise of private men's judgments in all things is allowed but its erring or the non-submittance of it to another where due not therefore excused And that the charging Christians to beware of false Prophets seducers false Guides c. still fixeth them more closely to the true p. 138. That Persons consulting their Guides concerning the Sense of the Rule
so adoring iâ— as they ought should it be so how come they I say to commit such gross Idolatry as the Dr. in his Book charges them with and so all without Repentance of it if Idolatry be a Mortal Sin miscarry in their salvation And if from a Major part of the present Church interpreting Scripture an Appeal be made to a Major part of the Ancient Church pretended to interpret them on the Protestant side Consid p. â—â— neither will this relieve the Dr because since this also 〈◊〉 what side Antiquity stands is a thing in Controversy foâ—â—d â—â—â—râ—omg of it we are to presume here like wise that a sincere â—nâ—â—â—â—owr being allowed to all parties to understand the sense of the former Church this also stands on that side as the Major part apprâ—â—â—e 〈◊〉 it Now the present much Major part of Christianity preâ—e â—â—oth 〈…〉 the sense of the Ancient Church inâ—â—â— pâ—â—â—ing this Scripture 〈◊〉 a Corporal Presence § 7 To this Query of N. O How the Controversy shall bedecided when in a matter of Necessary Faith two contrary Pâ—â—ties say the Scripture is â—lear on their own undeâ—â— I and this Author answering first p. â—92 〈…〉 of determinine Controversies in Religion by a Living Judge is not built on any sufficient Foundation of Scripture or Reason i.e. as I understand him there is no necessity of it Mr Chillingworth made such an Answer before him but more clearly in these words ‖ p. 59. That those places of Scripture which contain things necessary and wherein errour were dangerous need no infallible Judge or Interpreter because they are plain and thâ—se that are obscure need none because they contain not things necessary neither is errour in them dangerous But the Reader may observe here that the Dr. saith only of determining Controvdrsies in Religion leaving this term Controversies indefinite as is usual with him when as N. O. speaks not of Controversies in general many of which he grants not necessary to be decided but expresly of controversies in points necessary that it is requisite the true sense of Scripture herein be some way or other cleared else Christians cannot know what to believe in them Upon which reason the Dr. himself also in his Principles ‖ Princ. 13. pleads a necessity that the Scriptures be clear in them § 8 2ly He tels us p. 197. That there are means ef attaining the certain sense of Scripture in doubtful places without the supposition of an Infallible Guide and so makes a long discourse from p. 197. to p. 260. concerning the Means used in the Primitive times and the many good Rules given by the Ancients for this As a diligent comparing of Scriptures Considering the scope designe connexion whether the sentence be literal on figurative illustrating the difficult by places more plain few by many recurring to the Original Tongues c. Where 〈◊〉 N. O. eâ—quiâ—eâ— how necessaries may be decided for those persons who after all these means used remain still in some suspense or also for those whose low and mechanick condition or weak judgment cannot examine these things can neither compare Scriptures nor search the Testimony of Antiquity Whether 1. 〈◊〉 q. for such it is not much safer to adhere to their Guides though fallible who also have used all those other helps the Dr mentions for deciding these than to be committed to their own judgment much likelier to erre herein than the others § 9 Next I find him when some twenty leaves have been spent in shewing thiâ—â—â—riety of means p. 249. delivering this as the sâ—â—se of the Fathers formerly pâ—toted by him and so also I suppose his own That If after examining and comâ—ering Scriptures c. the dispute still continues and that it be 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 Apâ—stolical Church than we it is reasonable we should yield to them but if there have been none such then that the unanimous consent of Fathers is to be taken so it be in some new and upstart Heresies And so saith he 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 § 11 But here are several things that leave us still without a Determination of such Controversies so as in them to have any settlement of our Faith For 1st he saith If Ancient General Councils have determined it c. But I ask When may Antiquity and such obliging authority expire and What if such ancient General Councils have not and some latter General Councils have determined it whether is it not reasonable we should yield to them and Whether the Church in all ages since the Apostles hath not the same and equal Authority Otherwise if a certain distance from the Apostle's times doth alter this Authority why may not the Arrians put in such an exception against that of Nice not held till after 300. years and so much more against other Councils later than Nice Again since new Controversies in Necessaries may arise in latter times which such ancient Councils have not considered or decided as there did after 300 years several such as had not been discussed or so resolved before thus we shall have no Judge left for deciding them lastly when any Controversy ariseth concerning the Determinations of ancient Councils or Consent of Fathers in any such Point surely some Judge we must have for determining this before the Controversy can be determined 2ly The Terms he useth It is reasonable we should yield to them are general and ambiguous Doth he mean It is reasonable to yield our assent unto them Else how do such Decisions direct our faith or belief at all in these necessaries 3ly He saith So it be in some new and upstart Heresies But why may not this unanimous consent of Fathers be taken against whatever opinions Elder or newer that contradict them But if this Authour means reasonable to yield our assent unto them and if to lawful General Councils of whatever times he allows the same and equal authority and will admit the authority of the latter to resolve any disputes touching the consent or statings of the former what other thing is this but to come home to N. O's Infallible Guide which is lawful General Councils or other known unanimous consent of the Church-Governours Ancient or Modern Which Councils also for the matters they do decide are a standing Guide not only to those present times when they sit or wherein they live but to all Posterity And so this Author at last hath pitched upon that very means of ending Controversies in Necessaries where the sense of Scripture is disputed and other means the comparing of Scriptures c. as to many are either not practicable or effectless which he had endeavoured to avoid the truth of which
p. 278. a reply long enough to be good Wherein he will first needs suppose See p. 264 262. 267. 270. 273. 274. that N.O. chargeth him by this Principle with undermining or taking away All Church Authority ‖ p. 84. and next shews that he maintains still a manifold Authority in the Governors of the Church as this Of their inflicting Censures upon offenders commonly called the Power of the Keyes Of their making Rules and Canons about matters of Order and Decency in the Church p. 267. p. 268. Of their proposing matters of faith and directing men in Religion where he mentions also this the particular instruction of persons doubtful which those using sincere endeavour may well be in things not necessary and so wherein the Scripture may not be clear and the publick declaring i.e. in Sermons what is the mind and will of God contained in Scripture in order to the salvation and Edification of the souls of men Of Declaring what errours and abuses there are and doing as much as in them lies to reform them But concerning that only point N.O. speaks of namely a necessity of this Ministry Clergy or Church-Authority for guiding Christians in Necessaries to their salvation so that they cannot by their own endeavours attain the knowledge of all these sufficiently without them I find not a word he that can let him So that N. O's charge remains still in force and could I find any such thing in him I see not but it must point-blank contradict his Principles and the words of his first Consequence he draws from them but now recited § 15 I find him saying there indeed p. 266. That there are some common Principles of Religion that are or may be known to all and some precepts so plain that every Christian without any help I understand him here any help either of his Guids or any else may know them to be his duty And also that within the compass of these plain and known duties lies the capacity of persons judging of their Guides if they carry them out of their beaten way c. which Guides therefore he holds may misleade them in these Principles so that here is not only their not needing Guides but if need be di-or-cor-recting them § 16 Again I find him saying p. 267. That these Guides may be of great use for the direction of unskilful persons in matters that are doubtful and require skil to resolve them but this is not in matters necessary for if the Clergy here may be needful or useful once so surely an infallibility of them would be more And he saith p. 189. That be doth not deny that there are doubtful and controverted places but denies 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 And again We do not deny that there are places of great difficulty in the Books of Scripture but we assert that the necessaries to Salvation do not ly therein And afterward If a person then by reading and considering those things believe and do what Christ requires for his salvation what necessity hath such a one to trouble himself about an infallible Guide I add or about any Guide at all as to such matters For where one knows a thing once no Guide fallible or infallible is necessary for his knowing that thing And if an infallible Guide is not necessary here it must be because a person may know the certain sense of such Scriptures without him but if he knows the certain sense without such a Guide so may he without any Guide fallible also for the fallibility of a Guide surely doth not render the Scripture more certainly knowable by him than an infallibility doth and therefore in such case neither is a fallible Guide necessary § Pag. 273. I find him saying That he no where in the least excludes the use of all means and due helps of Guides and others for the understanding the sense of Scripture i. e. where Scripture doubtful but such he affirms it not to be in necessaries to the just endeavourer to understand it of whom and which N. O. speaks And if it be said though not to the just endeavourer yet to such others as will not use their own endeavour such Guides may be needful or useful for directing them in necessaries so also I suppose will be a Guide infallible that so such may not err in necessaries after their having consulted them Ibid. I find him excusing himself that in the Principles he drew up he no where mentions these due helps of our Guides because his business was only about the Foundation of Faith and whether Infallibility was necessary for that or no. But then he ought to speak nothing for the excluding Infallibility that doth also exclude as well such due helps And again as he mentions in his laying this foundation of faith a sincere endeavour so ought he any other helps without which as well as without a sincere endeavour he holds the understanding of Scripture though clear cannot be had § 18 Again p. 274 he saith that If all those things which are necessary to salvation are plain in Scripture to all that sincerely endeavour to understand them it doth not hence follow that there can be no just authority in a Church no use of persons to instruct others but he saith not to instruct them in these necessaries already plain to them So he asks there If he 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 To which who would not answer Yes as to such person taking such pains for his understanding the necessary Rules of health but not therefore useless as to all other things P. 275. I find him distinguishing between Necessaries to Salvation and to Government and granting that for Church-Government these Guides are necessary But meanwhile N. O's enquiry is concerning the other member how needful they are for knowledge of necessaries to Salvation Again Ibid. That as Christians are joined together in a Christian Society many other things are necessary for thâ—t end besides what make them capable of Salvation And ‖ p. 276. that mon understanding what is necessary to salvation yet have need to be ruled and governed True but thus the Church-Men are required for Rule and Government but not for instruction in necessaries to Salvation In all this I find no necessity of a Clergy for guiding Christians in necessaries and if there be should he not have mentioned the consulting them if it were but for the Independents and Quakers and other extravagant Sects that may read him as well as mention the using a sincere endeavour and should he not have given the reason thereof Because Scriptures in some points necessary are obscure
their sentence to the right hand or to the left c Whether I say such an answer touching Obedience as is given here to the same words in Deuteronomy would any way satisfy him Therefore here Dr. St. at last thinks fit to deny such an absolute obedience due now under the Gospel to Ecclesiastical Governours as was under the Law His words are ‖ p. 116. We are ready to yield such an absolute Obedience when we see the like absolute Command for Ecclesiastical Judges of Controversies of Religion as there was among the Jews for their Supreme Judges in matters of Law Much-what like to which is that he saith in his Rat. Account †p. 241. If we had met with any thing so express viz. concerning such Judge in the Gospel nay that had any seeming tendency this way how readily should we submit our Controversies to his determination To which I answer 1st That by this he seems to retract his former answer given to the words in Deuteronomy ‖ Rat. Acc. p. 239. viz. that they inferr no more obedience than that which is required by and afforded to all Courts of Justice and that they include not any obligation to assent to what is determined as infallible truth 2ly I say since now under the Gospel we have a written Rule no more free from Controversies than that given by Moses and so since there is the same necessity of such Judges we may rationally conclude our Lord Christ under the Gospel hath left us no more destitute of such a remedy to end debates than he did those under the Law 3. lastly that the former Texts and others ‖ See 1. Disconcerning the Guide in Controversies §. 7. that establish the Church's Hierarchy do include the like command of absolute Obedience to such Judge only this upon the pain of a Spiritual not Temporal Death Sit tibi sicut Ethnicus § 24 As for that Text Lev. 4.13 15. If all the multitude of Israel be ignorant and through ignorance do that which is against the commandement c. which he urges ‖ Rat. Acc. p. 241. to prove the Law-Guides also liable to errours though this is not the matter here in dispute the like expression occurring Lev. 5.2 3 4. shews this to be spoken of an ignorance not of the Law but of the Fact as if one hath touched some unclean thing and be ignorant of what he hath done But then taken in the Dr's sense this Text seems still more to confirm an absolute obedience yielded by this people to this Grand Council else the Whole would not have been involved in their Errour § 25 To his other objections mentioned Ibid. The Priests all along the books of the Prophets charged by God with ignorance and forsaking his way and 2 Chron. 15.3 Israel having been for a long season without the true God teaching Priests and Law and lastly the High Priest and Sanedrim condemning our Blessed Saviour I answer * That under the Law God in all times had a Visible Church in the Nation of Israel consisting of Priests or Clergy and people not erring in Fundamentals and Necessaries and this Clergy instructing and guiding the people in such necessaries as which people had no Copies of the Law and therefore as the Dr. often inculcates God was not deficient in manifesting by some other means to them his will of whom he exacted to obey it That in the Apostasies of Israel such Church continued still in Judah and that in the two great Apostasies also that hapned in Juda under Ahaz and Manasses we find a Ministry or Clergy that was persecuted before concurring and acting in the Reformation together with the Kings Hezechiah and Josiah And * that such Church whose Priesthood in necessaries erred not continued according to the Promise Gen. 49.10 till the appearing of the Messias Lastly * that the Messias coming with Miracles manifested by the other two Persons of the Trinity by the Father with a Voice from Heaven commanding to Hear Him and by the Holy Ghost seen descending on Him as also by the Baptist was now from henceforth to be received as the supreme Legislator and nothing to be admitted from others or from the Sanedrim it self contradictory to what he taught which High Court therefore now for the accomplishment of his necessary Sufferings was permitted by God to be the greatest Enemy of Truth and guided therein not by God's but a Satanical Spirit Of whose Doctrines therefore our Lord warned the people often to beware and when he bids them all that the Pharisees who yet possessed Moses his Chair taught them that to observe and do it is necessarily to be limited and understood wherein their's contradicted not his Doctrines and Expositions of the Law The Texts therefore mentioning the Priests ignorance or falling away the Nation 's being without God Priest or Law c. are not to be understood universally but of some part of this Nation as in the time of the Judges or afterward of Israel when the true Church and Priesthood continued still in Judah or of some part of the Clergy and that perhaps a greater in Judah somtimes apostatizing from God's true Religion and the Law of Moses but then these by such Apostacy were clearly cut off from the Church and the whole Authority and Judicatory Power remained in the rest not so apostatized though supposed fewer by whom the true Religion when afterward meeting with a well-affected Prince from time to time received a restauration Hence therefore N. O. deduceth that Consid p. 57 God having directed us for learning our right way to the obedience of a Guide he doth take no prudent or safe course who p. 51. committing himself to Gods immediate assistance shall neglect it and break his commandement in hope of his favour and help § 26 And if Obedience be once thus granted due to our Spiritual Guides as to learning Necessaries Next That it is not hard to know in any division and disagreement of these whose judgment in such a case every Christian ought to follow and adhere to Consid p. 81 namely always to that of such Church-Authority as is the Superiour which in most cases is indisputable this Ecclesiastical Body being placed by the Divine Providence in an exact subordination As here in England it is not doubted whether we are to pay our obedience rather to a National Synod than to a Diocesan to the Arch-bishop or Primate than to an ordinary Bishop or Presbyter That so also in the Catholick Church the Subordinations among its Governours both as to single Persons and Synods are well known and our obedience in any contest or competition due sooner to our Bishop than to a Presbyter opposing him to the Primate than a Bishop the Patriarch than a Primate and amongst the Patriarchs to the Patriarch of the Prime Apostolick See the same Subordination being also to be observed for preserving the Catholick Church perpetually in one
not err in such Decrees where they pronounce Anathema so he seems to give to these Provincial Councils also an infallibility more than which Catholicks do not desire to be allowed to General viz. the certainty that these Fathers met in a General Councils have whether by the evidence of Scripture or of Tradition or of a necessary Consequence from something Traditional or at least of our Lord 's promised Assistance that they do not err in those things they decree though in many other things they be fallible § 67 To the Answer he makes out of Dr. Field mentioned before ‖ §. â—4 and perplexed enough I say 1. That a Council cannot justly pronounce an Anathema on any of whom some are thought by them not to deserve it 2. That it is clear these Councils do not anathematize obstinate Resisters whose obstinacy may ly in contradicting but any Dissenters inserting also their Decrees sometimes into the Creeds 3. That no Council only perswaded i.e. so as to have no doubt of the truth of what they propose which full perswasion may well consist with erring and not certain and infallible therein can justly require from others the belief of it and anathematize dissenters Unless such Judge perhaps knows that none other can be certain of the contrary to his perswasion or that all others are commanded to follow his Judgment Which things cannot be applied to Provincial Councils and this Author maintains that the power exacting an internal assent requires infallibility This to Dr. Field That a full perswasion is no just Ground for an Anathema § 68 To that which follows out of S. Paul I answer That S. Paul or a Galatian must be not only perswaded but certain of his not erring in that for the meer dissent in which he can justly anathematize Angel or Man or esteem him as an Anathema Nor may any one do this for any particular point in the Gospel controverted of the truth of which point he is perswaded only nor yet in general for the truth of the Gospel it self but as he is certain thereof which all either are or may be from the certainty of Tradition or the Galatians to whom S. Paul writ further from Miracles § 69 This to his Replies But now the Reader may observe that that to which the Dr. hath replyed is only a piece divided from the rest of what N.O. presseth to a principal part of his Plea no answer is returned As this he omits to speak to urged by N.O. That General Councils have not only Anathematized Dissenters but sometimes inserted their Decisions in the Church's Creeds and so required an internal assent and belief of them as of matters of necessary Faith Again Omits to answer to N. O's urging against him ‖ See before §. 57 58. both Archbishop Lawd's and sometimes his own asserting not only the Church in its Being but Teaching and in its General Councils if these be universally accepted to be infallible in all Necessaries his asserting also †See before §. 50. That none can justly require an internal assent as I hope the sour first Councils did but an authority that first proves it self infallible where N.O. also objects That Councils fallible according to the tenents of Protestants can justly require no more than an external obedience or silence and non-contradiction From which it follows that such Councils are infallible as do justly require more as did the four first Councils with the voluntary acknowledgment also and submission of their Subjects to such an authority assumed by them To which I add that therefore Protestants say that the Church of England requires no more than this non-Contradiction to her 39. Articles for which Dr. St. ‖ Rat. Acc. p. 55. quotes these works of Bishop Bramhal Neither do we oblige any man to believe them but only not to contradict them By which saith Dr. St. we see what a vast difference there is between these things which are required by the Church of England in order to peace not belief and those which are imposed by the Church of Rome as part of that faith extra quam non est salus And Protestants on this account condemn the Council of Trent that being a Council fallible yet it required more and made as they call it a new Creed but so say I must they condemn the first four Councils if not infallible He omits this also urged That the whole Catholick Church hath admitted the Decrees of Councils made in this stile and held the Dissenters from them Hereticks where we have the judgment of the whole Church agreeing with that of General Councils concerning their Infallibility in such Decrees § 70 Now if neither Anathematizing Dissenters nor the Councils putting their Decrees in the Church's Creeds nor the Church Catholick's afterward esteeming those Hereticks that dissented from these Councils are a sufficient evidence or proof that these Councils the Church also in accepting them accounted them infallible in these their Decrees I ask what could the most infallible Judge do or exact more Doth not the Dr. below †See p. 182 183. blame the Roman Church for assuming such an Infallibility to herself such then it is in Her though not in General Councils in requiring such a belief of her additional Articles defined in Trent as of the most fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith And here in what hath been urged out of him but now doth not the Dr grant the just requiring of an internal assent to inferr Infallibility And so must he not either hold the first Councils infallible or that they injustly required such assent unjustly put their Definitions in the Creeds lastly erroneously the Church diffusive accepted of their Definitions as such and esteemed the contrary Tenents Heresies against the faith Must he not either hold that these Councils knew not this he saith that unless infallible they might not do such things nor else took themselves for infallible when they were not But whom shall we believe herein them or the Dr rather And if holding themselves fallible why used they such language In Spiritu Sancto congregati and Hac est Fides Catholica relating partly to their own Definition And after all if fallible they were what assurance hath any Christian that he hath not erred in his Creed Can any one prepare a better Plea for the Socinians than this man hath done Or here since I hope He will not with Mr. Chillingworth and against the judgment of the whole Catholick Church deny that the four first General Councils did these things justly will he deserting his former opinion justly the lawfulness of a Council that grants it self fallible in such its decrees notwithstanding to do all these things And then may not the Council of Trent rightly do so And lastly for what good reason then may the Church of England be said to forbear the using such authority I say a Solution of such difficulties urged by N.O. I finde not
to do any such thing if Plenaria Concilia taken in their highest capacity are in their stating matters of faith errable and amendable by others following Thus N. O to which the Reader may search what answer he finds returned by this Respondent in so copious a Reply § 76 Whatever the sense therefore of this place be of which see more in the Annotations on p. 255. l. 10. from the bott it cannot be understood of lawful General Councils amending one another as to any matters of necessary faith that such Councils when defining any thing to be by all Christians believed and assented-to when declaring Hereticks all that dissent and perhaps inserting such their Definition into the Creed yet may be amended afterward in this by other latter Councils For this would overthrow the old foundations of the Nicene and Athanasian Creed and whatever can be discovered of one such Council thus erring may well be applyed to any other This also would overthrow particularly S. Austins Veritas eliquata declarata And plenarium Concilium confirmavit consolidavit for Non-Rebaptization the chief if not the only Argument he useth for convincing the Donatist in this point whilst they might here plead somthing was still latens and clausum till more experience in a latter Council should open and disclose it and so must all before cited out of S. Austin be also reversed and all the former Heresies revive again which when pretending Scriptures for their Tenents have been quelled by the judgment of such Councils § 77 Whether then that by emendari is meant not as to dogmata fidei but in some other matters wherein the Highest Councils by being ignorant of some circumstances c are liable to errour Or that by Plenaria which seems the most probable are meant such Councils as were of the Arians many before S. Austin's time but these in several manners irregular and uncanorical that were amended by others following as by the 2d General Council of Constantinople and by that of Sardica as also S. Austin elsewhere particularly instanceth in that of Ariminum called a Plenary Council but wherein the Arian Party unjustly prevailed with the Emperour and falsifyed the sense of its Decrees amended afterward by the Councils and the Church's Judgment in the times following See lib. Contra Maximinum 3. c. 14. There Homousion saith he mult is paucorum fraude deceptis haeretica impietas sub Haeretico Imperatore labefactare caepit sed post non longum tempus liberate fidei Catholicae praevalente Homousion illud Catholicae fidei sanitate i.e. in the Constan inopoluan and Sardinican Council longè lateque defensum est defensum not against the Decree of a former plenary Council but the misinterpretation and tyranny of a minor but then prevalent Party in it sub Haeretico Imperatore I say in whichsoever of the forenamed wayes this passage may be understood as probably it is to be so in the latter this is certain that it cannot be understood of Lawful General Councils amending one another as to any matters of necessary Faith for the reasons but now given Besides the proving of nothing less to them than that Non-rebaptization was a truth could satisfy the Donatist or invalidate the judgment of the Affrican Council under Cyprian as to its determining the Truth The Dr also saying here that S. Austin urgeth this Plenaria priora posterioribus emendâ—ri to take off the great plea the Donatists made from the authority of S Cyprian and his Council which Council of Cyprian was not Plenariam ex universo orbe Christiano shews that S. Austin needed not for confuting them to take Plenatium in any higher-sense than that of S Cyprian's Whereas taking Plenaria in the largest sense and without any limitations will make nothing at all for the Father in his present controversy with the Donatist about Rebaptization Nay more against him For there were no two such Councils that were both General whereof the latter had amended the former concerning Rebaptization at all and had there the same uncertainty of truth would have been in the Decree of the latter as of the former and in this case the Donatist would not have failed to have taken the advantage of the former Council These things I hope the equal Reader will consider though the Dr hath not and will not admit such a sense of this place as if true contradicts what S. Austin saith so often elsewhere and quite ruines this Father's Plea and Cause § 78 Pag. 256.257 I find several places produced wherein S. Austin preferrs clear Scriptures before humane though never so learned authority varying from them but find in him no comparison or opposition between these and the Judgment of a General Council as running counter to one another How could this be when in the Controversy for which he urgeth Scripture he requireth the Donatists to submit to the exposition of the Council § 79 Ibid. He saith The utmost by a careful consideration of S. Austin's mind in this matter that I can find is that in a Question of so doubtful and obscure a nature as that of Rebaptization was 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 Consid p. 86 But N.O. presseth that S. Austin's mind was clearly otherwise not that it was only a reasonable thing to presume but a thing most certain that what the whole Christian world did consent in was the Truth as appears in those places cited before § 55. and. 71. else it could not be true what he saith Earundem Scripturarum etiam in hâc re i.e. in Non-rebaptization tenetur veritas cùm id facimus quod universae placuit Ecclesia if the Church may possibly decide it amiss And S. Austin's Siquis falli metuit hujus obscuritate quaestionis Ecclesiam de illâ consulat would no way relieve his being deceived still if the Church consulted might also be mistaken in it Nor especially such Article only upon a reasonable supposition that they erred not in it be inserted in the Creed Before that the Dr therefore should have concluded such to have been S. Austin's mind he should in answering these things alledged by N.O. have shewed such his mind to have agreed with his words § 80 Lastly he concludes thus p. 259 In such a case as this I agree to what S. Augustine saith and think a man very much relieved by following so evident a consent of the Vniversal Church not by vertue of any Infallibility but the unreasonableness of believing so many so wise so disinteressed persons should be deceived Though N.O. hath shewed S. Austin requiring submission of the Donatists upon the General Council's determining a most certain truth Yet this were somewhat well if this
Author or Protestants would generally stand to it that private men should follow such an evident consent of the Universal Church on this account viz the unreasonableness of the believing that so many so wise so disinteressed persons should be deceived But I am afraid the Dr if put to follow constantly such a consent will relieve himself here with a clause that lies dormant and which his Reader perhaps takes litle notice of viz. in such a case as this i.e. a case doubtful and difficult Yet one would think if we have reason to follow these wise men's judgment in things that are difficult and that have little evidence and light in Scripture as Rebaptization was much more have we reason to follow it in such things still as are more clear in Scripture since this is more incredible that so many so wise so disinteressed persons should be deceived in them Or that That is there clear to us which is not so to them but the contrary And so I take leave of the Dr's Answer to return again to the progress of N. O's Discourse CHAP. V. Concerning Sects and Heresies not suppressible without an Ecclesiastical Judge § 81 V. FIfthly N.O. much presseth against such Principle 1st that the remitting thus all manner of persons for the understanding of all points necessary to salvation Scripture as asserted clear therein only they using a due endeavour without requiring any submission of their judgment or of assent in such matters to the Definitions of the Church as pretended in these not infallible is a Plea no more justifying the Reformation and the dissent from superiors of the Church of England Consid p. 97 than that of any other Sect whatever even of those which the same Church of England most abhorrs For that all these Sects also for the Doctrines and Extravagancies they maintain and Discessions they make do equally appeal to the Clearness of the Infallible Scriptures in them sufficiently intelligible unto their sincere endeavours and decline as fallible all other Ecclesiastical Authority § 82 So Volkelius †Volkel de verâ Relig. l. 5. c. 7. pleads for the Socinians as the Dr for the Church of England Quae de fide in Christum statuenda sunt ex Sacris Literis patere And again Deus qui religionem Christianam usque ad mundi finem vigere voluit curavis etiam tale aliquid perpetuo extare unde ea quatenus omninò ad salutem est necessarium cognâ—sci indubitatè possit At nihil tale extare praeter Sacras Lateras Crell de uno Deo Patre in Praesat To the same purpose Crellius another Socinian saith Haec Sententia by which Christ's Divinity is denied plurimis ac clarissimis Sacrarum Literarum testimoniis nititur It is needless to cite more From whence is manifest That such Principles as here appear only in the defence of the Religion established in the Church of England make the same Apology also for all those other Protestant parties and for the most blasphemous Sects disclaimed by it Consid p. 98 The Dr in the mean while omitting that by which the former learned Defenders of his Church usually have justified it against them namely the Church of England's adhering to the Traditional Exposition and sense of Scripture received from the Primitive Church This I say he omitts perhaps because it may be thought to relish a little of Church-Infallibility § 83 2ly Neither doth such Principle leave any just and sufficient means in such Church as maintains it of suppressing any Sect Schism or Heresy Consid p. 98. By Sects here I do not mean any Parties that are of different opinions in matters not determined or stated on any side by the Church or those Ecclesiastical Superiors to whom they owe Obedience but such as dissent from and refuse conformity to her established Doctrines and Injunctions And by suppressing them I mean preserving the Church perpetually in its integrity and unity of faith by excluding all such if otherwise uncorrigible from her Communion and purging herself from such a leaven and contagion For which effect our Lord hath left a perpetual Authority to his Church in her General Councils equally taking upon her in all ages to judge what is Heresy or Schisme and who Sectaries and requiring a strict assent to her Definitions in matters of faith and removing such as do not so submit out of her Society by Excommunication according to our Lord's Si Ecclesiam non audicrit sit tibi sicat Ethnicus Tit. 3.10 and S. Paul's Haereticum hominem post unam fecundam correptionem devita 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Vtinam abscindantur qui vos conturbant Gal. 5.12 By which she preserves herself Vnam Sanctam Catholicam one Body and not only of one language by the silence and non-contradiction of any of her members but by assent also of one mind and one faith and without any rent or schisme all the Parts of this Body as hath been said before § 26. being placed in an exact subordination by which it is well known in any division and dissent of these Governours to whom Obedience is due By Obedience of Affâ—nt I say preserved of one mind for though a General Non Contradiction to any of the Church's professed doctrines may possibly procure the Church's peace and prevent the spreading and contagion of such Heresies and Sects where such an Obedience is strictly observed Yet 1st So long as no submission of Judgment is required Heresy is neither at all prevented in or ejected out of the Church if any of her Members be stained therwith but only silenced 2ly Where there is a dissent in Judgment it is almost impossible that none also shall appear in discourse or writings for out of the abundance of the heart the month will be speaking 3ly If the obedience of a Non-contradiction sufficiently secures the Church's Peace Yet Protestants upon their ground of Church-fallibility in Necessaries cannot Universally allow or admit such an obedience because so there could never have been any Reformation of such Church her Errours though never so grosse and fundamental where no lawful gainsaying or contradicting them either by Laicks or especially by the Clergy The Church then by requiring such submission of Judgment and removing dissenters preserves her subjects for ever not only of one Language but of one Mind in the common faith But according to this Principle of the Dr's which leaves all persons upon the securing them if using a just diligence they cannot err in necessaries to their own judgment as to their assent to or dissent from what the Church determines which Assent is maintained by him not to be justly required as to matters of Faith by any Judges save the infallible here can be no just excluding any dissenters from such Church's communion and so all Sects and opinions equally remain if they please in it Or in their separating one from another as an Vnion of Charity and
peace lasts not long where is once a diversity of Opinion or Faith there is no means left here upon such a ground for reducing any to the sentiments of the rest though in those points which are of the greatest moment For when two contradicting parties after both repairing to the Scriptures and supposing a due endeavour used to understand them do contend Scripture clear for themselves the clearness of such Scripture how great soever it be on one side how falsly soever pretended or imagined on the other cannot be made an instrument of conviction to the other here then can be no suppression of any side nor abscission of them from the Catholick Communion how pernicious soever their doctrine be unless things be prosecuted further than Scripture to their hearing the Church that is asserting and submitting to its judgment or else being esteemed and treated as Heathens Matt. 18.17 Now the Church here referred to by our Lord in case of differences is not so proper an Arbitrator and Judge of any contentions as of those that happen in the matter of the Christian Faith in which matter also we see S. Paul Timothy and Titus used their Ecclesiastical Authority and Judicature and therefore they seem to do much wrong to this Text who would limit it especially if not only to trespasses in Manners 3ly N.O. adds also that the great licentiousness of opinions that follows upon such a Principle seems very contrary also to the former pretences and practice of the Church of England for which he urgeth §. 84. n. 1. Consid p. 77. * the Title of the 39. Articles which are said to be Agreed upon for the avoiding of diversities of opinions and the establishing of Consent touching true Religion Preface p. 6. Consid p. 77. And * 5. Canon Synod 1602. Whosoever shall affirm these Articles agreed on for establishing Consent in true Religion such as he may not with a good conscience subscribe i.e. assent unto let him be excommunicated and not restored but after repentance and revocation of such his wicked not gainsaying or contradiction but Errour and * Can. 36. Where the Clergy are obliged To allow and acknowledg all the Articles agreeable to God's Word i.e. to assent to them and the * Statute 13. Eliz. c. 12. Where such as enter into the Ministry are required to declare their assent and subscribe to the 39. Articles of Religion this being there added also which only concern the confession of the true Christian faith and doctrine of the Sacraments Entitled Articles whereupon it was agreed c and shall have from the Bishop a testimonial of such assent and subscription c. Of which matter the Reader if he pleaseth may see much more in the 3d Disc concerning the Guide in Controversy ch 7. N.O. also contends Ibid. against the Dr's 26th Principle §. 84. n. 2. That the Church of England's rejecting in her Articles several points believed in the Church of Rome as contrary to Scripture as she doth Purgatory Adoration of Images Invocation of Saints Article of the Church of England 22 Works of Supererogation Art 14. Sacrifice of the Mass Art 31. Transubstantiation Art 28. is as plainly making the Negatives of these Articles of her Faith as the Roman Church doth the Positives and using the same severity herself which she complains of in others Because the declaring any Positive proposition to be contrary to Scripture makes the Negative thereof to be a thing revealed in Scripture and therefore this to be believed by all who hold it is so Thus though if I profess not to believe Transubstantiation because neither contained in Scripture nor deducible thence I do not hereby make the denial or Negative thereof an Article of my Faith Yet if I profess not to believe it because contrary to Scripture I do Now in all these things this Church seems to have an aim at the preservation of an Vnity of Faith and opinion amongst her subjects and a removing from her Communion of such as shall not assent to her Doctrines and acquiesce in her Ceremonies And I know not whether by some later different Comments on the sense of these her Canons and Laws but so it is that since Chillingworths â—imes who seems the first that made this Principle more current and authentick in this Church Sects have much more multiplyed in this Nation than formerly And By this way N.O. saith ‖ Consid Pref. p. 7. our later English Divines seem to have brought the Authority of their Church into a great disreputation and waning condition and to have excused yea justified all Sects which have or shall separate from her i.e. as to the liberty they take of such a sâ—pa ation For indeed what fault can it be to forsake when they imagine the contrary to be truth the doctrine of a Church whose teaching none is bound to believe or obey out of conscience § 85 4 But N.O. yet further observes that though the Church of England should or also doth require assent and submission of judgment from her Subjects to her Decrees and Articles of Religion for hindring Sects and divisions from her yet that she cannot ju ify to her subjects any such proceedings nor justly restrain them â—rom doing toward her that which she indulged her self in the Refâ—rmation toward her Superiours So that if in some cases viz. in what not indeed were but seemed to her manifest and intolerable errours she might depart from and publickly oppose the doctrine of Church-Councils superiour to her National one so might others again break off and reform from her on the like to-them-seeming good grounds and causes Such submission of assent being by no particular Church divided from the more Universal Pref. p. 5. with the least pretence of reason to be challenged from her subjects when she herself and particularly the Church of England refused the same to all the Superiour church-Church-Authority that was extant when she departed as surely there was and is always an Authority Superiour to a Primate as to Persons or as for Councils to a National one Now to consider the Dr's Replies to these things § 86 To N. O's pressing here that he seems in his Principles to discede from the intentions of the Church of England which in several passages ‖ See b fore §. 84. requires an Assent from her Subjects to the verity of her Articles of Religion and conformity to her Ceremonies which implyes Assent I do not remember he hath said any thing Yet a Point that if it were but for the Presbyterians sake who boggle much at such a submission needs some cleaâ—ing Nor hath he said any thing in Answer to the Church of England's being shewed ‖ §. 84. n. 2. to make the Negatives Articles of her faith whilst she condemns the tyranny of the Roman Church in making the Positives so § 87 Next to N. O's words That by their way the late English Divines have excused yea
justified all the Sects which have or shall separate from their Church Prefa p. 7. which N.O. speaks not of their justifying these Sects universally in whatever they hold or do or what being practised in the Church of England they take offence at but only of justifying the liberty they take in disceding in their Opinions as they see fit from the Doctrines and Principles of this Church so limited by N.O. both in the precedent and following words whilst these Late men also tell them that they may safely follow their own judgment at least as to all necessaries for their salvation wherein they cannot erre if using a sincere endeavour to understand the Holy Scripture which is in all such points clear In answer to this this Author from p. 180. c. to p. 186. undertakes to shew That there is a different case of the separation of Dissenters from the Church of England and of Her separation from the Church of Rome shewing several Reasons or Motives of the Church of Englands departing from the Roman Church which the sects being of the same opinion in them have not of departing from her But this thing is willingly granted him before-hand that differences herein he may shew many that no way concern N. O's discourse who chargeth him and others only with this that from their teaching that none do owe a submission of judgment to that of their Ecclesiastical Superiors every one may rightly collect that he may follow his own Or that if You may depart from your Superiours Persons or Councils upon a just cause of which cause you say it is all reason that you not your Superiours judge then so may They from you upon any cause also they think just Or that if there be no decisive Judge for differences between you and your Superiours to whose sentence you can be obliged so neither is there for differences between them and you and that as you appeal from your Ecclesiastical Superiours to Evidence of Scripture so seeming to you in your cause so may they from you in their's For I suppose here the Dr will both acknowledge 1 Some Councils to be superiour to a National one and some Ecclesiastical Persons to a Primate And 2 that these Ecclesiastical Superiours fallible when proceeding against Evidence of Scriptures may be therein relinquished And This is the thing wherein N.O. affirms you to countenance and warrant the proceedings of all these Sects § 88 1. Frist then to shew these Differences he saith p. 181. Here lies a very considerable difference that we appeal and are ready to stand to the judgment 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 To which I say That this difference supposed or granted here of which see more in the Annotations ‖ On p. 181. notwithstanding he will be found still to justify the Sectarists in their departure from the present Church of England as she did the present Church that was before Luther which as the Dr maintains she might do upon a just cause that is appearing so to Her from the evidence of the Scripture so say the Sectarists they may and do from her upon a just cause but I need not say the same Cause And as he holdeth that this Church owed no submission of judgment to the definitions of that Church's former Councils being fallible so neither say the Sects do they to the National Synods of this But if the judgment of such matters be removed from these latter to the Primitive times to Antiquity This as taken ad libitum in a several latitude is a Precedent all Parties pretend to and is a Judge the sense of whose sentence all parties may cispute as they do that of Scripture without matters coming hereby to any strict Decision Neither will the Presbyterians I believe abandon this Hold to the Dr and his Irenicum perhaps will help them to maintain it And for some such reason it may be that he here in comparing the Church of England and the Sects declines the direct Antithesis of their deserting or renouncing contrary to Her Owning or adhering to these Primitive Times As the ingenuous Reader may observe § 89 2ly P. 182. He saith The Guides of our Church never challenged any infallibility to themselves which those of the Church of Rome do He should have said Which the Catholick Church in her lawful General Councils doth Now from this may well be gathered that the Dissenters from the Church of England depart in their judgment from a pretended not infallible but fallible Church And I ask What advantage hence for confuting what is said by N. O Doth not this fallibility of the Church of England in her Doctrines confessed secure any to depart from them and her as they shall think fit without being justly for this called to an account by her And are not all Sects hereby justified in following the perswasion of their own judgment against hers as she also following hers against her Superiours because fallible He saith also there That the Church of England declares in her Articles that all the proof of things to be believed is to be taken from Holy Scripture She may declare so yet the Sectarists not therefore admit that all that Holy Scriptures are alledged-for by the Church of England is to be believed since these differ in the sense of several places of Scripture from this Church and so as to these may depart from her Judgment § 90 3ly He saith P. 183. That the Church of Rome makes the belief of her doctrines necessary to salvation But nothing of this nature can be objected against the Church of England by dissenters that excludes none from a possibility of salvation meerly because not in her Communion To this I say as I did to the last The lesson cessary the Church of England makes the belief of her Doctrines the more liberty still the Sects will think they have of dissenting from them But changing here the Dr's Roman of which N. O. said nothing into the Catholick Church headed by her General Councils she freely tells those who dare depart from her that there is no Salvation to those out of her Communion and that their Conscience mis-perswaded doth oblige indeed but not therefore excuse them And this causeth those who are careful of their salvation and believe her in this to secure themselves in her Communion § 91 4ly P. 184. He saith The Guides of the Roman Church pretend to an immediate authority of obliging the consciences of men i. e as I understand him affirm that their Subjects are obliged in conscience to yield an assent and submission of judgment to their definitions and decrees which is true changing Roman into Catholick But saith he ours challenge no more than Teaching men to do what Christ
this truly and sincerely which they doing he saith It is impossible but that they should believe aright in all things necessary to salvation Seeming thus to make Necessaries those points only wherein all sides or the many on all sides are agreed But then there can be no Heresies i. e contradictions of any Christian Societies or Parties in points necessary if all sides be thus agreed in them Or at least all those differences we have hitherto seen will be no Heresies if hitherto in necessaries hath been no difference And so if any necessary point now generally agreed on by Christians shall happen hereafter by any considerable party to be contested it must be thenceforth cashiered as a non-necessary § 98 The same Mr. Chillingworth elsewhere ‖ ch 6. §. 48. answers a like Question methinks with as litle satisfaction the Question How a Protestant without any Guide save Scripture may know he holds no fundamental errour against Scripture To which he answers That we believing all the Bible are certain enough that we believe all that is fundamental and so maybe certain also that we hold no Heresy But so all Hereticks too will be no Hereticks suppose a Socinian for they believe the Bible to be God's Word as well as others But if he means by the Protestants believing all the Bible his believing the true sense of it all what he saith is very true that such may be certain he holds no Heresy But Is the Protestant then certain of this his believing the true sense of it all Or if not but only he believes he doth so at least in all necessaries so may the Heretick too and still remain an Heretick Since then Hereticks also do both urge and on their side pretend the Scripture clear here the Question returns who there is to decide on which part it is clear Is this then to be decided by the Common Sense or Reason of Christians For I know not what else can be said our Lord 's Dic Ecclesiae being declined and this Common Reason the Dr often appeals to But this also is common to and pretended by Catholick and Heretick Shall it be then the Common Reason of the much major part or the more learned part of the Christian World But now we are fallen upon a Judge beside the Scripture to decide what is Heresy in points necessary and it seems there is need of such a one But then if such Common Reason may decide Controversies for suppressing Heresy these are so decided already against the Protestants as to many points wherein the major part of the world doth declare the Scriptures to be against them For which the inquisitive may see 3d. Discourse Concerning the Guide in Controversy chap. 8. formerly referred to But suppose here it be said No But the Common Reason of Antiquity shall decide this matter Yet since both sides pretend also this Antiquity as Roman Catholicks and Protestants do in their Controversies will not this again return us to the Common Reason of the major part of the present Christianity suppose against a Socinian to judge what is the sentiment of Antiquity in such matter § 99 But besides these difficulties this Device of Mr. Chilling worth and his Disciples seems much to saile in one thing more viz. that diversities of Opinion will cross one another in the very Service and Form of that External Communion wherein he would have them all to be joined so that in this Publick Service what pleaseth one will dislike another for which reason he saith often elsewhere that though Protestants have no cause to depart from the Roman Communion because of her other Corruptions yet have they for those in her Communion a concurrence wherein is exacted of them Here therefore at last must not the Communion be brought to this that all Christians keeping as they think fit several external communions yet should preserve amongst themselves one Internal But then as for remedying such quarrels also about the Form he seems to propose that in such external communion no manner of Service or Worship of God should be used but what all Christians approved for so he requires in the following words That it should be a joint Worship of God after such a way as all esteem lawful But besides that thus scarce any part of the Church's former Publick Service would remain and the Church of England's Liturgy would no more stand than the Roman thus the Publick Service must continually vary hereafter as any Christians shall dislike somthing in it and then what all agree in to day they will not to morrow for Nunquam futurum est ut idem omnibus placeat I add especially where a thing is established modò placeat omnibus sires velut in medio positae singulorum arbitrio relictae fuerint as Calvin ‖ Instit l. 4. c. 10. §. 31. The same proposal or design as Mr Chillingworth for conserving the Church's Peace in the declining of an Ecclesiastical Judge had also Mr Hales of Eaton in his Tract of schisme There p. 10. his words are these Were Liturgies and publick forms of Service so framed as that they admitted not of particular and private fancies but contained only such things as in which all Christians do agree Schismes on the variety of opinion were utterly vanished for consider of all the Liturgies that are and ever have been and remove from them whatsoever is scandalous to any party and leave nothing but what all agree on and the evil shall be that the publick Service and Honâ—ur of God shall no ways suffer Whereas to load our publick forms with the private fancies upon which we differ is the most soveraign way to perpetuate Schisme unto the worlds end And a little before I do not see that opinionum varietas and opinantium unitas are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or that men of different pinions in Christian Religion may not hold communion in Sacris and both go to one Church And that you may know what manner of opinions he includes here he proceeds Why may not I go if occasion require to an Arian Church so there be no Ariamsâ—e expressed in their Liturgy We see what a different complexion this man is of from the Ancient Church and its Governours from our Lord 's si non audierit Ecclesiam sit tibi sicut Ethnious and S. Paul's Haereticum hominem devita against whom may be repeated the same as hath been against Mr. Chillingworth § 100 Not well satisfied with such answers allowing as seemed to me no means effectual for crushing Heresies or diminishing Sects but rather countenancing and increasing them if the toleration of diversity of opinions may be thought to do so I reviewed what the Dr had said in some pages before ‖ p. 267. concerning the Authority that is still left in the Governours of the Church though Infallibility be taken away to see if this church-Church-authority might be there as to this present matter any further enforced There
Baptism adn its 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 Thus he From whence he collects that the Roman Church's teaching some kind of Idolatry that destroys no Article of the Creed professed in Baptism and so no essential of the true Church cannot therefore render it no true Church N. 10 But here 1. First may not the same be said of teaching any kind of Idolatry whatever that it is not against any Article of the Creed which speaks only of matters of Belief not Worship Yet he grants that some kind of Idolatry such as this teaching people to joine false Gods with the true in the same worship is a a fundamental errour ‖ p. 24. and destroying the being of a true Church Now If he saith this is by a clear consequence against the Creed must he not say the same of the Roman Idolatry in adoring the Eucharistical Bread of which he affirms p. 136. in the words forecited That the worshiping false Gods supposing them to be true is as venial a fault as worshiping that for the true God which is not so as he saith the Roman Church doth Again will not this also be an errour against the Creed if any acknowledging one Supreme God yet reserve no part of Divine Worship as peculiar to him which they do not teach may be lawfully given to a meer Creature which thing he chargeth also on the Roman Idolatry †Rom. Idol p. 161. in these words It is evident they of the Church of Rome in those Honours which they teach may be given to Saints and Angels have reserved no part of Divine Worship peculiar to God himself any more than the Heathen did Here is a true Church then without retaining any peculiar worship in it that is given to the true God N. 11 But 2ly Supposing the Idolatry taught in the Church of Rome to trespass against no Article of the Creed Can no Doctrine render a Society no true Church by no true Church I mean and so I suppose doth he no true part or member of the Church Catholick though it should be still a Church professing Christianity save only such The Creed speaks not of matters belonging to Gods Worship nor of the Ten Commandements the First and Second of which prohibite Idolatry Yet is the Worshiping of God as essential to a true Church as Believing in Him and the observance of the Tenn Commandements as necessary to Salvation as the belief of the matter contained in the Creed and Teaching the contrary to them by any Society as for example to teach it lawful to commit Murders or Adultery or Theft as destructive to the essence or being of a true Church and the Dr in his 30th Principle denies Errors in Opinion to be more dangerous to mens Souls than a Vicious life is Neither are any in Baptism admitted into the Church simply upon professing of the Creed pressed by the Dr ‖ Stillingfl against Stillingfl p. 33. as if nothing els were necessary but also on the promise of yielding obedience to God's Commandements No Heretical Church is any true member of the Catholick And would not such doctrines teaching contrary to the 10. Commandements be great Heresies as we know Denying the lawfulness of Marriage hath been anciently condemned as such And then will not the Idolatry taught in the Roman Church be such an Heresy which expressly opposeth as he will have it the Second Commandement Of which he saith Rom Idol p. 59. It cannot enter into my mind how God should have forbidden the worship of Images by more express and emphatical words than he hath done in it Which leaves the Roman Church void of any excuse of involuntary ignorance to free her herein from a mortal sin The Catholick Church and all the parts of it are believed in our Creed to be Holy as well as Orthodoxe and the one to be of its Essence distinguishing it from other Christian Societies as well as the other To be Holy at least so far as to teach the lawfulness of no Mortal Sin such as unrepented of destroyes Salvation And whether the Roman Idolatry as he hath described it before contrary to the express words and sense of the Second Commandement and no more excusable by any involuntary ignorance than the Heathens can be any thing less I leave to his better consideration And this for his recalling his Charge upon it of so great a Guilt since he cannot his Assertion of its being a true Church Whilst I conclude with Mr. Thorndike's Admonition ‖ Justweigh oh 2. p. 11. to those Protestants who charge the Pope to be Antichrist and the Papists Idolaters Let not them saith he lead the people by the nose to believe that they can prove their supposition when they cannot and then expect that it be maintained by them that owne the Church of Rome for a true Church and therefore that must contradict thomselves if they maintain it i.e. their supposition of Papists being Idolaters N. 12 As for our Author 's distinguishing ‖ p. 31. 23 between the Essentials of a Church and the Integrity or soundness of it and saying That a man is a true man though he have the plague upon him To this I answer 1st That if the plague be mortal the man must necessarily cease thereby to be a man And 2ly That whatever may be required to the integrity or soundness of a Church right Doctrines in Practicals are as necessary to its essence as in Speculatives if Mortal Sin exclude from salvation as well as an erroneous Faith This of N. O's charging him in his Preface For accusing the whole Catholick Church of God both Western and Eastern for the same practices as to several of his Idolatries are in both for so many Ages before Luther's time of Idolatry and this Idolatry as gross as that of Heathens and for his thus unchurching this great Body and quite divorcing this Adulteress from Christ From which charge that which he hath said in his Answer to I. W. seems no way to free him N. 13 The other Considerable in the same Preface †p. 6. which he hath passed by and said nothing to is this That Mr. Chilling-worth ‖ See ch 4. §. 18. and since him several Divines of the Church of England and among these Dr St. in their denying Superiour Councils to have the just Authority of obliging their Subjects to the yielding of Assent to their Declarations are constrained also to disclaim such a Submission of Assent to the Articles of Religion and Book of Common-Prayer passed in the National Synods of the Church of England Yet which Submission of Assent this Church hath formerly challenged in her Canons and severely even with Ecclesiastical Death punished the Refusers untill they should repent not
study of his notions to the underâ—tanding Reader I shall only add these notes after it though the same hath been said already by N. O. and not taken notice of if they may serve to remedy any of his scruples and difficulties found herein N. 2 1. That a Christian hath always for the Object of his Faith and that whereon it formally relies and finally rests Divine Revelation or God's own Word Which Word of God is most absolutely infallible and so to which as infallible after whatever manner declared to him the believer may most firmly adhere N. 3 2ly That such things as are proposed to him for Divine Revelation or God's Word are so indeed and among the rest that of Church-Infallibility as assisted by the Holy Ghost and the Canon of Scripture both here believed infallible the Believer is or may be antecedently as to these sufficiently assured from the Tradition thus commonly discribed viz. the Testimony of a multitude in all ages of illustrious Persons qualified with the many Motives of Credibility their Wisdome Sanctity Martyrdomes their being honoured with Miracles relating things contrary to carnal appetites and their secular-interests unanimous consent in so many ages c which Tradition carries a sufficient self-evidence in it And that any further external and rational evidence of or introductive to his faith than that Certainty whatever it be stiled which this Tradition affords no Christian needs to have or also can have antecedently to all the Articles of his Faith unless God to attest them should send a Voice from Heaven or Miracles and these so as to be seen by every particular person For else Tradition also must witness these Miracles to others As likewise in the Apostle's dayes it is most credible that the major part believed upon Tradition without seeing Miracles As for the Certainty which such a Tradition yields us if it be urged that it is not such as the Christian Faith necessarily requires for the suffering all manner of deaths and Martyrdomes in attestation of the truth thereof namely an assurance or certainty cui non potest subesse falsum as this is taken in the most rigid sense we may here consider that neither such would our certainty be if we all had it like to that of S. Thomas quia vidisti credidisti and believed only that which we first saw with our eyes For the Certainty of our Senses even when all things naturally required to a true sensation are present and where no Divine Revelation discovers to us their mis-apprehension or mis-arguing collection as it hath in the Angles their coming to Sodom is not such cui non potest subesse falsum if taken in the highest sense For if not by the ordinary power of Angels God's permission supposed yet by the supernatural effects of the Divine Power all the senses of the whole world at once possibly may be deceived either by thinking they see those colours or other proper object of them which they do not or by collecting from these truly seen somthing to be joined with or the subject of them that is not so As the men of Sodom were and all the world might have been deceived in the sight of the truly Angels their appearing as Men in their entring Sodom Since then none desires or needs a greater evidence of his faith for example concerning our Lord crucified or risen again than Sense may afford us or S. Thomas by his Sense had consequently must we not say either that an evidence cui potest subesse falsum as this is taken in the strictest sense is abundantly sufficient for a ground or Reason of faith Or that a ground of faith cui non potest subesse falsum ought not to be taken in any higher notion than it is verifiable of our Senses And such a Ground is the Tradition we speak of a ground cui non potest subesse falsum considering the Nature of Man which Nature in such a Tradition improved with such circumstances cannot have the least inclination or inducement to deliver or propagate to posterity so general an Vntruth N. 4 3ly That an infallible assent is said in a Divine Faith to be yielded to Divine Revelation or Gods word as well by Protestants as Catholicks See Archbishop Lawd p. 360. where he saith That A. C. concludes well that an infallible certainty is necessary for that one faith which is necessary to salvation And of that faith saith he amost infallible certainty we have already in the Scripture the Creeds c And again see p. 330. where he saith I believe the entire Scripture infallibly and by a Divine infallibility am sure of my object and below that he is infallibly assured of his Creed So that if hence any difficulties press the Catholicks in the Resolution of Faith how they come to yield an infallible assent thereto the same do the Protestants Now by such infallible assent asserted by both I say may either be meant N. 5 1. An Assent grounded on the Infallibility that the forenamed Tradition affords being the greatest self-evident testimony of a thing past as of that which our Lord and his Apostles did said or writ that can be had except Miracles Of the infallibility of which Tradition thus the Archbishop ‖ p. 124. A man may be assured nay infallibly assured by Ecclesiastical and Humane proof Men that never saw Rome may be sure and infallibly believe that such a City there is by Historical and acquired faith And in the next page Certain it is saith he that by humane authority consent and proof a man may be assured infallibly that Scripture is the word of God N. 6 2. Or by infallible Assent is meant an Assent yielded to an Object that as being Gods owne word is believed to be most supremely Infallible and immutable As the Archbishops words seem to explain themselves where he saith †p. 86. That Faith is an evidence as well as knowledge and the belief is firmer than any knowledge can be because it rests upon Divine authority which cannot deceive And so Dr Potter ‖ p. 199. The assent of Faith is more certain if it be possible than that of Sense or Science or Demonstration because it rests on Divine Authority which cannot possibly deceive And as some Catholicks also explain themselves when they say that no Divine Faith without an infallible assent i.e. an assent to an object that is most infallible Gods Word not without a Proponent or Expositor of the sense of this Word where ambiguous that is also really infallible And thus they say the illiterate and vulgar sort among Catholicks are infallible in the assent they give to the Articles of their Faith not formally by an infallible knowledge or certainty that the thing or person they believe is so true or infallible but materially by their adherence to that which is a reall truth who therefore from the Object of their Faith Gods Word and the Proponent of the sense of
it where disputed viz. the Church being both infallible are alwayes actually preserved from erring in their Faith though all such persons are not infallibly certain either of the Object of their faith that it is Gods Word or of the Proponent that he is not liable to errour whilst on the other side a Protestant having or believing no such certain and infallible Guide in the Sense of doubtful Scriptures and following his own judgment in the interpretation of them either actually errs in some part of his Faith or casually hits right and fluctuates to and fro the same man as he meets with several arguments differing from himself and one from another in those matters wherein all Subjects to the Church's Authority are agreed To which purpose a late Adversary of the Doctor 's perceiving him to mistake the meaning of Catholicks in the former proposition explains himself in Errour Non-plust p. 133. 139. 143. c. the same Author mean while affirming that all Catholicks may be and that the learned are formally infallible in their assent to the object of their faith i.e. have an infallible certainty of the Infallibility both of the Scripture and the Proponent thereof viz. from Tradition the evidence of which Tradition is accounted by him to be impossible to be false but so also it is as to this Author's sense of impossible by Archbishop Lawd p. 124. but now cited And perhaps Infallible Assent thus taken by Catholicks in a various sense occasions the Dr's apprehending in them contradictions N. 7 3 Or by this infallible Assent may be meant an Assent in respect of the Subject having a Certitude of Adhesion to the matters believed exceeding that to a Science according to that of Biâ—l cited by the Archbishop ‖ p. 75. Scientia certior est certitudine evidentiae fides verò certior firmitate adhaesionis Majus lumen in scientiâ majus robur in fide N. 8 Now How proper these expressions be in the explaining of an infallible Assent and whether these two laâ—t Notions are not coincident I meddle not But however it be by such infallible assent is never meant an assent grounded on any absolutely-infallible Testimony that the Revelation is Divine transcending that of Tradition and equalling that believed infallibility of the Church the Church I mean as assisted by the Holy Ghost and as its infallibility as to necessaries is one of the Articles of our Faith or equalling that believed infallibility of the Scriptures Which Testimony were there any such absolutely infallible must either be proved by other Testimonies of an equal weight in infinirum or must rest in some one that is a per se notum I say an infallible assent so grounded Catholicks pretend not nor need pretend to The Church in necessaries the Holy Scriptures in all things are believed are affirmed to be infallible by an infallibility cui non potest subesse falsum because believed Divine Revelation and so are adhered-to as such by a firmer and constanter assent than Sense or science causeth but are not need not to be infallibly known to be so as to any rational or demonstrative evidence by any infallibility transcending that of the forementioned Tradition whereever Miracles do not intervene Which infallibility or certainty of Tradition is abundantly sufficient to render and represent the Christian the moâ—t rational Religion in the world N. 9 This that no other precedent Testimony is necessary for proving the Infallibility of the Church as it is effectually assisted by the Holy Ghost in necessaries than that of Tradition But neither do Catholicks affirm it necessary that every one for a Divine or saving Faith have that certainty of faith that Tradition affords And to see that this is no Paradox among Catholicks I referr the Reader to what F. Bacon hath said of it in his Analysis Fidei extracted out of other Catholick Authors Disp 3. c. 7. and 8. Though it is affirmed necessary in the Catholick Church that It always have a most rational and certain proof of the truth of the Christian Faith and such as no other false or Heretical Religion can equall N. 10 4ly That notwithstanding such a sufficient rational assurance and actual certainty in Tradition and so in the infallibility of the Scriptures too as to the most part of the Canon thereof sufficiently attested by the same Tradition Yet remains there still a great necessity also of the Infallibility in the Governours of the Church so assisted by the Holy Ghost as never to err in Necessaries upon a manifold account N. 11 Because though many are yet all Points of Faith are not delivered and transferred to Posterity by the forementioned Tradition in their express and explicit termes but some have only descended in their Principles the necessary Deductions from which are by this Infallible Church extracted and vindicated from age to age against those dangerous errours that may happen to assault them Again Because though this Tradition is also assisted or improved with the Infallible Scriptures for a compleater direction in the Christian Faith yet are not all Credends and Agends so clearly delivered in these Scriptures as that Christians the illiterate especially and plebeians have no need of such an Interpreter thereof as may not mistake or misguide them in any such necessary Agends or Credends To which unlearned persons though it is said not to be necessary that they be infallibly certain of the truth of that which they believe and therefore Church-Infallibility cannot be said necessary as to them upon this account yet it is necessary to them that in such points where one of the two contradictories is of necessary faith it be truth that they believe and hence necessary also that the Proponent thereof be infallible as to all such points And it is here observable that though in the Descent of Tradition the Congregatio fidelium when it first delivers to a person the Infallibility of Church and of Scripture appears not to him as yet absolutely infallible Yet indeed as to delivering necessaries it then and always is so For this Congregatio fidelium in every age that testifies such things It or some part of it is the very same Body that is promised by our Lord his perpetual assistance and is preserved for ever by Gods Spirit and Providence from erring in Necessaries 3 Again Because the same Church-Infallibility is necessary as to other Controversies so also to those if any happen concerning the Canon of Scripture so far as any part thereof hath hapned in some times not to have had in all parts of Christianity so clear a current of Tradition 4 Because after this point of Church-Infallibility is once established and confirmed by such Tradition one may hence sooner and easilier learn his faith from her plain definitions and proposals thereof than from Tradition much dispersed abroad whereby its uniformity is the harder to be discerned or from the Scriptures in several points not so perspicuous and so the
necessitated thereto for the reason given before Ibid. N. 7. Now if this Being of a true Church or a member of the Catholick be stated as it ought or as Dr Field l. 2. c. 2. and l. 4. c. 2. hath stated it it must be affirmed that these Churches being allowed members of the Catholick have hitherto never fallen into any Heresy N. 5 This Plea of N. O. I desire may be applied by the Reader to the Dr's Discourse so often as he questions such a sense of these Scriptures and Promises of our Lord or such a Tradition and that the Reader would well examine what satisfaction he finds from the Answers the Dr hath here returned to it Which former practice of Church and Councils if once allowed Chillingworâ—h ‖ p. 200. saw pressed so far for Church-Infallibility and a proportionable Obedience to it that as N. O. hath observed in his Preface he plainly declares That what warrant the Fathers of the Church in after times to the Apostles had to oblige others to receive their Declarations under pain of damnation which they did he knew not and that he that can shew either that the Câ—urch of all ages was to have this authority or that it continued in the Church for some ages and then expired this because some Protestants amongst whom this Dr would willingly submit to four or five of the first Councils for which yet Chillingworth could see no just reason why such Post-Apostolick Authority for some time admitted should not be so always he that can shew either of these things saith he let him for my part I cannot He goes on Yet I willingly confess the Judgment of a Council though not infallible yet so far directive and obliging that without apparent reasâ—n to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to afford is an outward submission for publick peace sake Where the words though not infallible shew that he held the practice of former Councils disallowed by him clearly inferred Infallibility the thing N. O. urgeth Mean while whatever satisfaction he may find for either opinion here debated the Reader may observe that both from Scripture and Tradition N. O. contends for the Infallibility of General Councils in Necessaries and accordingly requires Submission of judgment to their Definitions the Dr opposeth it and the Reader hath also just cause to think there is some reason and interest in the two Religions of N. O. and of Dr St. and Mr Chillingworth for this defence made by the one and Opposition by the other and lastly any plebeian may discern what are the two necessary effects of the submission of private mens judgments to General Councils as such or withdrawing it from them as not such viz. Vnity and Division Pag. 113. l. 19. How easily might all the contentions of the Christian world have been prevented if Christ had said c. We must not prescribe to God but humbly leave to him the way how he shall be pleased to manifeâ—t his Will to us sure to be one way or other sufficiently made known by the clearness of his Scriptures 1 Cor. 11.19 or expositions of his Church For also Oportet esse haereses ut qui probati sum manifesti fiant Would not the Creed of Pius 4. or the 39. Articles of the Church of England delivered by our Lord or his Apostles have prevented many Controversies now extant See in the former Discourse § 1. Pag. 115. l. 5 If this point viz. of an infallible Judge be not clearly proved we are never the nearer an end of controversies c. Yes If such an unappealable Judge be proved as none may oppose or reform against Ib. l. 18. Let them if they can produce one clear Text c. I referr to the Texts forementioned ‖ Note on p. 113. l. 14. numb 4. interpreted by the common practice of Councils and of the Church in all ages grounded upon the traditive understanding them in such a sâ—nse Annotations on his §. 7. The Arguments from Scripture for Infallibility PAg. 116. l. 1. When I came thus prepared to find whâ—t the Considerator would produce in a matter of such consequence I soâ—n discerned how little mind he had c. N. O. â—s not obliged to say every thing in every place This Author will needs transform N. O's brief Considerations on his Principles into a set Discourse of Infallibility and then shew its Defectiveness as such One would think if he had not the reputation of a learned man done on purpose to divert his Reader from any other matters that are debated there by N. O and to release himself from prosecuting the necessary vindication of his own Principles from the several deficiencies charged on them in the Considerations Ib. l. 10. But however this Deut 17.10 is thought so considerable as to be twice produced Upon our Authors mentioning the clearness of Gods Law given to Moses N. O. mentioned these Judges also appointed to expound it and the one is twice repeated because the other twice urged Ib. l. 13. It is so unlucky as it proves the Judges in Westminster Hall to be infallible Of this Comparison of the Sanhedrim to the Judges in Westminster Hall and how the great causes between Church and Church are fit to be handled there ‖ See his Epist Dedicatory let our Author if he can give a just account These Judges were appointed by God to decide the true Sense of the Law not of Princes but of God given to Moses and all persons obliged to acquiesce in the sense they gave of it and to do and forbear to practise as they fallible or infallible stated such matter to be commanded or prohibited by it and that upon pain of death This Obedience let Protestants yield to lawful General Councils more is not desired Ib. l. 11 Doth this imply infallibility No that he dares not stand to but absolute obedience I think the Dr grants here the people yielded absolute obedience to these Judges i. e I suppose assent to their sentence deciding to them what was the true sense of Gods Law which is all N. O. presseth and indeed unless they first yielding this the people could not lawfully act whatever these Judges commanded Do the people then the same to the Judges in Westminster i.e. hold themselves obliged to do whatever these tell them is lawful or commanded I mean by God's law Let him review here what he hath said in his Rational Account if he pleaseth p. 239. to the contrary allowing an obligation to submission or acquiescence but not an obligation in conscience and if he please too that which Mr Chillingworth ‖ c. 2. §. 17. hath observed of the difference between a Civil and Ecclesiastical Judge Viz. that in civil controversies we are obliged only to external passive obedience and not to an internal and active We are bound to obey the sentence of the Judge or not to resist it but not always
same kinds as were some of those at least that were done by the Apostles and our Lord himself viz. by which Devils have been cast out the blinde received their sight lame have walked lepers been cleansed deaf heard Dead been raised up And this for many good ends though the Conversion of Infidels or Atheists that in all times more or fewer ly hidden within the Church of God be not numbred amongst them As for the Confirmation of the Catholick Faith against Hereticks and Schismaticks Or for attestation of the Sanctity of those who work such Miracles for others imitation of their mortifications and vertues or for the more visible testimony of Gods Presence in the Church and the encouragement of Prayer to him and Faith in him and expecting help from him in all manner of occurrences and necessities and the like And for a proof of the Continuance of such Miracles still in the Church even when and where Christianity already was firmly rooted and established N.O. made choice for an Instance of that Relation in S. Austin De Civ Dei lib. 22. cap. 8. of the very many true Miraracles in these kinds he himself had known and seen in his own days and Diocess Of which he there saith Si miracula sanitatum ut alia taccam ea tantummodo velim scribere quae per hunc Martyrem id est gloriosissimum Stephanum facta sunt in Coloniâ Calamensi in nostrâ plurimi conficiendi sunt libri And Nondum est biennium ex quo apud Hipponem Regium caepit esse ista memoria multis quod nobis certissimum est non datis libellis de ijs quae mirabiliter facta sunt illi ipsi qui dati sunt ad septuaginta fermè numerum pervenerant quando ista conscripsi Calamae verò ubi ipsa memoria prius esse caepit crebrius dantur incredibili multitudine superant Vzalietiam quae Colonia Vticae vicina est multa praeclara per eundem Martyrem facta cognovimus Many of which Miracles were of the same kinds as those done by our Lord and his Apostles many Blind restored to sight besides him at Millain the Infirm in all sorts of inveterate and irrecoverable diseases miraculously cured evil Spirits ejected both out of Persons and Houses and many Dead also restored to life the Father mentions of these last some six or seven Which Miracles he hath collected in that Chapter being first clearly evidenced to him and of which he caused to be drawn up publick Bills or Records and Memorials to be recited to the people imitated in this by the Church-Governors in latter times Id namque fieri voluimus saith he ‖ Ibid. cùm videremus antiquis similia divinarum signa virtutum etiam nostris temporibus frequentari Where our Author ‖ See Dr St. 2. Disc c. 3. of Miracles p. 578. finds signa or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this long after Julian was destroyed and where there were some Hereticks perhaps but no Pagans to behold or be converted by them Which Frequency of so great Miracles within the compass of so small a time if seemed convenient to the Dr in that Discourse ‖ p. 585. to pass over in silence and to discover to his Reader no more than the cure of one blind man at Millan a Cancer a Fistula and two shaking persons in Affrica and then to conclude that S. Austin confesseth they were neither for number nor quality to be compared with Christ's and his Apostles N. O had reason then to be loth to part with Miracles in the Church for the times that followed the Apostles and to be loth to part with them as well for the latter as the former times if these Miracles equally evidenced in both and especially also when there is no reason pretendable after the Christian Religion formerly planted in such Churches for these done in the former that doth not as well sute to the latter ages N. 3 Neither ought the proving of several Miracles whether Ancient or Modern to have been feigned for what gains credit is apt to be so or also vain and ridiculous for several when feigned by the vulgar are so which also are both granted and discovered to be so by Catholicks to sway any so much as from thence to draw a Conclusion either that none at all of latter times related in Saint's Lives or other Church-History are true and sufficiently testified or that being true they do not sufficiently serve the turn which the rest that are falsified for all the Ends forenamed And thus only it seems could this * Enquiry into Rom. Miracles Author have written to the purpose in that long discourse of his if he had shewed none of the Miracles pretended in the Roman Church to have been sufficiently attested or equally to those of Antiquity which he allows or none to have been of the same kind with our Lord's and his Apostles and so not these where frequently done to have manifestly testified as theirs did the truth of the Religion that is in such a society professed And again * if he had shewed the many Catholick Authors he cites to have complained not of some but a general falsification of the Miracles occurring in the Records of latter times I say thus this Author had written something to the purpose But here the mischief is that all these Catholick Authors quoted by him do maintain a continuance of true Miracles to some degree and as to some persons still in the Church and as they inveigh against the fraud and forgery of some so stand up as much for the truth and certainty of others and out of their affection to the credit of the one do so much endeavour to sever from them and crush and suppress the other Ib. l. 4. All the Miracles pretended among them signify nothing to our present purpose unless these miracles give evidence of the authority and infallibility of those by whom they were done Here I say First that there is no necessity of evidencing now the Church's Authority or Infallibility by Miracles 2ly That true Miracles I mean such as our Lord and his Apostles did the giving sight to the blind raising the dead c especially if there be considered a like frequency and proof or evidence of them are done only in the Catholick Church where also the Frequency of them produceth that firm belief by the satisfaction and conviction of many persons by some or other of these miracles that are either seen by them or by such as were present are confirmed to them which belief some single Facts in other false Religions that are rarely pretended to be done and in some remote times and so are destitute of any such evidence of attestation or discovery of their truth cannot effect And that such Miracles as these are not done for any end whatever elswhere by Heathens or by Hereticks For if such Miracles no way
seek to pervert the Catholick doctrine and to wrest the plain places of Scripture which deliver it so far from their proper meaning that very few ordinary capacities may be able to clear themselves of such mists as are cast before their eyes the sense of the Catholick Church in succeeding ages may be a very useful way for us to embrace the true sense of Scriptures especially in the great Articles of the Christian Faith As for instance in the doctrine of the Deity of Christ or the Trinity After which N.O. adds there that the Dr instead of saying the sense of the Catholick Church in succeeding ages may be a very useful way for us might have said is very necessary for us if his cause would permit him and that the Socinian would thank him for this his mitigation Ib. l. 11. The fraud and imposture of the confident pretenders to infallibility Viz. Of lawful General Councils Ib. l. 12. Which is the reason c. They speak evil of Dignities Jude v. 8. Ib. l. 5 I confess I have seen nothing like the first evidence yet It is set down in the precedent page in these words ‖ Princ. Consid p. 38 We may learn first this supernatural divine assistance and Infallibility of these Governours which is made known by Divine Revelation to those first persons who communicate it to posterity from Tradition descending from age to age in such manner at the Protestant saith he learns his Canon of Scripture from Tradition To which Tradition also may be committed by our Lord or his Apostles whatever is to Scripture Perhaps His falling into a Fit of drollery here made him oversee it Pag. 127. l. 5. What are its weapons See before Note on p. 113. l. 14. n. 4. Pag. 128. l. 3. It is I suppose agreed on both sides that the Tradition on which we receive and believe the Scriptures to be the word of God was universal as to all ages and times No. Not so universal as to all parts of the Canon Ib. l. 14. Let any thing like this be produced for the infallibility of the Guides of their Church i.e. for the Infallibility of lawful General Councils for N.O. the Considerator treats of no other and often mentions this and we will yield up the cause to them See then what is produced concerning this before Note on p. 113. l. 14. N. 1 Ib.l. 7 The only argument c. That which our Author alledgeth here the Councils anathematizing dissenters and the Church's stiling them Hereticks upon it is only a piece divided from the rest of what N.O. pressed N. O's words are these urged by him with application to the Dr's 17. Principle and without designing any set Discourse on Church-Infallibility ‖ Prineip Consid p. 39 That the Governours of the Church who having an apparent succession from our Lord and his Commission known by Tradition their testimony must have been unquestionably believed by Christians in what they taught in case there had been no Scripture always reputed and held themselves divinely assisted and infallible for all necessaries and that this was the traditive faith of the Church grounded on our Lord's Promise in all ages sufficiently appears by their inserting from time to time as they thought fit their Decisions in the Creeds and by their anathematizing dissenters and the Church's stiling them Hereticks ever after upon it For that no authority if we believe the Dr but that which proves it self infallible and therefore which is infallible can justly require our internal assent or submission of judgment And that the Protestants their allowing only an external obedience or silence due to Councils fallible inferrs that Councils fallible can justly require no more and consequently that such Councils are infallible as do justly require more as did the four first Councils with the voluntary acknowledgment also and submission of their subjects to such an authority assumed by them N. 2 After which it follows to prevent this reply here of the Dr's We find indeed subordinate Councils also stating somtimes matteâ—s of Faith censuring Hereticks and requiring assent to their Decrees but still with relation to the same Infallibility residing in the General Body of Church-Governours and their concurrence therein They not passing such Acts without consulting the Tradition and Judgment of other Churches and especially of the Apostolick See and a general acceptation rendring such their Decisions authentick and valid To which may be added what N.O. said before Consid p. 32. where the words of the Dr mentioned here are quoted more at large We see saith N.O. what kind of Obedience it was that the first four General Councils exacted in the Athanasian Creed which contains the sum of their Decrees viz. no less than assent and belief and submission of judgment and all this upon penalty of damnation And this if justly required by them inferrs upon the Dr's arguing their Infallibility For saith he ‖ Rat. Account p. 506 where Councils challenge an internal assent by vertue of their Decrees or because their decrees are in themselves infallible there must be first proved an impossibility of errour in them before any can look on themselves as obliged to give it Here the Dr passeth by several things urged by N.O. of which see the former Disc § 69. and invades only this part General Councils their anathematizing dissenters and pronouncing them Hereticks as he expresseth it though N.O. spoke of the Church always afterwards stiling such Dissenters from the Councils Decrees Hereticks The Doctors words here are 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 Church's Infallibility and they the Catholicks had no way to answer it but by saying this doth not imply their Infallibility Where he quotes in the margin Bellarm de Coucil l. 2. c. 10. N. 3 To which I have replyed in the former Disc § 65. c. and I think fit here to repeat at least some part thereof to give the Reader the lesse trouble by making frequent References First in general that I do not understand what it is that our Authour would maintain here against N.O. Is it this that neither anathematizing Dissenters nor the Councils putting their Decrees in the Churches Creeds nor the Church Catholick's afterward esteeming those Hereticks that dissented from these Councils are a sufficient evidence or proof that these Councils at least and also the Church accounted themselves Infallible in these their Decrees What could the most Infallible Judge do or exact more Doth not he below †See p. 113. blame the Roman Church for assuming such an Infallibility to her self in requiring such a belief of her Additional Articles defined in Trent as of the most fundamental Articles
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 See the Scriptures declaring Church-Infallibility as to Necessaries and commanding obedience to it cited before in Note on p. 113. l. 14. The Scriptures that prohibit worshiping of Images do so of any Creature in heaven earth or under it but meane a Divine and Soveraign Worship of them not such a Worship as we say is lawfully given to Men or veneration as is given to Sacred Things Temples Altars Gospels c. He goes on Ib. l. 5. That we must pray with understanding Therefore are all publick Formes of Prayer that are thought necessary for the vulgar by Catholicks translated and published in the vulgar tongue and by those who can read communicated to others Ib. l. 6. That we must keep to our Saviours Institution of the Lords Supper Surely no Precept obligeth us to our Lords Institution or Practice in every thing not in communicating after Supper Sitting at table taking it into our hands washing of feet before it nor in communicating always in both kinds a thing sufficiently cleared by the practice of Antiquity and purest times which on several occasions and that where no absolute necessity gave it in one kind only believing our Lord's Body and Blood to be received in any one Species Now where a Divine Precept obligeth the contrary Practice in no time would be lawful The Eastern Churches also for the same reason as the West viz to prevent the many abuses and irreverences that have hapned since Christianity so exceedingly populous communicate the people not by their eating our Lord's Body and drinking his Blood apart but by giving them both these together taken out of the Chalice with a little Spoon and so putting it into their mouths and think herein they transgress no Precept So Jo. 6.53 is not understood as a precept extending to all for so it would to Infants Nor that Jo. 13.14 Or Jam. 5.14.15 Or Matt. 6.17 5.34 and such like Ib. l. 7. But if any Guides of a Church pretend to an authority to evacuate the force of these the Divine Laws c. Evacuate i.e. in the sense you take them in standing to no certain Judge concerning this sense Ib. l. 15. If they require things contrary to a direct command of God Contrary i.e. in your mistaken private judgment Ib. l. 18. If they the Guides can prove us mistaken we yield No surely Your own soberest Writers say you are to obey and submit your judgment to that of your Guides except you can prove and that demonstratively and that demonstration such as is allowed by all rational persons them to be mistaken Ib. l. 8 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 obeyed And will not then those also be so plain as that no Church-Authority will determine the contrary This granted then that there are points of faith so plain yet it is contended that none wherein General Councils require our obedience are contradictory to any such plain point of faith How can that be maintained by any a plain truth to the common reason of mankind which a General Council and a major part of the Church accepting this Council denies as false And if it be said that passions and interests blind men we ought to imagine they do so private men or our selves sooner than General Councils In this 7th Proposition p. 149. what hath our Author said in defence of his Religion against Church-Authority that a Socinian or Arian may not say for his Pag. 152. l. 12. These Guides of the Church have declared each other to be fallible by condemning their opinions and practices Lawful General Councils have not condemned the opinions of one another And what former Councils have been held for lawfully General where any doubt is made it is fit private men should learne from their present supreme Ecclesiastical Guides Those Councils urged for this contradiction by Protestants are either Particular against General Councils or Councils stiled General that are not allowed to be so by the judgment of the present Church Catholick Or those definitions of them to contradict which do not in the foresaid judgment or opinions commonly-received only in some age urged for such defined Ib. l. 18. Suppose a man Living in the times of the prevalency of Arianisme when almost all the Guides of the Church declared in favour of it Arianisme at no time prevailed upon a greater part of the Church or its Governours That of S. Jerome Ingemuit totus orbis miratus est se esse Arianum only signifies that the whole Catholick world wondred that its Decree which passed in the great Council at Ariminum was interpreted by the Arian party which was favoured by the Emperour quite contrary to its meaning Doth the Dr as yet doubt of this He goes on Ib. l. ult Must he adhere to the Nicene Council but there were more numerous Councils which condemned it Yes he must Because those Arian Councils if any more numerous for the Bishops that were present in them Whereas there were but a very few of the Western Bishops present in the Council of Nice yet had not so general an acceptation especially in the Occidental Churches As for any illiterate vulgar that have not a sufficient means of distinguishing lawful General Councils from others not so that contradict them they are excused by their invincible ignorance till further light for any non-conformity to their Decrees And generally where any dispute concerning the authority of a Council is private men may so long suspend their obedience to their decrees till a sufficiently general acceptation or reprobation of such Councils by the Church-Governours and the Bishop of the Apostolick See of the same or the succeeding times have cleared such difficulty But such a general Acceptation and confirmation of this Council of Nice was manifest immediately after the sitting thereof And of this those who made any doubt ought to have informed themselves better But meanwhile by this Question doth not this Authour fairly free a Socinian from any obedience due to the decree of the Nicene Council concerning Consubstantiality Pag. 153. l. 4. Liberius went so far that Hilary denounced an Anathema against him N. 1 and all that joined with him The Relation in which this passage is found is none of S. Hilary's See thereasons given by Baronius A. D. 357. The Historians of those times differ in their Records concerning Liberius some speaking more favourable of him than others The Syrmian Confession subscribed by him may be taken in an orthodox sense and it is justified as such by S. Hilary ‖ De Synod And if he communicated only with such a party as those called Semi-Arians who joined with him in this profession though understood by them in a sense
different from his his fault seems hereby much extenuated as that of some Catholick Bishops doing the like after the Council of Ariminum was by S. Jerome See his Dialog adversus Luciferianos But however Liberius might miscarry no prudent Catholicks could then deliberate Whether they were to follow the judgment of him a single Pope rather than of a preceding Pope and a lawful General Council I mean that of Nice N. 2 Meanwhile by the following discourse in this Author here for twenty pages together we see notwithstanding what he had said before p. 148. That Protestants profess a great reverence c. to General Councils and reject the ancient heresies condemned in them And 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 these contradict them we see I say what way his Interest chiefly carries him in raking into the same Antiquity he so commends with great diligence even in the times of the first four or five General Councils to expose any Contradictions he can find in these times so to the common view as to reduce men drawn off from obedience to their Guides to the use and direction of their own Judgments perusing the Scriptures as the Socinians do for what tenent they shall rather hold in our Lords Consubstantiality with the Father after the Decision of Nice and. in the Two Natures and One Person of our Lord after the Definitions of Ephesus and Chalcedon telling us that neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was settled by the one nor the Two Natures and One Person by the other so but that the Guides of the Church after these Councils contradicted one another And meanwhile What advice saith he speaking of the times after the Council of Nice †p. 152. would N.O. give to a private man if he must not exercise his own judgment and compare both the doctrines by the Rule of Scriptures And ‖ p. 153. What remedy saith he 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 Thus he after the setling of such doctrines by these General Councils Which if he speaks of persons suspending their judgments only during such time till there is a sufficient evidence of the supremacy and Legality of such a Council is not denied him But if he speaks of all times after the legal authority of such a Council is cleared as that of Nice immediatly was which only makes to his purpose all then are to yield submission of judgment to its decrees See Note on page 144. l. 9. and 11. And this eager agitating and pressing the differences and contradictions in Antiquity disclosing their infirmities and oppositions whilst Catholicks endeavour to unite and to reconcile them doth it not argue a party that is much pinched if I say not the Decrees and sanctions of the present but of the Ancient Church-Authority be maintained N. 3 An exact Review hereof our Authors Stories wherein he knows several Roman Writers much differ from him freeing both Liberius and Honorius from Heresy and wherein it is very difficult for any from his or my relations without examining many other Authors to discern the truth sutes not well with these short Notes and would be in discussing so many particularities very tedious to the Reader and lastly seems a needless task For 1 for the Infallibility of Popes the great Common place of Protestants and which he brings here into the dispute as one would think but that more may be expected from his Ingenuity that so in the great dust he raiseth about it he might run away from the direct matter of the Considerations it is a thing wholy declined by N. O nor is there a word of it in all his Considerations nor is he necessitated by any Position of his to defend it and I think Bellarmine in the discussion of it grants that if no Pope ever yet hath been a Pope possibly may be an Heretick N. 4 2 Next for the Question When Councils and Popes oppose and contradict one another which of these Guides Christians are to obey It is answered That submission of judgment is only required to such Decrees when these two are first united and agreed and I think our Author will not be offended at it if till such time Christians as to those points that are in debate between these two are lest to their liberty if Protestants will submit to the Decisions of such former Councils wherein there hath been no such opposition more is not required And in any contradiction that may happen between a General Council already confirmed by the See Apostolick and any succeeding Pope if any such difference should be the former Decree of a Pope joined with a General Council will doubtless prescribe to any contrary one of a Pope single Lastly If the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon were not generally submitted to and so as to some Party were ineffectual for the suppression of the heresies they condemned yet ought they to have been so admitted and obeyed by all after that their Decrees have received a sufficient validity from their being accepted by a much major part of the Church and confirmed by the Bishop of Rome and I hope our Author will not deny this lest Christians totter still in some of the Articles of the Athanasian Crâ—ied This said here I hope may save me some labour in respect of that which follows trusting the ingenuous Reader with the application P. 156. l. 6 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 He is obliged to follow the judgment of the Church-Guides in such a Council after a sufficient Acceptation of it by the Church Catholick diffusive and confirmation of the See Apostolick As this Fifth Council had after some time by Vigilius and his Successors and by the Sixth Council Act. 17. and 18. and in after times both by the Greek and Latin Church in the Council of Florence Sess 5. at Ferrara And till such Confirmation or Acceptation appeared a private man might suspend his judgment or hold what to him might seem most probable concerning the Tria-Capitula their agreeing or disagreeing with the Doctrine and faith of the Council of Calcedon to the Definition of which both the differing Parties willingly consented whilst one endeavoured that the errour of such particular persons here concerned might no way prejudice the doctrine of that Council the other that the persons whom after some former errours this Council had approved might not be afterward condemned Pag. 163. l. 12. And after these to anathematize Honorius as agreeing in all things with Sergius and confirming his
differing about Rebaptization from other Christian Churches were observing their subordination to submit to the judgment of a Council Oecumenical A private man then where are many different Churches and Communions ought to consider under what particular Governours he liveth and in what manner they are subordinate to others and accordingly in any differences happening about points which he is not at leisure to study or hath not capacity to understand or after study is not certain on any side to yield his obedience and submit his judgment to the Superiours As in England a division happening in the Clergy thereof I suppose our Author would advise one that thus doubts in a point controverted in case the Parson of his Parish opposeth the Bishop of the Diocese or this Bishop all the other Bishops of the Province or of the Nation to submit to the judgment of the Bishop or of the Provincial or National Synod rather than to his Parson And that He would not enjoin such private person or tell him he is obliged for the settling of his judgment to study the whole Controversy debated between such Parson and his Bishop to collate their arguments and then make himself Judge at least for himself which of them is in the right wherein also should it be done the incapacity of the man or also his passion or interest on one side may easily misguide him and he fare much worse by his liberty than his obedience And this thing seems also intended by the National Synod of England in their drawing up the 39. Articles they say for taking away Diversity of Opinion which thing they do not there pretend to effect * by their confuting with arguments satisfactory to their subjects all those opinions they there disallow for no such satisfaction is offered no such thing is done by them but * by the submitting of their subjects not skilled in such matters nor certain of the contrary to their Judgment as the Supreme of this National Church N. 2 The same then let any doubting person do in any higher division and opposition of Metropolitan Churches suppose in the Western Patriarchy wherein he lives Let him examine which is the most Vniversal Body of them which the most dignified Persons and submit to their Guidance which as it is more safely relyed on may be easilier examined than the Controversies and indeed is a case clear and obvious enough to the most of men And as for others their invincible ignorance it is hoped may excuse their errour Where also let such a person consider whether such Councils as are assembled of most of the National Churches in the West joined with the Patriarch of it and deciding the many points disputed in these Western parts are not to be submitted-to by all private persons not certain of the contrary to their Decisions as how should they be so before a National only of the English Bishops especially if these opposing them in those things wherein for the most part the Eastern Churches also agree with them And if any here for standing out against this major authority should plead Certainty on his side as Archbishop Lawd and others do then let him consider how few there are among Christians so well seen in all these Controversies themselves as to withdraw their obedience on this account whilst it seems agreed that all others ought leaving these Certainists by themselves to conform to the Decrees of the Superiour Courts Ib. l. 10 What then makes those Churches the Eastern to be left out in our enquiries after the Guides of the Catholick Church How orthodox and Catholick soever the Eastern Churches may be one living in the Western Church owes no Canonical subjection or obedience to them whose whole care it ought to be to pay it where it is due according to the forementioned subordination which done he cannot miscarry as to all necessary Faith But however I think Dr St. might have spared the Description and proposal of these to a Protestants choice by reason of their many tenents in the Points controverted and particularly in those of Transubstantiation and the Idolatry of Images and Invocation of Saints agreeing with or also some of them more disliked than the Roman Pag. 174. l. 9 Now of these five parts four of them Nestorians Eutychians Greeks and Protestant Churches are all agreed that there is no necessity of living in subjection to the Guides of the Roman Church As they are agreed so it is granted For Example that the Metropolitan Church of England owes no subjection to the Metropolitan Church of Rome nor to the Pope as the Metropolitan thereof And the other three owe him no subjection neither as he is Patriarch of the West but the fourth doth and yielded it together with other Occidental Churches till of late But meanwhile the Eastern Churches are agreed that they owe all subjection and submission of judgment to the Definitions of lawful General Councils and on this account render it to the 2d Nicene and that these Councils are infallible in them for which see what is cited in the precedent Discourse § 56. And from the determination of these Councils do the same Churches entertain several Opinions rejected by Protestants Ib. l. 3. Only those of the Church of Rome take upon themselves against all sense and reason to be the Catholick Church and so exclude four parts of five out of a capacity of salvation The Roman Church confesseth it self a particular Church and only a part of the Catholick Nor doth it exclude any other Churches from being true parts thereof save those which are Heretical or Schismatical both which Hereticks and Schismaticks I think learned Protestants exclude also from being members of the Catholick Church See Dr Field l. 4. c. 2. That the Visible Church he means Catholick never falleth into Heresy we most willingly grant And l. 1. c. 7. The name of Orthodox Church is applied to distinguish right-believing Christians from Hereticks the name of the Catholick Church men holding the Faith in unity from Schismaticks Nor doth the Roman Church deny in such Heretical or Schismatical Churches a capacity or possibility of salvation to all generally but only as I think Protestants also do to those among them that are formerly guilty of the crimes of Heresy or Schisme because indeed either of these is a mortal sin and so unrepented of excluding from salvation Lastly Heretical the Roman Church with all Antiquity takes those to be that maintain the contrary to any known Definition in a matter of faith of a lawful General Council and Schismatical those that upon any cause whatever do separate from the Communion of the present Church Catholick and their true Superiour Ecclesiastical Guides Pag. 175. l. 11. When he finds so many Churches and those not inferiour to the Roman Church in any thing save only in pomp pride and uncharitableness Eph. 4.31 And evil-speaking be put away from you Et blasphemia tollatur a vobis cum omni
malitiâ Ib. l. 13. All saith He opposing Infallibility in it In the Church of Rome but not in the Church Catholick which or whereever it be He proceeds Ib. l. 15. 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 Persons and Churches are to submit only to their lawful Canonical Superiours Persons or Councils And so are to avoid such Persons or Churches as these do declare Heretical or Schismatical whom they come to know or are to believe to be so from such Declaration without a necessity of studying the particular Controversies the Supreme Court of which Superiours a General Council of these Church-Guides cannot misguide them in any thing necessary to be known and the Decrees also of others inferiour though fallible yet in all prudence are to be obeyed and believed wherever themselves have no Certainty of the contrary It follows Ib. l. 11. If any one goes about to assign a reason by charging them with Heresy or Schisme He unavoidably makes him Judge of some of the greatest difficulties in Religion before he can submit to his infallible Guides No. For by other ways forementioned ‖ See Note on p. 173. l. 5 a private person comes to know his true Guides and Superiours and from them learns what is and what persons are guilty of Heresy and Schisme Else all men must turn Students in Divinity or know nothing of Heresy or Schisme He proceeds Ib. l. 7 He must know what Nestorianisme Eutychianisme Monothelisme mean This being supposed that all Heresies and Schisms are to be avoided by all good Christians I see not without dependence on our Guides for knowing these but that all Protestants are obliged by this Author to take the course he here sets down through two or three pages Let him consider better on it Unless he will make all Heresy and Schisme manifest to all men learned or unlearned upon the vertue of his 13th Principle Pag. 177. l. 6. All these things a man must fully be satisfied in before he can pronounce those Churches guilty of Heresy and so not to be followed See Note on p. 175. l. 10 Ib. l. 10. Why must the Greek Church which embraces all the Councils which determined those subtle controversies be rejected The Greeks embracing these Councils may lawfully be rejected for Heresy if opposing what other like Councils have defined and so may the Protestants or yet either of these if guilty of Schisme Ib. l. 12 Here a man must examine the notes of the Church c. i.e. Examine some Indications and marks of it sufficient to sway and determine his judgment Which examination is easy and obvious See before Note on p. 173. l. 5. without his studying that particular Note of its Consent with Primitive Church Of which thus N.O. had spoken before p. 89. after having recited S. Austins common Marks Where also saith he according to the disparity of several mens capacities I suppose nothing more to be necessary than that this evidence received either from all or only some of these Notes to those who have not ability to examine others be such as that it outweigh any arguments moving him to the contrary and such as the like evidence is thought sufficient to determine us in other Elections And then this Church thus being found he may be resolved by it concerning the sense of other Divine Revelations more dubious and generally touching all other difficulties to him in Religion to wit so far as this Church from time to time seeth a necessity of such Resolution and the Divine Revelation therein is to her sufficiently clear only if such person not spending so much of his own Judgment will afford in stead of it a little more of his Obedience And thus p. 81. In case these Guides Persons or Churches for both have a subordination shall disagree yet every Christian may easily know whose judgments among them he ought to follow namely always of that church-Church-authority that is the Superiour which in most cases is indisputable this Ecclesiastical Body being placed by the Divine Providence in an exact Subordination As here in England it is not doubted whether we are to pay our Obedience rather to a National Synod than to a Diocesan to the Arch-Bishop or Primate than to an ordinary Bishop or Presbyter And then he who hath some experience in Church-affairs if willing to take such a course cannot but discerne what way the major part of Christendome and its higher and more comprehensive Councils that have hitherto been do guide him And the more simple and ignorant who so can come know nothing better ought to follow the example of the more experienced See below Note on p. 251. l. 8 n. 6. Pag. 178. l. 10 He must think me a very easy man to yield a submission of my understanding till I be satisfied first that God hath appointed such to be may Guides and in the next place that he hath promised Infallibility to them If I am satisfied of the first that God hath appointed such to be my Guides I may safely commit my self to their guideship in all things where I want it i.e. in all my uncertainties without enquiring after the next their Infallibility Ib. l. 2 We desire to know whom they mean by these Guides and at last we understand them to be the Biship of Rome and his Clergy No. They are the universal Clergy Persons and Synods that are set over us by Christ ranked in a due subordination in Persons ascending here in these Occidental Churches to the Patriarch of the West in Synods to a Patriarchal or General Council And in any dissension among these the Superiour Persons or Synods are our true Guides Pag. 179. l. 2. Here we demurr and own no authority the Bishop of Rome hath over us Then we do not what we ought He being justly the Patriarch of the West and the Prime Patriarch of the Catholick Church and the President in General Councils Ib. l. 4. We have all the rights of a Patriarchal Church I suppose He means of a Primate and Metropolitan Church Primats having somtimes had the title of Patriarchs But these rights are such as are subordinate to other higher Persons and Councils and this of England is but one of the Western Provinces the Bishops whereof constitute a Patriarchal Council And what remedy would there be of suppressing the Heresies or Schisms that may and often have infected such Provincial or National Churches if there were no superiour church-Church-Authority above them Ib. l. 12. To these viz. the Bishops of our own Church who are our lawful Guides we promise a due obedience But neither are they our lawful Guides nor our obedience to them due should any or all of them be Heretical Schismatical or opposing their Superiours In such case those not they are our right Guides Ib. l. 15.
That for the universality of Time it must be centiously understood not so as to signify it a prejudice to any doctrine if in some one or more ages it had not been universally received for then there could be no heretick as any time in the would So must it be observed also for Universality of Place and of Consenters in that these also must be cautiously understood not so as to signify it a prâ—judice to any doctrine if in some one or more places or by some persons or also Churches dissenting it hath not been universally received for else there could be so also no Hereticks at any time in the world This of the just qualifying of Vincentius his Rule N. 2 But here on the other side will our Author submit to that which is but reasonably proposed submit his judgment to the Doctrine and Practice of the truly Catholick Church in present being since that of former ages after the Apostles is no more infallible than the present or that of any one age than of another and since as to not failing in Necessaries the promises of our Lord are made to all Ages alike and General Councils in all ages have equal power one as another of making Definitions in matters of faith and inserting them also in the Creeds if they see fit And again in any differences that may be in this present Catholick Church will he allow a much major part hereof to give the law to and conclude the whole so as it did in the first four General Councils and as it is used in all Courts consisting of many and which thing unless allowed no Heresy or Schisme in the Catholick Church can be suppressed by Its Judgment because all Heresy or Schisme hath a party and the chief and most dangerous Hereticks have been Bishops Primates and also Patriarchs so that the Dr's plea cannot exempt the Church of England from this trial by his calling it a Patriarchal Church ‖ p. 179. Or since it also is controverted what hath been the Common Doctrine of former ages or of the Fathers will he for the decision of this submit to the judgment herein of the much major part of the present Church Catholick or of Christianity or of his Canonical Superiours i.e. submit to the most common reason of the Church that reades the Fathers Writings If he will do this as in all reason he should then as to many of these points in difference between Protestants and the Church of Rome and particularly in these the so much now decried Transubstantiation and the necessary consequent of it Adoration and those other points exclaimed against Veneration of Images and Relicks Invocation of Saints as also in this point what was the judgment of Antiquity in these whose doctrine this major part of the Church declares themselves in these things to follow I say in all these and many others He will be cast even by the confession of Protestants who also acknowledge their discession at the Reformation to have been made a toto mundo and as well from the Greek as Latin Church Or to be short will he submit to the judgment of a lawful General Council if it hath determined any of these differences or of what Councils do appear to have had the acceptation both of the East and West excepting Protestants But such Concessions often used by him in general signify nothing and his true Plea seems contrary to it viz. his 13th Principle which is Clearness of Scripture to all persons in all Necessaries which if granted what needs herein the guidance of and submission to the Clergy either of the past or present age Ib. l. 5 Let the things in dispute be proved c. And who to judge of this proof your selves Or Superiour Councils rather Ib. l. 2 But those who separate from the Church of England make c. This is nothing to that particular wherein N. O. said the Dr justified Sects mentioned before in Note on p. 180. l. 9. Pag. 181. l. 12. 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 differences 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 if by defending the Government of the Church by Bishops to be the most Ancient and Apostolical Government he means exclusively to a Government in other places by a Presbytery without Bishops its being as ancient and Apostolical as it Whenas contrary to this in his Irenicum he saith ‖ par 2. c. 6. That in all probability the Apostles did not observe any one fixed course of settling Church-Government but settled it according to the several circumstances of time places and persons And p. 344. That the Apostles did not establish Episcopacy from any unalterable Law of Christ or from any such indispensable reasons as will equally hold in all times places and persons and there ‖ c. 2. p. 395. 396. quotes that incomparable man as he stiles him Mr Hales in his Tract of Schism saying That Bishops by Christs institution I add or Apostolical Constitution for this also would oblige have no Superiority over men further than of Reverence And making all difference between Church-officers to arise from consent of Parties and to the same purpose cites Arch-bishop Cranmer ‖ p. 391. where perhaps he might have done well to have followed the discretion of the former times in not thus publishing and exposing the nakednes of this Father of the English Reformation From all which it follows that the Government by Bishops as understood contradistinct to not the same with that of Presbyters is no Constitution Apostolical and that if it arise only from consent of Parties by consent of Parties also it may be removed Again in what he saith next 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 he means No Magistrate Ecclesiastical or Civil hath any lawful power to cast off or change the Church-Government by Bishops whereas he saith the contrary to this in his Irenicum and from Bishop Downham Mason and some others their allowing a Presbyterial Government only in case of necessity viz. where Bishops cannot be had argues thus ‖ part 2. c. 8. Conclusion It remains saith he that the determining of the form of Gorernment is a matter of liberty in the Church and what is so may be determined i.e. either way by lawful authority and what is so determined by that anthority doth bind men to obedience Thus he A matter of liberty in the Church What where Bishops may be had where is no case of necessity This follows
77. That none are obliged to such a necessary belief of them as that a person nescient of them cannot be saved or that the explicite knowledge of them is absolutely necessary though always in some manner beneficial it is to salvation but that this indeed is necessary to salvation that any subject of the Church when knowing them to be determined by her obey her definitions and not reject or dissent from them Such disobedience being conceived a mortall breach of Gods command Ib. l. 11 But nothing of this nature can be objected against our Church by dissenters But this is objected by them that Assent is required to the Common Prayer Book and 39. Articles as containing in them nothing erroneous or repugnant to Scripture upon Excommunication if any one affirm it till such person repents of such his wicked errour and without any qualification that such assent be yielded only as far as the same Articles are agreeable to Gods Word Here then I ask Whether such a wicked errour and herein such an obstinate disobedience to ones lawful Spiritual Superiours and continuance out of their communion unrepented-of is not held by the Church of England to exclude such person from being a member of Christs Body and from Salvation Which Church declares Art 33. concerning a just excommunication That the person which by open denunciation of the Church is rightly cut off from the unity of the Church and excommunicated ought to be tâ—ken of the whole multitude of the faithful as an heathen and a Publican until he be openly reconciled by Penance and received into the Church by a Judge that hath authority thereunto Of which matter thus also Calvin ‖ Instit 4. c. 12. §. 4. Nequis tale Ecclesiae judicium spernat aut parvi astimet se fidelium suffragiis damnatum testatus est Dominus istud ipsum nihil aliud esse quà m sententiae suae promulgationem ratumque haberi in coelis quod illi in terrâ egerint and § 10. Qui Ecclesiae censurâ speaking of a just Excommunication by a Church Reformed excommunicantur suae etiam ipsorum perpetuae damnationis nisi resipuerint certi fiunt Ib. l. 4 That it was necessary to salvation to be in subjection to the Bishop of Rome The words in the Lateran Council under Leo are these In Ecclesiâ esse non potest qui Romani Pontificis Cathedram deserit It is necessary to salvation that one be in the Church Catholick be nâ— Heretick or Schismatick but yield obedience to his lawful Ecclesiastical Superiours the Supreme amongst whom is the Bishop of Rome the Successour of S. Peter in the Prime Apostolick See who also presides in and confirms lawful General Councils So that Obedience to all lawful General Councils in this sense involveth also obedience to him their President Pag. 184. l. 1. The Guides of the Roman Church pretend to as immediate authority of obliging the consciences of men as Christ or his Apostles had Means he not here requiring Assent to their Decrees upon Anathema But let him then urge this against lawful General Councils which have practised it and declared such matters to oblige mens consciences to obedience as being Gods Word But if he means here that the Roman Church pretends such an immediate authority in obliging mens consciences as to her Injunctions or Conâ—titutions in matters indifferent and no way commanded by God i.e. as if she enjoined their obedience also to them as to things necessary and commanded by God this is utterly denied and makes the Church contradict her self for if they are commanded by God how are they enjoined as things indifferent But the Church affirms men are bound in conscience to obey these not because they are divine Commands but only because the Persons are obliged by the Divine Command which binds the Conscience to obey the Church's Command in all such matters Necessary such things are to be observed because the Church commands them and men also bound in conscience to observe them because they are commanded by God to obey such Commands of the Church And this obligation of Conscience I think the Dr admits as well as Catholicks See his Irenieum c. 2. p. 65. where he saith that What is left undetermined by the Divine Law if it be determined by lawful Authority in the Church of God doth bind the Consciences of those who are subject to such authority to obedience to those determinations and cites for it Rom. 13.5 that we are to be subject to these Governours for Conscience sake The Church may pretend to any authority our Lord or his Apostles have given it without dishonouring or degrading or equalling themselves to the Donor He goes on Ib. l. 6. But our Guides 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 Obliged to observe I hope he means as obeying here a just authority and not as he explains himself in his Irenicum ‖ cha 2. §. 7. â— 46 Thus far I acknowlege a binding power in Ecelesiastical Constitutions that though they neither bind by vertue of the matter nor of the authority commanding there being no legislative power lodged in the Church yet in respect of the circumstances and the end they should be obeyed unless I judge the thing unlawful that is commanded rather than manifest open contempt of the Pastors of the Church or bring a scandal to others And here when the Church of England thus obligeth her subjects to the practice of such things as she holds indifferent unless she makes this a condition of her obligation if they first hold them lawful she obligeth them also to hold such things lawful since none may practise any thing apprehended by his conscience to be unlawful Lastly as the Church of England hath authority to give Rules in things neither commanded nor forbidden by God so I ask Hath she no authority in Controversies of Faith for the deciding them See Art 29th of the Church of England Ib. l. 17. In the Church of Rome it is accounted as much a mortall sin to disobey their Guides in the most indifferent things as to disobey God in the plain commands of Scripture As much No. But as well for Mortal Sins admit degrees And Mandata Ecclesiastica non anteponi sed postponi debere dicimus Divinis Praceptis ‖ Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif l. 4. c. 17. saith the Cardinal Though all disobeying our Superiours in lawful things is also disobeying God when He in such commanding obedience to them Again As well a Mortal Sin in some disobedience of these Governours but not in all not in things of no great consequence in respect of the benefit or damage that is received by the doing or omitting them And lastly these things are extended as well to the Laws of
infallible Judge it is a plain demonstration they thought there was none appointed Such thing was then heard of viz. the consenting Testimony however had of the present Apostolical Churches concerning former Traditive Doctrines or necessary Deductions from them was accepted and submitted-to by all save Hereticks as infallible And after the Church's liberty obtained of assembling General Councils that of Nice was in those times repaired to as an Infallible Judge by the whole Body of Christianity for deciding that great Controversy concerning our Lord's Divinity and the Decision thereof afterward accepted by the whole Church Catholick as Infallible Annotations on §. 13. Of the way used in the Primitive Church for finding the sense of Scripture PAg. 201. l. 5. What course now doth Irenaeus take to clear the sense of Scripture in these controverted places Doth he tell them that God hath appointed infallible Guides in his Church to whom appeal was to be made in all such cases Nothing like it through his whole Book Though the Dr here only urgeth a Negative Argument which often fails and though as to Hereticks utterly denying Church-Infallibility the Fathers had their liberty to chuse rather to convince them upon some other Principles by both sides agreed on Yet Irenaus we find against these Hereticks frequently pleaded this Church-Infallibility as not reasonably rejectible by them viz. Urged the consenting Testimony of the present Apostolical Churches as no way fallible in relating and delivering to posterity the former Apostolical Tradition For which see his l. 1. c. 3. Hanc praedicationem hanc fidem Ecclesia velut dixi adepta quanquam per totum mundum dispersa diligenter conservat quasi unam domum inhabitans similiter his credit velut unan animan idem cor habens consonè haec praedicat docet ac tradit velut uno ore praedita Nam linguae in mundo dissimiles sunt verùm virtus Traditionis una eadem est Praedicatio veritatis ubique lucet illuminat omnes homines ad cognitionem veritatis venire volentes And see the four first Chapters of lib. 3. where he hath much to this purpose There he saith in the Preface Resistens eis pro solâ vivifica fide quam ab Apostolis Ecclesia percepit distribuâ—t filiâ—s suis Ecclesia i.e. Patres ecclesiae that instruct the others And Ibid. c. 2. he saith Ad eam Traditionem quae est ab Apostolis quae per successiones Presbyterorum in Eccleseis cust ditur provocamus eos i.e. Haereticos And afterward accuseth them Neque Scripturis neque Traditioni of the sense the Church gives to the Scriptures consentire eos c. 3. Traditionem itaque saith he Apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam in Ecclesiâ i.e. in the unanimous consent of the present Church adest perspicere omnibus qui vera velint audire And then appealing to the preeminent authority of the Roman Church he thus goes on Maximae antiquissimae omnibus cognitae a gloriosissimis Apostolis Petro Paulo Romae fundatae constitutae Ecclesiae eam quam habet ab Apostolis traditionem annunciatam hominibus fidem per successiones Episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos indicantes confundimis omnes cos qui quoquo modo vel per sui placentiam malam vel vanam gloriam vel per coecitatem malam sententiam praeterquam oportet colligunt Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam propter poteâ—tiorem principalitatem because a Petro Paulo fundata hence frequent Appeals from thither all parts necesse est omnibus convenire ecclesiam bee est eos qui sunt undique fideles in quâ senper ab his qui sunt undique conservata est ea quae est ab Apostolis Traditio somwhat like that of S. Cyprian Ep. 55. Post ista adhue saith he speaking of two Schismaticks navigare andent ad Petri Cathedram atque ad Ecclesiam principalem unde unitas Sacerdotalis exorta est a Schismaticis profanis literas ferre nec cogitare cos esse Romanos quorum fides Apostolo praedicante laudata est ad quos perfidia habere non potest accessum And c. 4. Tantae igitur ostensiones cùm sint haec non oportet adhuc quaerere apud alios veritatem quam facile est ab Ecclesiâ sumere And see what was quoted before Note on p. 197. l. 7. Quid enim si quibus de aliquâ modicâ quaestione disceptatio esset c. In which places suppose a fallibility of the consenting-Testimony of the present Church-Governours when consulting concerning the Traditive faith that hath descended to them and all this Father saith falls to the ground Pag. 204. l. 13. 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 Yes such an infallible Judge hence the more necessary to cure and remedy the Heresies which Tertullian saith the Scriptures were so framed as not to prevent Neither hath God in providing such a Judge constrained also all mens free wills to believe his Infallibility and acquiesce in his judgment And so the Oportet esse Haereses may be verified still Pag. 207. l. 4. The sense they the Hereticks gave of Scripture was contrary to the Doctrine of faith c. Which he Irenaeus calls the unmoveable rule of faith received in B. pt sm and which the Church dispersed over the earth did equally receive in all places with a wonderful consent If the Dr here would restrain the Father's urging the Testimony of the Apostolical Churches against Hereticks only to the Tradition of the Canon of Scriptures or the Rule of Faith the Creed Prosessed in their Baptisme we must know that they urged not the concurrent Testimony of the present Churches only for those against some gross Hereticks that denied the Text and Letter of them but also against others more subtile perverting such a sense of them as these consenting Churches pretend d was Apostolical See Jrenaeus l. 3. c. 2. Cùm ex Scripturis arguuntur in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scripturarum where amongst other their accusations he alledgeth this quia variè sint dictae ambiguous in their sense quia non possit ex his inventri veritas ab his qui nesciant traditionem Cùm autem ad eam iterùm traditionem i.e. concerning the right sense of these Scriptures quae est ab Apostolis quae per successiones presbyterorum in Ecclestis custoditur provocamus eos qui adversantur traditioni i e. Ecclesiae dicent se c. Evenit itaque neque Scripturis jam neque tradiâ—â—oni consentire eos And the words c. 4. cited before Quid enim 〈…〉 si quibus de aliquâ modicâ quaestione c. shew he holds such concurrent Testimony valid concerning any such Tradition though there had been no Scriptures and indeed there seems no reason why these Churches should be more credited in
Heresies both ways are used but not necessary therefore that all writings against them use both Or that Councils condemning them register the reason of their condemnation But so it is that this Council of Antioch in their Epistle to Paulus Samosatenus do use both as they urge the Scriptures so also the Church's consentient Tradition in these words Decrevimus fidem scripto edere exponere quam a principio aceepimus habemus traditam servatam in Catholicâ Sanctâ Ecclesitâ usque in hodiernum diem And Qui Filium Dei non esse Deum praedicat hunc alienum esse ab Ecclesiastica regula arbitramur omnes Ecclesiae Catholicae nobiscum consentiunt Pag. 228. l. 1. I would advise them to be conversant in the Divine Oracles ‖ Athanas cont Arian S. Athanasius in all th gives very good advice for in the Father's confuting Heresies by Scriptures and by Councils Scriptures have the prime place with Athanasius's limitation there writing to Bishops and those quibus gratia data est ut discernant spiritualia whilst he saith there Contra Arian Orat. 1. simplex non firmiter institutus dum solummodo verba Scripturae considerat statim illorum astutiis seducitur Especially these Scripture-proofs are necessary to Bishops when dealing with Adversaries that contemn Councils as now also Scriptures are urged by Catholicks to Protestants declining church-Church-Authority Ib. l. 7. But did not the Arians plead Scripture as well as they how then could the Scripture end this Controversy which did arise about the sense of Scripture This Objection was never so much as thought of in those days What thinks He of Tertullian's Prescription against Hereticks quoting Scriptures from church-Church-authority declaring Apostolical Tradition concerning the sense of such Scriptures c. 15. Scripturas saith he obtendunt hac suâ audacià statim quosdam movent in ipso verò congressu firmos quidem fatigant infirmos capiunt medios cum scrupulo dimittunt And Quid promovebis exercitatissime Scripturarum cùm si quid defenderis negetur ex diverso si quid negaveris defendatur Hunc igitur potissimum gradum obstruimus non admittendi eos ad ullam de Scripturis disputationem i.e. by transferring the Controversy to be tried by the consentient Doctrine and Tradition of the Church Catholick Or what thinks he of the words of Athanasius in the same Oration that is here quoted advising those he writ to thus Zelum Domino zelate retentâ Patrum fide quam Fatres qui Nicaeae convenerant scripto professi sunt Ne sustinueritis eos qui contra eam novis rebus student etiamsi dictiones ex sacris literis scribant Ib. l. 9. They did not in the least desert the proofs of Scripture because their adversaries made use of it too No why should they the true sense of which was on their side and this also evident enough to some mens reason But to those not by this way convinced they pressed also the universal Tradition of the Church and the Definitions of its General Councils as infallible and to be submitted to by all private judgments For which to view this Author he speaks of Athanasius See the beginning of his Epistle to Epictetus Bishop of Corinth Ego arbitrabar saith he omnium quotquot unquam fucre haereticorum inanem garrulitatem Nicaeno Concilio sedatam esse Nam Fides quae inibi a Patribus secundum sacras Scripturas tradita confessionibus confirmata est sat is mihi idonea efficaxque videbatur ad omnem impictatem evertendam c. And therefore he saith the Bishops thereof afterward divesis Conciliis istos lucifugas quae Arii sunt sapientes communi calculo unius spiritus incitatu anaethemate percusserunt Quâ igitur audaciâ fit ut post tanti Concilii authoritatem disceptationes aut quaestiones instituantur And Quae ita manifestò prava pervâ—rsaque sunt ea euriosiùs tractare non oportet ne contentiosis hominibus ambigua videantur sed tantummodò ad ea respondendum est quod ipsum per se sufficit ea orthodoxae Ecclesiae non esse neque majores nostros ita senfisse And Si vultis filii Patrum esse non debetis sentire diversa ab iis quae Patres ipsi conscritserunt Again in the beginning of his Epistle to the Affrican Bishops Sufficiunt ea quae Niceae confessa fuere satisque per se virium habent quemadmodum superiùs diximus tum ad subversionem impii dogmatis tum ad tutelam utilitatemque Ecclesiasticae doctrinae And Neque Deum metuerunt ita dicentem Ne transmoveas terminos aeternos quos posuerunt Patres tuiâ— Qâ—â—accusat Patrem aut Matrem morte moriatur neque patres nostros quicquam reveriti sunt denunciantes anathema si quis contraria suae ipsorum confessioni sentiret Plusquam decem Synodos jam instituerant c. Verbum autem illud Domini per Occumenicam Niceae Synodum in aeternum manet And in the close of that Epstile after citing the Apostle 1 Cor. 11.2 Laudo vos quod quemadmodum tradidi vobis traditiones ita eas servatis he goes on Ipsa enim Nicaena Synodus reverâ trophaeum columnaque est ubi omnes haereses inscriptae ostentui sunt alluding to Col. 2. 15. then declaring how this Council established the Faith he saith Quam Patres statuissent de fide in Filium id statim adjectum voluere Credimus in Spiritum Sanctum And in his Epistle de Synodis he saith of these Fathers shewing their just authority in matters of faith that In negotio Paschatis placuit ut adderetur Visum est ut omnes obtemperarent De fide verò non scripserunt Visum est sed Ad istum modum credit Catholica Ecclesia statim confessio ipsa credendi adjuncta est ut ostenderent eam non novam esse sententiam sed Apostolicam quae ipsi scripsissent non esse sua inventaâ— sed Apostolorum documenta Pag 223. l. 11 So Athanasius saw no necessity at all of calling in the assistance of any infallible Guides to give the certain sense of Scripture in these doubtful places Of any infallible Guides or of any Guides at all he may say for here are none mentioned fallible or infallible No necessity then of the Council of Nice in Athanasius's judgment Review the places but now mentioned and see more in Note on p. 245. l. 1. This Author hath need of very credulous Readers Pag. 230. l. 15. Yet he no where saith that without the help of that Tradition it had been impossible to have known the certain sense of Scripture Nor do Catholicks say so They say only that the Church Governours met in a General Council are infallible in their decisions of necessary faith by reason of an evident Tradition of such an Apostolical Doctrine or sense of Scripture descending to them Or by some necessary Deduction of theirs made from such traditive doctrine in the same
ambagibus tergiversationibus sic suscipiendus es Quod si non vis non mihi aut cuiquam hominum qui vult ita suscipere sed ipsi Salvatori contra salutem tuam perniciosissimè reluctaris cui te sic suscipiendum esse non vic credere quemadmodum suscipit illa Ecclesia quam testimonio suo commendat ille cui fateris nefarium esse non eredere Here this Father plainly saith in believing and doing as the Church commands and directs us we believe and do that which our Lord and the Scriptures command us which Lord and Scriptures have commended and given a Testimony to us of his Church N. 2 Which recommendation and Testimony let it be meant as the Dr will have it namely of the shewing and pointing ouâ— which of several pretending to be it is this Catholick Church for indeed this thing only needed a proof to the Donatists who allowed the same Infallibility in this Catholick Church as S. Austin and so an Infallibility in themselves conceiving themselves only to be this Catholick Church and that which our Lord and the Scriptures so recommended Yet this Church thus demonstrated which it is it is manifest S. Austin in the former passages affirms that in all things we are to follow and believe to be truth that which it tells us is so as if Christ or the Scriptures that recommended this Church to us had told us so Otherwise if this Church so demonstrated by our Lord and Scripture be fallible after its Resolution we may still be deceived in our Question about Rebaptization whereas the Father saith Quisquis falli metuit c. Ecclesiam consulat and Scripturarum a nobis tenetur veritas cùm hoc facimus quod universaeplacuit Ecclesiae And so after such Resolution we may disbelieve the Church without disbelieving our Lord. Nor can S Austin justly say as he doth to a Donatist refusing to receive Hereticks so as the Church doth without Rebaptization Nunquid Tu meliùs potes nosse quomodo suscipiendus sis qùà m Saltor noster And here it would be a great mistake to rely on the Church for that which it delivers to us as a truth upon our Lord 's recommending it which Church our Lord recommends not for this but some other thing consistent with that which it delivers its being an errour N. 3 But to put this further out of doubt If S. Austin did nâ—t suppose our Lord and the Scriptures to recommend this Church in such doubtful cases as in its Resolutions of them Infallible how comes this Father to require Assent and belief of what this Church defines and doing of what she commands How makes he all Hereticks that dissent from her Definitions even those Donatists to be Hereticks after the Church's Decree for holding Rebaptization who were not so before it Now Haeresis quae in vitio est as he saith ‖ De Haeresibus sine errore aliquo Haeresis esse non potest But if General Councils might erre in such points something thus might be Heresy in opposing them that were no errour If he held not Non rebaptization defined by the Church as a most certain truth how came it to be put in the Creed May something be a part of the Christian Faith that is not truth S. Austin every where expresseth his belief touching the not erring of General Councils otherwise See concerning Non-rebaptization De Baptismo 2. l. 4. c. where he questions not S. Cyprian's yielding to the consenting authority of the universal Church on this account Si jam illo tempore quaestionis hujus veritas eliquatae declarata per plenarium Concilium solidaretur Therefore S. Austin held it was so consolidated afterward So he saith of him Ib. c. 8. Vt quod postea plenario Concilio visum est id verum esse perspiceret doceret But how this his discerning it and teaching it for truth if this Council might err in their definition of it He might indeed have expected S. Cyprian's conserving the Church's peace but not conforming to its opinion He cals the Council's Decree verum liquidum eliquatum sincerum And 2. l. 1. c. he calls it after defined regula veritatis quam tota ecclesia tenuit L. 1. c. 18. he saith Restat ut hoc credamus quod universa ecclesia custodit And Quod in hâc re sentiendum est plenioris Concilii sententiâ totius Ecclesiae consensio confirmat Lib. de Haeresibus he saith of the Donatists Audent etiam rebaptizare Catholicos ubi se ampliùs Haereticos esse firmarunt cum ecclesiae Catholicae universae placuerit nec in ipsis Haereticis Baptisma communc rescindere And Ibid. he saith that Sufficit Ecclesiam contra aliquid sentire ut illud non recipiamus in fidem Why so if something in matters of Faith contrary to what the Church believes may be Truth And if the Father saith thus of this Church cui testimonium perhibet Christus Scriptura it s not erring in Quaestione obscurissimâ as he calls it and having no clear evidence of Scripture what would he do in its defining any other points wherein the Scriptures afford the same Church more light N. 4 To this Church he applies that Text 1. Tim. 3.15 16. Vt scias quomodo oporteat te in domo Dei conversari quae est Ecclesia Dei vivi columna firmamentum veritatis ‖ De Vnit Eccles c. 2. And Magnum est pietatis sacramentum praedicatum est in gentibus creditum est in mundo And †De Verbis Apostoli Serm. 14. speaking against the Pelagians concerning another point already defined by the Church Ecclesiae sanctae saith he pro remissione peccati Orginalis parvulorum quotidiè laboranti non contradicant Fundata ista res est i.e. the benefit of Baptisme to Infants Ferendus est disputator errans in alt is quaestionibus non diligenter digestis nondum plenâ Ecclesiae authoritate firmatis ibi ferendus est error non tantum progredi debet ut etiam fundamentum ipsum Ecclesiae quatere moliatur So saith he Contra Parmenian l. 2. c. 13. De iis qui ab Ecclesiae unitate separati sunt nulla jam quaestio est quin habeant verum Baptismum dare possint Hoc enim in ipso totius orbis unitate discussum consideratum perfectum atque firmatum est And to this might be added all those Testimonies out of him wherein he saith that there can never be any just cause of separating from the Communion of the Catholick Church from which I conceive it follows that she can never commit such an errour in her Decrees that to avoid the subscription thereof exacted by her any shall be justly necessitated to leave her external Communion N. 5 Concerning the same Church's Authority he saith in his Book De Vtilitate Credendi c. 16. Homini non valenti verum intueri Authoritas ab ipso Deo constituta praesto est
to S. Austin he is far from calling his sense vox aperta against them or from not believing theirs and not his to be the true sense of this Voice of the Pastor Concerning whom united in such a Body he saith ‖ lib. de Haeres Sufficit Ecclesiam contra aliquid sentire ut illud non recipiamus in fidem But the Father evidently speaks of some Catholick Bishops holding something contrary to Scripture but also to the other Bishops as appears by the words following Sed qui custodito Vnitatis Charitatis Vinculo i.e. with the rest from whom they differ in opinion in hoc incidunt c. Nor have we any so sure Judge when some Catholick Bishops do so as this whole Body of them dissenting He proceeds Ib. l. 14. By which it is evident that he supposed no Infallibility in the Guides of the Church i.e. single or a few contradicted by the more and superiour Ib. l. 16. And in termes he asserts ‖ De Vnita Eccles c. 19. that the Church is to be proved by nothing but plain Scriptures neither by the authority of Optatus or S. Ambrose or innumcrable Bishops nor Councils nor Miracles Intermes he asserts No. These are not S. Austins words truly translated or quoted After S. Austin Ib. c. 18. had thus spoken to the Donatist Remotis omnibus talibus Ecclesiam suam demonstrent si possunt non in sermonibus rumâ—ribus Afrorum non in Conciliis Episcoporum suorum non in literis quorumlibet disputatorum non in signis prodigiis fallacibus c. sed in praescripto Legis c. And again ‖ Ecclesiam in Scripturis Canonicis debemus agnoscere non in vanis hominum rumoribus opinionibus factis dictis visis inquirere things the Donatists pleaded against him I say After this he proceeds in these words which are translated by the Dr Sed utrum ipsi Ecclesiam teneant non nisi de divinarum Scripturarum canonicis libris ostendant quia nec nos propterea dicimus nobis credi oportere quòd in Ecclesiâ Christi sumus quia ipsam quam tenemus commendavit Milevitanus Optatus vel Mediolanensis Ambrosius vel alii innumerabiles nostrae communionis Episcopi aut quia nostrorum collegarum Conciliis ipsa praedicata est aut quia per totum in locis sanctis quae frequentat nostra communio tanta mirabilia vel exauditionum vel sanitatum fiunt c. Where S. Austin saith not that the Church can be proved by nothing but plain Scripture Or denies that General Councils or true Miracles or Vniversal Tradition are no sufficient proof thereof Of which General Councils he speaks nothing here but of those of the two Parties Concilia Episcoporum suorum on one side and Concilia nostrorum Cellegarum on the other And we may see in the quotations before Note on p. 251. l. 12. S. Austin knowing the Scriptures from the Church and the Church from other marks amongst which true Miracles surely are the highest proof of any Truth and so were of the Apostles their being Gods true Church and Ministers But the Father to the Donatists allowing with him the Scriptures urgeth the Church as demonstrable by their clear testimony not as the only testimony but the chief and such as more than this needed not and exacts of them that he waving these other proofs on his side wherein he had much the advantage of them by his innumerabiles Episcopi which surely ought to carry it against theirs and vera Miracula so they would the urging of their Councils far inferior and their Miracles fallacious on their side and bring in their defence Anti-Scriptures to his Scriptures In these things I referr my self to the candid Examiner of the place Ib. l. 6. He endeavours to bring them to a resolution in the other point the Church for the clearing of this non-Rebaptization But how doth proving such a Society as defines Non-rebaptization to be the true Church clear Non-rebaptization to be the right practise which S. Austin inferrs from it if this Church proved yet may err in defining it so Pag. 255. l. 10 ‖ S. Austin de Baptisnâ— l. 2. c. 3. And of these General Councils the former are often anâ—â—nded by the latter As this place is often urged by Protestants so it is answered to by Catholicks that taking the Fathers words plenaria Concilia or General Councils as relating to the words immediatly preceding quae fiunt ex universo orbe Christiano which is not necessary N. 1 such General Councils may correct and amend one another the latter the former as to several things though never as to Dogmata Fidei For as Cardinal Bellarmine ‖ De Concil l. 2. c. 12. In Conciliis maxima pars actorum ad fidem non pertinet sed tantùm ipsa nuda decreta ea non omnia sed tantùm quae proponuntur tanquam de fide Interdum enim Concilia aliquid definiunt non ut certum sed ut probabile He grants Ibid. that Concilia in judiciis particularibus i.e. ubi non affirmatur aliquid generale toti ecclesiae commune errare possunt So he grants 2. l. 7. c. Quad aliqua praecepta morum Concilia plenaria priora emendari per posteriora upon S. Austin's reason quando experimento aliquo aperitur quod clausum erat c. If S. Austins words mean this so Catholicks grant it N. 2 But 2ly If S. Austins words must be understood of such plenary and absolutely General Councils without any remitting of the highest sense of the word whenas indeed these words Vniversale Generale Plenarium were applied to Councils of a smaller Collection of Bishops when this from several partss and a little after this quotation the Father saith concerning Rebapization that Diutiùs per orbis terrarum regiones multis hinc atque hinc disputationibuus collationibus Episcoporum pertractata est And several Synods were for it held in the East as well as in Affrick ‖ See Euseb l. 7. c. 4. thus what the Father saith here will make nothing for him as to his present Controversy with the Donatist about Rebaptization Nay more against him For there were no two such Councils that were both General whereof the latter had amended the former concerning Rebaptization at all and had there the same uncertainty of truth would have been in the decree of the latter as of the former and in this case the Donatist would not have failed to have taken the advantage of the Former General Councils N. 3 But 3ly applying S. Austins words Ipsa plenaria sapè priora posterioribus emendari as in reason we ought to the times preceding his as also considering those other words he adds sine ullo typho sacrilegae superbiae c. he seems to speak ‖ See contra Maximinum l. 3. c. 14. of the plenary but illegal Arian Councils that were not plenary in the largest
N.O. layes upon him of justly incurring the displeasure of his Ecclesiastical Saperiours as indeed all Chillingworths followers seeme to do corrupting somthing which formerly remained good in the Church of England and which being good all good men have reason to wish well to and that it may be preserved there for that which is good still preparing the way to something better may end at last in an happy reunion of the divided Church hes and this may serve to answer this Author 's Ironical descant here p. 261.262 but finds him omitting here to take any notice of N. O's Reason for it immediatly preceding viz. Here i.e. in his 29th Principle first observe That what no Christian is obliged to believe under any pretence of Church-Infallibility he is much rather not obliged to believe under any pretence of Church-Authority and that the Dr's freeing the Church's subjects here i.e. as to their believing what these Governours teach them from the former doth so from the latter Thus N.O. Neither replies he any thing to this The 3d Quotation out of p. 84. is applied to one particular Consequence of the Dr's ‖ Conseq 1. In which he saith There is no necessity at all or use of an Infallible Society of men to assure men of the truth of those things of which they may be certain without and cannot have any greater assurance supposing such Infallibility to be in them Which Consequence of his N.O. saith concludes the uselesness as well 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 according to the Dr's pretence Principle 13. they may know without them To this likewise the Dr answers nothing And here also Whereas N.O. speaks in particular This Consequence concludes he puts instead thereof that N.O. saith his Principles against Infallibility conclude c. In the 4th quoted out of p. 98. where N.O. after the words cited by the Dr viz. That the Principles laid down by him do not afford any effectual way or means in this Church of suppressing or convicting any Schism Sect or Heresy or reducing them either to submission of judgment or silence proceeds to give the reason of this Fâ—r where both sides contend Scripture clear from then selves the clearness of such Scripture how great soever it be on one side can be made no instrument of conviction to the other the Dr mentions not this Reason nor speaks he to it In the 5th Quotation out of p. 99. where after the words quoted by the Dr that the Authority of the Church of England is much debilitated c by this new way taken up of its defence N.O. thus gives the Reason of them in what follows viz. where he thinks himself its best Advocate and defender of its cause who doth most endeavour to set forth the defects and failiâ—gs of all such Ecclesiastical Societies Prelates and Councils and best proves no Scripture-Promises made to them Neither from this doth he clear himself or others But instead of taking notice of these particulars urged against him he extracts from the foresaid Assertions in N. O stript of the particular Reasons and Arguments annexed this Universal Proposition that N.O. maintains that the same Arguments i.e. all the same arguments for I suppose he would here have his indefinite terme understood universally by his Reader which overthrow Infallibility do likewise destroy all Church-Authority all Church-authority saith he i.e. all parts of it not that only of their Office as they are the Preachers and Expounders of Christs Gospel to the People of which only N.O. speaks and then on this he frames a new Discourse first divided into Heads But any such proposition N.O. disclaimes Yet this He affirms that some of the Dr's arguings in his Principles which he brings for destroying Church-Infallibility do also destroy Church-Authority as to one part of it and also names those arguings of his and wisheth that this Author in pretending an Answer had cleared them from this charge Pag. 262. l. 8. If they thought they could not sow mischief c A rent already too wide is by our Author 's new Principles still made wider and so less hopes of quite closing it And this is justly resented by N.O. as contrary to his chiefest Interest Ib. l. 10. It is a pretty plot c. True designes of defending may possibly undermine and those may be the truest Friends who are taken for professed Enemies This the Future Judgment will shew Ib. l. 15. 3. Vndermine all Church-Authority and authority wholly useless All and wholly are none of N. O's expressions his words must be added-to that they may be refuted Pag. 263. l. 1. Such malignant influence must be from one of these things Either because I deny infallibility in the Guides of the Church You deny Infallibility as to necessaries whereby none can securely yield assent to any thing that the Church defines Ib. l. 2. Or because I say that the Scriptures are plain in things necessary to salvation You say Plain to all so far as that none using his own endeavour i.e. according to his condition can mistake in them which makes men being confident of the plainness of Scripture and of their own diligence and judgment neglect repairing ro the Church's direction and guidance in matters that most concern them And hence grow such an infinite number of Sects after the direction of their Spiritual Guides cast off Independants Quakers Presbyterians Anabaptists Antinomians Solifidians Socinians and I know not what But note here that N.O. no where saith which our Author here seems to impose that One to make use of another's guidance or direction must have him infallible But saith only this which no way infers the other that where all things necessary are affirmed plain to a man only using his own endeavour to understand them One wherin he thinks he useth his own just endeavour may justly think also therein anothers guidance whether this fallible or infallible to be unnecessary Unless the Dr will here relieve himself by one of these two ways Either that though a sufficient self-endeavour sufficeth yet none can know certainly when he hath used it Or that in mentioning a mans using his endeavour this Author involves principally the repairing to his Guides for their instruction But then this latter argues the Scriptures wherein he consults them not plain but obscure rather as hath been often said and so defeats what he would chiefly maintain Ibid. l. 4. Or Because I deny the Authority of the Church of Rome You deny not only the authority of the Church of Rome as contradistinct to other Catholick Churches but the Authority of the Church Catholick as to its justly requiring submission of private mens judgments to its Definitions in matters of Necessary Faith Ib. l. 6. Or because I am not for such an effectual way of suppressing Sects and Heresies as is in use in
the Roman Church No But because you are not for any effectual way at all Ib. l. 10 But I pray Sir are Authority and Infallibility all one in your account No. N.O. his affirming some of this Authors Principles to take away the Church's Authority as to some part of it as well as its Infallibility makes not these two one And therefore the pains here to prove these different and that one takes not away the other is lost Ib. l. 8 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 were infallible Some part of the Church's authority is greater than that of Civil Magistrases Masters or Parents viz. the deciding of Truth and Errour lawful and unlawful in Divine matters or the defining of points Controverted in Gods Word and in matters of necessary faith and the power of obliging Subjects to belief and assent thereto and this part of their authority must also be joined with Infallibility as to Necessaries that their Subjects therein may not err For other our Superiours Civil magistrats Parents Masters c as they have no Infallibility so they are deficient in one branch of Authority whose proposals we only admit when we believe them to be truth and practise their commands when we believe them first to be lawful lawful I mean by the Divinc law but where there is any doubt herein we repair to the Ecclesiastical Count for the resolution of them and so proceed to obey or disobey the other 's commands and for this reason see before in Note on p. 116. l. 11. Mr Chillingworth candidly granting infallibility necessary to an Ecclesiastical Judge though not so to a Civil but still to save his phanomena denying such an Ecclesiastical Judge necessary Lastly I ask will this Author yield no more submission at all to the Authority of the Church defining Controversies in Religion than to his Prince or Parents defining them Ib. l. 3 Why may we not allow any Authority belonging to the Governours of the Church and yet think it possible for them to be deceived Some Authority which they I mean General Councils have claimed we cannot allow if they may be deceived viz not that of enjoining a certain Assent to their definitions in matters of necessary Faith For a Church fallible in necessaries can in nothing at all which she proposeth justly oblige her subjects to any absolute and certain belief Pag. 264. l. 7. These are strange ways of arguing c. Strange indeed but not these or any like ways of arguing to be shewed in N.O. Ib. l. 6 But it may be said c. But no such thing is said by N.O. Pag. 266. l. 6. The meaning of all this is c. I willingly grant to our Author without the demonstration of his many instances that if one using a Guide afterward by experience finds he hath guided him wrong as he may find this when he misseth of his end he hath reason for the future to desert him And thus upon this supposition may any reject N. O's Guide a lawful General Council But I hope this Author is a man of more modesty than to say * that such Councils or universal consent of the Church any other way known do misguide men in the Principles of Religion or common precepts which are so plain that every Christian may know their misguiding and meanwhile the Councils themselves either not know it or knowing yet impose such falsities and that in the profession of their own faith as well as others Or say * that they command them to believe against their eye-sight in any thing but what themselves also do believe upon the Divine Revelation more infallible than sense or to break the plain Commands of God c. Or if he will say they do so I know N.O. will say the contrary Ib. l. 2 And this is not to destroy all authority c. That a Church-Authority fallible may be of great use for its direction as it is said here by Dr St so it is granted by N.O. who also requires submission of judgment to it though fallible especially from the illiterate for many good reasons ‖ See the former Difâ—â—â— course §. 37 c but will He allow as much Pag. 267. l. 1. For they may be of great use for the direction of unskilful persons in matters that are doubtful But he will not say here in any necessaries doubtful since he contends that these are plain also to the unskilful Ibâ—l 12. I shall now shew what real authority is still left in the Governours of the Church though Infallibility be taken away That a reall authority is still left in the Governours of the Church though Infallibility be taken away is granted to him without his proof but this is also maintained as well consistent with it that these Governours united in Council have an Infallibility in all their Definitions concerning Necessaries and this given them from our Lord and that this by any other Authority he can shew given them is not taken away Ibl. 12 An authority left in the Church-Governours of receiving into and excluding out of the Communion of the Church I add and an Authority the Church hath of excluding amongst other things for Heresy against the infallible definitions of the Church Ib. l. 7 Which authority viz. of inflicting Censures upon offenders and of receiving into and excluding out of the Communion of the Church 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 1 Here means he that the Church as this being a fundamental right of it may inflict such Censures and exclude from its communion such persons as justly incurr them to which I may add its declarative power of what is God's will or truth in particular doctrines of faith mentioned by him below p. 269. without or against the consent of the Civil State or the Supreme Governour thereof viz. when he prohibites the Exercise of such Censures or Declaration of such a particular Doctrine to his Subjects Which Power if our Lord hath given his Church and then hath given also to the Civil Magistrate if Christian another power of prohibiting to the Church the Exercise of this Power will not this be to use the Dr's expression ‖ Irenicum Disc of Excommunication §. 9. p. 423. to give it a power with one hand and take it away with the other And since the Church exercised this power given by our Lord before it was incorporated into the Civil State and then when the Civil State also prohibited exercise of such a power it seems most reasonable as the Dr saith elswhere †p. 446. that no accession to the Church of the Civil State can invalidate its former Title or Right But then how will all this consist with the Oath
such persons who all firmly believe that doctrine infallible which Christ delivered but yet judge themselves all fallible and dare not usurp that roiall prerogative of heaven in prescribing infallibly in matters questioned but leave all men to judge according to the Pandects of the Divine Laws because each member of this Society is bound to take care of his soul and of all things that tend thereto A very true and just representative saith he of that society of men which our Blessed Saviour instituted as a Church in the world Now there the Clergy also as well as Laity seem left to their liberty so that to reconcile him to himself perhaps the consent here required of the Clergy is only conditional this consent not medling with their faith wherein they are left to their Christian liberty to hold what they think best but only in order to such an employment that if they do not testify their Tenents in Religion to be such as sute with the Synod's Decrees they must not be admitted to bear such an Office For his following words are Not to the end that all those Propositions to which a consent is required of the Clergy should be believed as Artlcles 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 Thus He. But then in the same way why may not this Church exact assent of all persons whatever i.e. a conditional one if they desire to live in her reformed communion yet not forcing their conscience therein but leaving them the liberty to stay out of it And since the designe or effects of the Reformation may be hindred also by learned Laicks their spreading abroad such errours why not in order to this such assent required of them as he saith is required in Order to this of the Clergy N. 3 2ly Such Church not being the Supreme Ecclesiastical Judge granted by our Author fallible this Authority given to it I mean of requiring assent of all its Clergy to all its doctrines or Articles of Religion seems very unjust servs equally as for the reformation of a former errour so for the corruption of a former truth For thus supposing this Church Arian or Socinian as it may be here all its Clergy receiving Holy Orders for the teaching of Gods word are engaged to believe and preach a most impious Heresy or to be dis-clergied than which what can be a greater tyranny Neither is there any remedy left in such a Church for rectifying such corruption or errour since none are admitted into the Clergy who do not assent to such errour and are removed out of it so soon as they recant it And this is it the Presbyterian Ministers have so much complained of that they might not be admitted to subscribe the 39. Articles with such a clause added so far forth as the same Articles are agreeable to Gods word And indeed the forbidding a ttuth in this Church to be taught to the Laity is in effect the forbidding it to be assented-to also by them N. 4 3ly What authority he allows in this kind to one Primatical Church he must to another and therefore as he professeth such an Authority rightly exercised in the Church of England as to requiring assent from all the Clergy to her 39. A ticles so must he that the same authority is so in the Church of Rome And thus Pope Pius's Creed so far as its requiring assent from all the Roman Clergy by which this Clergy may only preach those errours as he accounts them and cannot declare the contrary Truths is justified by himself and the Roman Church maintained herein to exercise a lawful power N 5 4. But 4ly If the Church of England hath such a lawful authority in the reformation of errours over its subjects the same have superiour Councils suppose a General or a Patriarchal in the West over it and all other Primaticael Churches viz. of requiring assent from all the Clergy whether Archbishops Bishops or inferiours to all their Decrees and not to teach any thing contrary to them and that if not for imposing them as Articles of Faith yet for the reason given by the Dr. viz. because no Reformation can be effected by these Councils if persons may be allowed to preach and officiate in these Churches in a way contrary to the designe of such a Reformation made by the Council And then supposing here under that pretended reformation of an error by such Council or Synod a corruption of a Truth and that of moment a thing this Author allows possible How can there be a reforming afterward of such a Corruption unless done by Laicks Or may the Council lawfully require an assent to such corruption from all its subjects that are admitted into sacred Orders and those that are so admitted afterward when they discerne truth as lawfully renounce and reverse such their former assent These seem to be the consequences of the Dr's stating such an authority in his Church consequences contrary to what he alloweth and these arguings seem of force especially against one that both accuseth the Roman Church because fallible for requiring assent to her Decrees and refuseth assent to the Decrees of Superiour Councils because these fallible N. 6 But notwithstanding this I am far from affirming 1. That the Church Catholick in her Supreme Councils whether fallible or infallible may not require assent of her subjects to her Definitions and Decrees as she thinks fit in matters that are not capable of a strict Demonstration against her judgment as I suppose Divine matters are not neither do I know any wiser or securer course though abstracting from the Church's Infallibility that any Christian can take as to attaining all necessary divine truth than by his firm adhering to her judgment in all things that is set over him by God himself to guide him in the way of salvation of which much hath been said elsewhere And 2ly far also from affirming that the Church of England or any other National or Provincial Synod may not require Assent not only from her Clergy but all her subjects to her Doctrines of Religion or matters of Faith and that upon Anathema to all Dissenters but then it must be for such doctrines wherein such Church or Synod doth not oppose but agree with the whole Body of the present Catholick Church and so also with that of former times according to the judgment of these times made by this present Church Taking here this whole Body I speak of as contradistinct to Heretical and Schismatical Churches or Societies and taking the consent of this whole in such an universality as is necessary for concluding the whole according to the proceedings we have seen in the first General Councils Now in these matters wherein a Provincial Council agrees with the whole as it demands assent to them from its subjects so is it infallible in
them terrifyed upon the charge of having generally incurred a Premunire and of their clause to have saved themselves Quartum per legem Christi licet Ib. l. 17. We reject nothing but innovations and reformed nothing but abuses By Innovations he means innovations established by the consent of the Vniversal Church from which he raifed his objection And the same appears by these his words following But the Church i.e. the Universal Church then extant at the Reformation thought otherwise of them those called Innovations for if they did not why did the Reformers depart from the former Communion To which he answers thus What Church I pray The Primitive and Apostolical that we have always appealed to and offered to be aried by The truly Catholick Church of all ages That we utterly deny to have agreed in any one thing against the Church of England Here then we see his Appeal and retreat is from the present Church Vniversal or its Councils to the Primitive and Apostolical and to the truly Catholick Church of all ages Well If we ask now the Question Who shall judge Whether the points which the Church of England reformed were Innovatitions and Abuses as these Reformers say or Tradition Apostolical and of the Primitive times as the present Vniversal Church saith must not the present Vniversal Church judge of it As who should judge between S. Austin and the Donatists whether Rebaptization or Non-rebaptization was Tradition Apostolical for Tradition Apostolicall both willingly admitted but the then present Universal Church and that to be held for liquidum eliquatum which it concurred in and It held to have just authority to conclude all its members and those to be Heretical that dissented from it Might the Donatist say still after this Council as he here What Church thought otherwise or thought Rebaptitization unnecessary The Primitive and Apostolical c That we deny to have agreed against us in Non-Rebaptization Meanwhile this Author must either say the Church of England in her Reformation opposing the then present Vniversal Church opposed a just authority then extant contrary to what he said but now ‖ p. 232. or that the Authority of this present universal Church over England is not just Ib. l. 6 The plain English of all is the Church of Rome was against the Church of England If the Doctrine of the Church of England in the Reformation was only opposed by the Roman Church and between these two is all the quarrel why declines He as the Reader may see he doth ‖ See Note on p. 280. l. 8 the then present universal Church viz. the other Metropolitan Churches not only Western but Eastern distinct from the Roman Namely the Metropolitan Churches of France Spain Germany c and those of Italy also that are under other States than the Pope's all these as well as the Roman being against the Tenents of the Reformation and so the English Church too till the time If a much major part of such Metropolitan Churches consenting in some doctrines cannot conclude herein one or two dissenting from them How could the Donatist-Churches in Africk be concluded by the rest Or Dioscorus the Patriarch of Alexandria and the Egyptian Churches by the Council of Chalcedon Had not the Donatists as fair a pretence to call all those that opposed them the Roman Church as this Author hath For all these that agreed against them were united under the Presidency of the Bishop of Rome and with Stephen Bishop of Rome at first was their main contest Pag. 283. l. 5. But doth he undertake to make this good c. See Note on p. 280. l. 8 to avoid so frequent Repetitions Ib. l. 12. By the more universal Church he fairly understands no more but the Church of Rome This he will say Whereas the words he leaves out in his quotation of N.O. name expresly the Church's most supreme and most generally accepted Councils and the Church of Rome is not there mentioned at all Ib. l. 4 For the first the Pope and the Councils of the Roman Church we owe no obedience to them See Note on p. 281. l. 17. and l. 6 I hope if the Church of England owes no obedience to a Council of the Roman Church yet it doth to a Patriarchal Council of the Occidental Churches Ib. l. 3 For the second a General Council there was no such thing then in the world at the coming of Luther and therefore could not be opposed No more was that of Nice or the other Three first Councils then extant in the world and yet I hope the Church of England then owed obedience to them But their Definitions were then extant contrary to the Doctrine of the Reformation But the unanimous consent of all the other Churches conforming in their belief and practice to the decisions of former Councils was then extant Which Consent of other Western Churches was also testified in those very times in the Council of Trent without the least pretended force used upon those Churches as to the most of the Protestant Tenents condemned there as may appear to any one in Soave's History of that Council for indeed these Bishops voted in it what things were their common practice before it and the Definitions thereof as to these points are Generally accepted and held in these Churches Pag. 284. l. 2. No Church hath been more guilty of a violation of them than the Church of Rome Were it so How doth this excuse you that another is faulty besides you Ib. l. 6. We are no enemies to the ancient Patriarchal Government of the Christian Church No enemies is not enough where we ought to be Subjects Ib. l. 12. And all Christendom would consent to a truly free and General Council If such Council were called will you submit your judgment to its definitions I trow not Let your obedience be shewed to former lawful Superiour Councils and it may be hoped to the future He goes on Ib. l. 14. Which we look on as the best expedient on earth for composing the differences of the Christian world if it might be had You look upon it as the best expedient but take care to clog it with such unpracticable conditions to be a right and current General one as you will be sure never to meet with any such expedient to compose your differences or to have your approbation for such And from the complaints you make such as these which follow here concerning those Councils that have been held we may expect for these hereafter defects abundant in those that are not for your turn Titular Patriarchs or Popes Pensioners or at the least Combinations of interested Parties i. e. of an interest in Controversies of Religion contrary to yours as these judging when met in Council what they believed and practised before them And would not one think that the first four Councils do hardly pass through your Sieve when you speak thus to your Adversary Rational Account p. 253. Have Pastors
promptu habens ulcisci omnem inobedientiam Haereticum hominem devita because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self-condemned i.e. as Dr Hammond on the place his very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being a spontaneous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 excision from and disobedience to 1 Tim. 1.23 2 Tim. 2.17 Jo. 2.10 11. 1 Co. 5.13 6 Tit. 1.11 the Church And Tradidi Satanae ut discant non blasphemare quorum sermo saith he serpit ut cancer And with his Auferte malum ex vobis ipsis Because Modicum fermentum totam massam corrumpit And Quos inobedientes seductores oportet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because else universas domos subvertunt And indeed where liberty is unrestrained it is a folly to think any will hold that will not also speak of an opinion And again accords well with S. John's Non Ave ei dixeritis And Vt non communicetis operibus ejus malignis The like to which we find in the law of Moses Deut. 17.12 c. Qui autem superbierit nolens obedire sacerdotis imperio c. ex decreto judicis morietur homo ille And Cunctus populus audiens timebit ut nullus deinceps intumescat superbiâ in his own opinion and judgment By such means it is that both the Unity of the Church's Faith is alwayes preserved and no Sects or Heresies permitted within her to disturbe her Peace or further infect her Children See before Note on p. 263. l. 2. Pag. 287. l. 2. There is another means they use which is far more effectual viz. the Inquisition An effectual however justifiable means Catholicks have besides and without the Inquisition confessed I think by this Author 's former words quoted before ‖ Note on p. 286. l. 2. And this means of the Inquisition however effective the most of the Catholick Churches do not or have never used But here the Reader may observe How this Author in stead of refuting or mentioning here N. O's effectual means so often inculcated in his Considerations on his Principles and but now repeated hooks in the Inquisition as a more plausible subject wherewith to entertain and amuse his Protestant Reader Ib. l. 5. God keep us from so barbarous and diabolical a means of suppressing Schisms Barbarous and diabolical If this Author's judgment should happen not to be right here let him consider what an account he is to give for these words and his following Raillery so liberally inveighing against Church Authority There will always many be offended because many faulty and all lovers of liberty with a strict Government and such as executes the laws in Church or State And so did the High-Commission-Court here displease especially the Sectarists It concerns not N.O. to abett the Inquisition yet barring here particular personal Acts all which no Religion undertakes to justify in its subjects I see no great cause why this Author should be so incensed against it so long as the delegated power to these extraordinary Officers in proceeding against Hereticks doth not transcend that which by the Canons and Constitutions of the Church belongeth to the ordinary Judges thereof and if what these act according to these Canons be not just the Canons not they are therein culpable Of the Equity of which Canons surely the Councils that made them are more proper and abler Judges than this Author or my self All the severity of this extraordinary Office lies in putting these Canons in execution when the ordinary Curators thereof neglect it and that in such a Church or State where an endeavour is used rather to prevent Heresy thereby which as the Apostle saith serpit ut cancer and corrumpit ut fermentum when a few only as yet are infected therewith and may happen to suffer than to pluck it up where it hath taken any deep and long root and is grown very numerous As for the fire and faggots our Authour brings in by and by what temporal punishments are inflicted on such offenders are so by the order and authority of the Prince to whom in such place belongs the temporal sword And for the Justice that may be shewed in such punishments if it may not be called Mercy rather to Christianity in General especially where the Heresy is discovered pernicious to Godliness or also blasphemous against the Deity and when by it greater mischief is thought done to mens Souls than by Thieves or robbers to their estates or lives the example herein of Protestant Princes also may be produced to warrant it and several such Hereticks here in England have been put to death and more condemned to be so both in King Edwards Queen Elizabeths and King James his days Pag. 288. l. 4 It is truly said of Pope Paul 4. c. Mens Words are not to be put upon the rack If Paul 4. said this we see the contrary viz. the Authority of the Roman See maintained where is no Inquisition It is true that Paul the 4th as also Philip the 2d King of Spain relied much on the diligence of these extraordinary Officers as an effective way of suppressing Heresy but it must be in a Church not much infected herewith and where the delinquents are as yet not numerous Pag. 289. l. 2 Which made one of the Inquisitours in Italy complain c. This Busdragus his letter to I know not what Cardinal of Pisa my small skill in books knows not where to find But the Inquisition in Italy being only in the Popes Dominions never noted to have abounded much with Lutherans and that only executed on Natives who having been sometimes Catholicks are revolted the matter which our Author hath taken out of it viz. that in forty years there an hundred thousand persons had been destroyed for Heresy i.e. 2500 per annum which is a number more sutable to the justice of a Battle than of a Court of Inquisition whereas in that small state the execution of the tenth part thereof for what crimes soever will hardly pass for a truth and again that since this depopulation if I may so call it Heresy there is extremely strengthned and increased are things so notoriously incredible as though some person might have the imprudence to write it which I will not question because the Dr saith it yet He might have chosen some currenter matter elsewhere than quoted it Pag. 290. l. 10. 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 N. 1 That which N.O. complains to be neglected by Protestants and which is necessary for curing sects and schisms is more than this Author here mentions or will allow viz to give you it in N. O's own words That it is necessary to recommend especially to the illiterate and lesse intelligent common sort of people Humility Princip Consid p. 99 Obedience and submission of Judgement to their spiritual Pastors and Governours whom our Lord hath ordained by due succession to continue