had commanded them Means he not this here of the Church of England in opposition to the Roman obliging mens consciences that it only teacheth such things but challengeth not any absolute obedience or belief from its Subjects that Christ hath commanded such things as it teacheth If so Doth not this still spur on the Sects to cast about for themselves since this Church may tell them Christ hath commanded them what indeed he hath not and since this Author tells them moreover that the Scriptures read by them with a sincere endeavour to understand them will be clear to them in necessaries § 92 5ly P. 185. He saith The reasons we plead for separation from the Church of Rome are in themselves far more considerable than those which are pleaded by such whâ— separate from our Church And That our Church's imposing of three Ceremonies declared to be indifferent by those who require them cannâ—t be thought by any men of common sense so great a burden to their consciences as all thâ— load of superstitious fopperies in the Roman Church To this I say Be it a less or a greater load that is laid upon us both oppress us where neither can be born Ceremonies he saith declared to be indifference by those who require them But what if not by the Dissenters believed to be indifferent as a fallible Church tells them May these be imposed upon them so as to require conformity in the practice which includes assent to the lawfulness thereof Or if the departure of the Church of England from Rome for many things imposed for the presâ—rving her Conscience otherwise perswaded is juâ—tified why not the departure of these Dissenters from the Church of England though for fewer things imposed justified here also And can this Author blame them therein And saith he not to this purpose in the beginning of this Answer ‖ p. 180. That the perswasion of conscience equally serves to all Parties From all these instances he would collect that the Sctarists have less reason to depart from the Church of England than she hath from Rome which is true as to these matters whilst the sects are of the same Judgment with her therein therefore also for none of these do they depart from her But yet for other matters they may and do wherein they think her faulty and defective and do this according to the Grounds of a lawful departure which they have learnt from her and the Example which she hath formerly given them in her separation from her Superiours Which matter having been shewed at large in the 4th Discourse Concerning the Guide in Controversies I may save this labour and referr the Reader to it Where for an Instance the Socinian draws up his Plea proceeding on the Protestants Principles and Concessions and particularly those of this Dr which there are frequently cited by him that in his Tenents concerning the Trinity he holds nothing either repugnant to the Holy Scripture i.e. rightly understood or to the unanimous sense of Antiquity or Definitions of lawful General Councils so far as these two are admitted by Protestants to oblige Nor that he stands guilty either of Heresy or of Schisme i.e. according as Protestants state them And also in all these Replies here of the Dr let the Reader consider Whether N. O's Objection is not rather more fortified by what he pretendeth to dissolve it § 93 Lastly to N O's urging †See before §. 83. That such Principles leave no just and sufficient means in such a Church as maintains them of suppressing Sects Schismes or Heresies He returns an answer from p. â—86 to the end of his Discourse to which he gives this Title â—nâ— is Contents The Roman Church's way of suppressing Sects compared with our's Where I find him 〈◊〉 â—87 c very bitterly inveighing against the Roman Inquisition and spending the most of his Reply upon it Which Inquisition as used in some Catholick Churches so is not admitted in others and which no way mentioned in the Dr's Principles or in N. O's Considerations I wondred how he brought it into his Answer or why he spent so many pages upon it but at last I considered it might be much to his purpose as a thing which to his Protestant Reader would seem odious though it be nothing to N. O's discourse who presseth not the Roman Inquisition but the Catholick Church in her Councils requiring Assent to her Definitions pronouncing the Dissenters Hereticks and expelling them from her Communion and so preserving among the Subjects of this Body the same Faith and Vnity at least proportionable to the extent of her laws and decrees of which means of suppressing Sects and Heresies or any other that can be effectual the Dr in dissallowing such practice and leaving every one to the liberty of their own judgment in the matters most necessary to their salvation seems destitute § 94 Again I find him p. 289. saying That setting the Inquisition aside the Church of England hath as many reasonable means and I think many more of convicting dissenters than they can pretend to in the Roman Church But expecting he should name these means he saith ‖ p. 290. We recommend to the people the vertues of Humility Obedience due submission to their Spiritual Pastors and Governours and that they ought not to usurp their â—ffice and become their own Guides Yet we do not exact of them a blinde obedience c. Thus he But if the Church of England doth only this and no more it is a means apparently unsufficient for suppressing Heresies or Sects For men are still left to the liberty of their former tenents or practices so long as the contraries are in his stile only recommended to them not required of them and Counsel is no Power of the Keys The Recommending of a due submission to our Spiritual Pastors will not serve the turn if this due be not stated and understood to extend to submission of judgment which the Dr will not admit and therefore in repeating N. O's words and professing the like endeavour against Sects performed by Protestants as is by Catholicks he changeth them here and instead of N. O's Submission of judgment puâ—s in due submission For some submission well consists with the liberty of enjoying our own opinions and corrupting by them the Common Faith As a submission to the Church's Rules and Canons in matters in their own nature indifferent in matters of Order and Dâ—cency in necessary Religious Ceremonies and ancient Rites of the Christian Church a submission of judgment conditional in matters of Faith viz. in what the Church shall determine according to the Scripture a submission of Silence or non-publick contradicting her Doctrines or Decrees but this not absolute but only where her errours herein are not manifest or intolerable For if Protestants would admit an absolute obedience of non-contradiction it is granted that this would preserve the Church's peace and her non-disturbance from Heresies and consequently
‖ See Rom. Idol p. 69 134. c. 142 159 861. Which accusation surely must unchurch this great Body and quite divorce this Adulteress from Christ For we cannot think but the Dr will maintain the teaching so manifold an Idolatry in this Church viz. Teaching the lawfulness of adoring the Hoast of Invocating Saints of Worshiping Images to be a Fundamental Errour Thus N. O there Now of this Church Catholick in every age we say in our Creed Credo Vnam Sanctam Catholicam Apostolicam Ecclesiam But how is it Sancta as Arch-bishop Lawd said concerning Heresy †§. 21. n. 5. if it may fall into and also teach so gross and so manifold an Idolatry as gross saith this Author as the Idolatry taught and practised by the Heathen which Idolatry charged by him on the Church of Rome must needs be a mortal sin and so unacknowledged or unrepented of not only hazard but destroy salvation and therefore must the teaching also of the lawfulness of such a practice by any Church so expresly contrary to the Divine Command be a fundamental errour if an errour that excludes from salvation may be called so N. 2 I find indeed elsewhere our Author in his Answer to Mr I.W. †Dr Stilling against Dr Stil denying that the teaching of the Lawfulness or also the Duty of such an Idolatry as is practised in the Roman Church is a Fundamental Errour or such as held and practised without any retractation absolutely excludes from salvation So he saith there p. 20. That some kind of Idolatry is consistent with the being of a Church And That kind only which implies more Gods than one doth unchurch a people And so p. 22. That all sorts of Idolatry do not necessarily destroy the essentials of a Church Although saith he p. 21. That of the Roman Church makes the salvation of persons in her Communion extremely hazardous Thus he Now by any Society that professeth Christianity its being unchurched or wanting the being or essentials of a Church I suppose he means its ceasing to be any longer a true member of the Catholick Church which is mentioned in our Creed N. 3 Now then the better to discern how con-or incon-sistent it may be with salvation and the Being of a Church let us first see how he represents this inferiour sort of Idolatry as he calls it here ‖ p. 20. opposed to a grosser which doth unchurch men which is taught and practised in the Church of Rome and which his charity thinks hinders it not from having still all the essentials of a true Church In his Roman Idol p. 69. speaking there of the Roman Idolatry in Image-worship he saith It seems much more reasonable for me to worship God by prostrating my self to the Sun or any of the Heavenly bodies nay to an Ant or a Fly than to a picture or an Image For in them I see great evidences of the power and wisdom goodness of God which may suggest venerable apprehensions of God to my minde whereas these can have nothing worthy admiration unless it be the skill of the painter or Artificer And I cannot for my heart understand why I may not as well nay better burn Incense and say my prayers to the Sun having an intention only to honour the true God by it as to do both these to an Image And afterward ‖ p. 70. I should have been tempted to have laughed at their folly and despised their weakness who should plead for the worship of God in or by a dull and rude Image and condemn me for honouring God in the most noble parts of the Creation Where doth not he make the Heathens Idolatry in their prostrating themselves saying their prayers and burning incense to the Sun which surely is a mortal sin in them though meanwhile they held this fundamental truth that the honour which is due only to God is not to be given to a meer Creature more rational and more excusable than the Roman's committing the same Idolatry to an Image N. 4 Again concerning the Roman Idolatry in their Adoration of the Hoast Ibid. p. 134. he compares it with the Manichees adoration of the Sun and makes this the worse of the two If saith he a mistake in this case will excuse them it would excuse the grossest Idolatry in the world Let us consider two persons equally perswaded one that the Sun is now the tabernacle of Christ and that he is really present there he being so often in Scripture called the true light Jo. 1.8.9 and another that he is really present by Transubstantiation in the Sacrament I would fain understand why the one should not be as free from Idolatry as the other Saith he not here again That if their mistake i.e. of Christ's Corporal Presence in the Eucharist will excuse the Idolatry of the Roman Church it will as much excuse the grossest Idolatry in the world and that therefore this Roman Idolatry is without all excuse And p. 136. he makes the worshiping false Gods supposing them to be true as venial a fault as worshiping that for the true God which is not so supposed by him the Roman case in Adoration of the Hoast Now here in his Answer to Mr. I.W. p. 24. he saith When many false Gods are joined with the true in the same worship the true God is rejected and that this cannot consist with the essentials of a true Church I subsume then neither can the crime of the Roman Church equalling it N. 5 Again concerning the Roman Idolatry in the Worship and Invocation of Saints thus he in Rom. Idol p. 159. Vpon the same account that the Heathen did give divine honour to their inferiour Deities those in the Roman Church do so to Angels and Saints For the Heathens made a difference in their sacrifices to the supreme God and their inferiour Deities and their Heroes so that if the putting any difference in the way of Religious Worship doth excuse the one it must do the other also Did the Heathen use solemn Ceremonies of making any capable of Divine Worship So does the Roman Church Did they set up their Images in publick places of Worship and there kneel before them and invocate those represented by them so does the Roman Church Did they consecrate Temples and erect Altars to them and keep Festivals and burn incense before them so does the Roman Church Lastly did they offer up sacrifices in those temples to the honour of their lesser Deities and Heroes So does the Roman Church And p. 161. he saith It is evident that the Roman Church hath reserved no part of Divine worship peculiar to God himself any more than the Heathen did And That there can be no material difference that the Heathen called those they worshiped Gods but they do not so in the Roman Church I say then Are not all the complaints and aggravations made in Scripture of the Heathens Idolatry as applicable to the Roman and they
both as to this Crime at the same distance from Salvation or the Divine Mercy Unless the Roman be at a greater from having so much more light Thus then is the Roman Idolatry in that Discourse frequently represented by Him N. 6 Now after all this would not one wonder at the greatness of this man's Charity in maintaining in his Answer to Mr. J. W. such a Church as in all these Idolatries equals the heathens yet to retain still all the essentials of a true Church and such Opinions and Practices without any retractation of their errour or reforming their fault to hazard only and not destroy men's Salvation And must not this his Charity be enlarged further to the Heathens also that they in worshiping and sacrificing to their false Gods and Heroes and the Manicheans in worshiping the Sun offended nothing in this matter against any essential of Gods true Religion nor by such a worship forfeited their salvation Whilst they also as well as the Church of Rome in general make profession of this fundamental point in Religion viz. that the Honour which is due only to God is not to be given to a meer Creature and that if given to any Creature it is Idolatry N. 7 But now to examine these things a little more closely 1. First Whereas he saith p. 22. If those of the Roman Church can prove that all sorts of Idolatry do necessarily destroy the essentials of a Church the consequence is we must have less charity for them than we had before and such a concession from us that they do not doth not shew their guilt to be less but only our charity to be greater It may be observed that N. O. here charged him not of making the Church of Rome only but the whole Catholick Church both the Western and Eastern as is shewed in the 3d Discourse touching the Guide in Controversy ch 8. guilty of such an Idolatry which if so and this Idolatry he imputes should be affirmed by him a fundamental errour or mis-practice then he must by his rendring the Church Catholick guilty thereof unchurch It also for many ages and so deny an Article of our Creed From whence it appears that he how farr soever inclined by charity yet is also upon necessity forced in his fastening such an Idolatry on the Roman Church as extends also to the Catholick forced I say in defence of his Creed to maintain such species of Idolatry not to unchurch a Body or diminish any of the Essentials of a Church nor to destroy but only to hazard salvation lest he should destroy salvation in the Catholick Church and also unchurch It for several Ages Now as the Archbishop p. 141. All Divines Ancient and Modern Romanists and Reformers agree in this that the whole Militant Church of Christ i.e. in any age and that as to the Religion professed in it cannot fall away into a General Apostasy And so this if proved against him by Catholicks that such Idolatry doth unchurch any Society that teaches and practises it must constrain him to free the Roman Church of such a charge and so to confess his own arguments whatever brought to such a purpose to be faulty and unconclusive And indeed the favour here the Church of Rome notwithstanding such heavy charges as these upon her receives from Protestants of being affirmed still a true Church seems to be on this account because else they should miss a Catholick Church for divers ages before Luther and derive the succession of their Clergy from a Body already unchurched Thus we see what obligation the Church of Rome hath to his Charity in maintaining some sorts of Idolatry to consist with a true Church Where indeed it appears both the Catholick's interest to prove the Idolatry imputed to it not consistent with the being of a true Church whereby they free the Roman Church from any such Idolatry and the Dr's interest to shew such Idolatry no fundamental errour or miscarriage so to retain still the Roman Church a true Church viz. That so also the Catholick of some ages and the present also that is beside the Protestant Churches may be so N. 8 2. Next to examine the Reasons he brings for justifying such his Assertion In that Answer to J. W. p. 30. he saith That the very being of a Church doth suppose the necessity of what is required to be believed in order to salvation i.e. that all things necessary to salvation are believed in it which is granted 2ly saith That whatever Church ownes those things which are antecedently necessary to the being of a Church cannot so long cease to be a true Church Which also is granted But what are these things that are necessary to the being of a Church For explaining this p. 31. he saith That these Articles are such as have the testimony of the whole Christian world of all ages and so of the Roman Church Again Ibid. That nothing ought to be owned as necessary to salvation by Christian Societies but such things which by all those Societies are acknowledged antecedently necessary to the being of the Catholick Church Where if the belief of nothing is to be accounted necessary to salvation or to the being of the Church Catholick but what hath the testimony and approbation of the whole Christian world of all ages or what by all Christian Societies is acknowledged necessary to such a being it seems to me to follow that all Christian Societies must be true Churches or true members of the Catholick and so * that none are or can be Heretical since all Heretical Churches are non-Catholick See Archbishop Lawd p. 141. and * that no such point can be essential to such Being wherein any Christian Society hath dissented from the rest and so though this dissent be in some Heresy yet neither will this render any such Church not to be Catholick still which it remains to be by vertue of those points that have also its consenting with all the rest for it seems those points only wherein it consents with the rest constitute the Church Catholick and so the Arian Nestorian Pelagian are true Churches and parts of the Catholick N. 9 But this being passed by the Question will still be What in particular those points are that are essentials to the being of a true Church and Why the contrary to what the Church of Rome teacheth and practiseth in the matter of Idolatry as we see our Author hath described it before is not one of them To this purpose therefore he saith p. 32. That the ancient Creeds of the Catholick Church are the best measure of those things which were believed to be necessary to salvation or to the being of a true Church and p. 28. he saith The main fundamental points of doctrine are contained in the Apostles Creed and p. 33. When we enquire into the essentials of a Church we think it not necessary to go any farther than the doctrinal points of faith the reason is because
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-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-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
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
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-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
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
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-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-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.
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
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-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-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. §.
Symptomes of a declining Church Hence also in such diversity of opinion happens an alienation of Affections and so very great Divisions and Factions As we see that those Sects departed from the Church of England no way agree amongst themselves and when any of them by their extraordinary increase gets any power and dominion ever the rest there presently follows a proportionable endeavour to advance and propagate it self and root out the other because they would have all men of the very best Relâ—gion that is their own § 14 And it seems a great Inadvertency in those who are now marshalling up all their Arguments and Forces against an unlimited Church-Authority and against the Vsurpurs of an unjust Ecclesiasticall Power and Exactours of an undue submission and Obedience to take so little notice of those other more dangerous enemies who are marching up in the reare of them under pretence of being their Auxiliaries in this warr Whenas they have great cause to fear so soon as any Opportunity may be offered their making use of those Armes I mean Arguments and Principles wherewith they now furnish them for attempting the demolishing also of that Church-Authority the first Reformation hath as yet left standing To which though hitherto by them unsuccesfully assaulted yet they no way appear reconciled § 15 Neither in this Division of Opinions naturally flowing from such a Principle and as Experience hath shewed very mischievous in its effect doth there appear any possibility of the reducing such a mixt and heterogeneous Body to a firm Union and Peace where is no Judge to end their differences but only that whose Language misunderstood causeth them I mean the Scriptures Which last Consideration was one of Mr. Chillingworth's Motives for reconciling himself to the Roman-Catholick Religion Because saith he ‖ Motive 10 Pref. §. 42. by denying all humane authority either of Pope or Councils or Church to determine Controversies of Faith they have abolished all possible means of suppressing Heresy or restoring Unity to the Church § 16 To Which at his return to Protestantisme for the satisfying himself and others if any have the curiosity to know it be devised this Answer 1st for the means of suppressing Heresy That all men should believe the Scripture i.e. it to be Gods Word and endeavour to believe it in the true sense for that so none such can possibly be an Heretick saith he But here first how shall any assure himself of having used a right endeavour Next of those who do not so endeavour some may be Hereticks and if Hereticks ought to be suppressed and cannot be suppressed without some Judge of their nonendeavours and of their Heresy besides themselves and such Judge is the thing this man would decline Lastly If God hath appointed some spiritual Guides for directing people in the belief of Scripture in its true sense a right endeavour cannot be used herein without repairing to and learning it from them the dependence on whom for not incurring Heresy this Author would avoid 2ly For preserving Unity in the Church That there be a Comprehension of all Sects and Opinions within the pale of one Communion ‖ Pref. §. 43. That saith he no more be required of any man to make him capable of the Church's Communion than this that every one endeavour to believe Scripture in its true sense So he Now this men may equally do in their believing it in a most contrary sense according to their different capacities and the agreement that thus can be among them will be only tolerating all disagreements Of which see more in the following Discourse § 96. § 17 I meet also with another English Divine who in his Satisfaction concerning True Religion conjecturing the causes of the late great increase of Popery in England pitcheth upon this very sanâ—e thing that induced Chilling worth to Popery Nothing saith he ‖ p. 178. among us except ignorance and wickedness increaseth Popery more than the scandal of our numerous and some of them abominable Sects when the people see many zealous Professours turne Quakers or Ramers or Seekers or Antinomians or Socinians or Familists and shall See the more tolerable parties Episcopal Presbyterian Independent Erastian Separatists and Anabaptists condemning backbiting reproching making odious if not persecuting one another and shunning many of them the Communion of one another as they do the Papists This makes them think that they must seek some surer soberer way than any of us have yet found This cause of the increase of Popery he truly discerned viz. the continual increase of Sects in all Partyes save Popery and for this Men that dread the hazards of the next world more than this flee apace into the Catholick Church there to find an unity of Faith and be at some certainty and rest But how shall the cause of the increase of Popery be removed Or how can such a Principle in a Church as the forementioned proceed to any cure of it Of one sort of these Sectarists divided from the Bishops he himself is How can he deny to others the liberty he takes Or must he not come at last only to Mr Chillingworths device where is no Judge 1 an universal Toleration of all good Endeavourers to understand Scripture and 2 an Internal Communion of Charity for an External the Rites of which may please or at least may continue to please all parties can never be invented nothing being more controverted than concerning the Celebration Ceremonies Vertue c of the Sacraments But it seems by him neither will those be attained where is such diversity of Opinions but to repeat his words There will be condemning backbiting reproching making odious if not persecuting one another and shunning many of them the Communion of one another as they do the Papists I add from Experience And suppressing and crushing one another as any of them gets power § 18 These then are the Ways that the Patrons of Christians Liberty usually take for its defence and these seem the Effects of it where allowed whilst the Contenders for Obedience and Submission of Judgment to our Spiritual Superiours and Guides take quite the contrary Course They endeavour to plant in all their Subjects the greatest reverence and esteem of the Lords Clergy and Ministers of their learning wisdome piety and the assistance of Gods Holy Spirit preserving them for ever at least in their highest Courts of Jndicature in all Necessary truth They maintain a strict Subordination in the Church's Hierarchy and an Vnity of Government in the Catholick Church though spread thorow never so many several temporal Dominions all subjected to one Supreme Court and President thereof and to the same Definitions and Laws as to matters purely spiritual and these no way alterable by Civil States They urge the great Heresies in the highest points of Faith that the sharpest Wits in former times have fallen into by departing from the sense of the Church The greater men's parts are they being
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
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
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-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
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
President thereof to have been hitherto so divinely assisted as never to have erred in necessaries neither in believing nor declaring them notwithstanding all the by-ends of interest and reputation of which he accuseth them the Force and Fraud he chargeth on them And this I gather from his words Rat. Account p. 54. That the Church of England makes no Articles of Faith but such as have the testimony and approbation of the whole Christian World of all ages and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self Therefore the Roman Church holds all those which the Church of England doth and so all necessaries unless that of England also be defective herein And all this the Dr. seems necessitated to maintain for else the Roman failing and the Oriental Churches being then no whit better than it there would have been no Catholick Church at least as to the Hierarchy thereof extant immediatly before Luther's time And hence though I grant it cogently follows not that the Governours of the Church-Catholick shall never erre in necessaries for the future Yet is there a strong presumption that by the same Divine Assistance as they have been hitherto preserved from it so they shall be ever and it is a rational Motive of private mens submitting their judgment to the Church that hitherto she never hath but private men by departing from this obedience as several Hereticks often have erred in necessaries This here for our Lord's promises revealed in Scripture Of which a further Account is given below in Annot. on p. 113. l. 15. for the experience the World hath had of their accomplishment hitherto § 54 For justifying the same Infallibility N.O. ‖ Consid p. 85. c. 1. further presseth that noted Plea of S. Austin against the Donatists 1st That whereas some Divine Revelations may be so obscurely expressed in Scriptures or involved only in their Principles as that some weak capacities cannot discern them Yet that in the same Scriptures such persons may alwaies discover the Church distinctly which is It amongst never so many pretenders by certain Notes marks belonging to it I mean not those named by this Author ‖ Rat. Acc. p. 7. and other Protestant's though these true Marks also viz. True Doctrine and a Right Administration of the Sacraments a Quest or Trial by such marks that can never be made an end of being a task to know all the truths in Christianity what they are first before we can know which is the Church whenas the Enquirer seeks after the Church that by it he may come to know these Truths but by these other Tests and marks following as in several places he gives account of them ‖ Contra Fundament c. 4. De utilit Credend c. 8.16 17. De Vnita Eccles c. 25. Successione Episcoporum ab Apostolicâ Sede Or as Contra Fundamentum ib ipsa Sede Petri Apostoli frustra Haereticâ—s circumlatrantibus Authoritate vetustate firmatâ Conciliorum gravitate Miraculorum majestate Sequentium multitudine i.e. as to the coherence in one Communion no other Society or Party being ever so great Populorum atque Gentium consensu famâ admodum celeberrimâ Ecclesia ubique diffusa non in aliqua parte terrarum sed ubique notissima Lastly Ipso nomine Catholicae quod non sine causâ inter tam multas Haereses sola obtinuit which being the Marks of the Catholick Church by the Scripture-description of it in S. Austins time must be so for ever for that Consid p. 88 if any should apply these Scriptures more to S. Austin's days as indeed several Protestants do than to any other or than to the present by the same reason the Donatists might here have counter applied them to some other and not to S. Austin's times Thus then S Austin affirms from the Scriptures such persons may easily discover the Church which it is § 55 And then 2ly may discover there that it is a Judge in other Controversies which are not so clearly delivered in Scriptures always to be consulted and stood to Of which thus this Father writes in his dispute with the Donatists concerning the obscure Point of Rebaptization Quoniam Sacra Scriptura fallere non potest Consid p. 85 quisquis falli metuit hujus obscuritate quaestionis eandem Ecclesiam de illâ consulat quam sine ullâ ambiguitate sacra Scriptura demonstrat And before Proinde quamvis hujus rei certè de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum earundem tamen Scripturarum etiam in hâc re i.e. in the point of Non-rebaptization a nobis tenetur veritas cùm hoc facimus quod universae placuit Ecclesiae i. e which hath been stated concerning that Point by the Church quam ipsarum Scripturarum commendat authoritas Vt quoniam c. Thus S. Austin After which N.O. goes on that all this said by this Father is false and said to no purpose if the Scripture be not clear in this That this Church can determine nothing in such important contests contrary to the verity of the Scriptures and so in this that we ought to give credit to what she decides for then it would not be true what he says Earundem Scripturarum in hâc re in Non-rebaptization tenetur veritas when we do in this point what the Church decides if the Church may possibly decide it amiss And again Quisquis 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 would the same S. Austin have had any reason to presume as he doth De Baptismo 1. l. 4. c. that S. Cyprian would have corrected his opinion concerning this Point and yielded to the Council's judgment or any reason to charge the Donatists with Heresy for dissenting from it after the Determination of such a Council Nor the 2d General Council have had any just ground to put it in the Creed Credo unum Baptisma in remissionem peccatorum if such Universal Councils in their stating matters of Faith are errable and amendable Which are N. O's words ‖ Addit to p. 86. l. 11. by prevention relating to that known passage in S. Austin Ipsaque plenaria Concilia saepè priora posterioribus emendari and declaring they can have no such sense as the Dr. ‖ Answ to N.O. p. 255. and others impose upon them § 56 Again p. 58. he urgeth That in the belief and profession of this Church-Infallibility and submission of private mens Judgments to her sentence passed in her Synods Consid p. 58 the Tenet of the Greek Church seems no way varying from the Roman That Jeremias the Constantinopolitan Patriarch in his Contest with the Lutheran Protestants is much in this as a sure Retreat for ending Controversies establishing Peace †Resp 1. p. 139. where he tells them ‖ Quae Synodicè legitimâ Conciliorumratione mandata sunt
being thus granted by these persons Next as for the Vniversal Acceptation the conditi on of this Infallibility or of our assurance thereof they allow the first four General Councils to have been so accepted and therefore profess to them all obedience and that which these Councils required we know was Assent And concerning this Obedience and submission of Judgment to these Consid p. 32. upon such an universal acceptation of the Church Diffusive Dr. St. writes thus ‖ Rat. Account p. 375. The Church of England looks upon the keeping the Decrees of the four first General Councils as her Duty and professeth to be guided by the sense of Scripture as interpreted by the unanimous consent of the Fathers and the four first General Councils that is she professeth to take that which such Councils deliver for the sense of Scripture Not then to admit that which they deliver if she first judgeth it to be the true sense of Scripture So also elsewhere he saith ‖ Ib. p. 59. The Church of England doth not admit any thing to be delivered as the sense of Scripture which is contrary to the consent of the Catholick Church of the four first Ages that is in their Oecumenical Councils as he expresseth it in the preceding Page And here also he gives the ground of such Submission viz. a strong presumption he might have said an absolute necessity for what he urgeth provesit that nothing contrary to the necessary Articles of faith should be held by the Catholick Church whose very being depends upon the belief of those things that are necessary to Salvation These first Councils therefore being as they allow universally accepted the Universal Acceptation necessary to render any General Councils infallible can be exacted no greater or larger than that which these first Councils actually had upon this account the same title of Infallibility must be allowed by them to several others yet whose Definitions in matters of Faith they to several others yet whose Definitions in matters of Faith they oppose § 60 Lastly to that which this Author presseth against such pretended Infallibility in His Reply to the Cousiderations p. 150. †Conseq 4. and in his Principles and frequently elswhere ‖ See Rat. p. 117.567 Rom. Idol p. 540. That in Opinions absurd and repugnant to the first Principles of Sense and Reason which any Church obtrudes upon the faith of men men have the greatest Reason to reject the pretence of this Infallibility as a grand Imposture N. O. answers clearly to it thus †Consid p. 92 93. 1. That where the Divine Power supernaturally worketh any thing that is contrary to our senses as no doubt it may here we are not to believe them And that this he thinks none can deny 2. And next That we are to believe this Divine power doth so so often as certain Divine Revelation tells us so because we have no Divine Revelation herein not to believe them and yet we are not to believe the same Senses in the thing wherein they inform us contrary to what this Revelation tells us For otherwise Lot and his Daughters or the men of Sodom were not to credit the Divine Revelation supposing that Divine History then written and extant that the seeming Men who came to Sodom were Angels because this was against their Senses Now here would he argue well as Dr. St. †See Stillingst Rom. Idol p. 540. Rat. Account p. 117 567. and Dr. Tillotson ‖ Rule of Faith p. 275 do against Transubstantiation who because Lot's sight was actually deceived upon this supernatural accident in taking the Angels to be Men as certainly it was from hence would inferr that the Apostles had no sufficient certainty or ground from their seeing and handling our Lord to believe him risen from the dead Or that no belief could ever be certainly grounded upon our Senses which Senses are appointed by God the ordinary instruments of conveying faith and his revelations to us viz. by our hearing or reading them and do afford a sufficient certainty whereon to ground our belief in all things subject to them excepting only those wherein we have some Divine-Revelation of the Divine Power interposing and working somthing above Nature that in such particular matter we are not to believe them 3ly Which Divine Revelation we are to learn that is where the sense of the Scriptures Gods word is any way controverted from Gods Church infallibly assisted in necessary Faith I add or also by Tradition evidently from age to age conveying to us such a sense ' of such Scripture to be the true Thus N. O. to that obstacle much urged of late That no pretence of Church-Infallibility may be admitted in any thing that is repugnant to our Senses § 61 And thus since no truly Divine Revelation can be false whether it stand with or against our Senses or seeming Reason the dispute here as to any particular point of our saith suppose Transubstantiation is clearly removed from what is the evidence of sense or seeming Reason in such a matter to what certainty there is of the Revelation its being Divine Neither can we conclude any thing from the former evidence of our Senses where Divine Revelation is pretended contrary till the latter evidence that of the certain truth of the Revelation is first disproved The evidence therefore of Tradition an evidence sufficient as for proving the Scriptures to be Gods Word so for such or such sense of any part of Scripture to be Divine Revelation not of our Senses is first to be enquired after Which Primitive Tradition interpreting Scripture this Author also I think elsewhere saith he will stand to And §. 62. n. 1. if these things be so his arguing in his Rational Account p. 567. if he pleaseth to reflect upon it cannot stand good where he saith the Testimony of the Fathers carries not so great an evidence as that of our Senses The question saith he there 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 Fathers And afterward Supposing saith he the Fathers were as clear for you as they are against you in this subject yet that would not be enough to perswade us to believe so many contradictions as Transubstantiation involves in it meerly because the Fathers i.e. thus interpreting the Scriptures delivered it to us For nothing but a stronger evidence than that of sense and Reason can be judged sufficient to oversway the clear dictates of both So that suppose Catholicks could prove for example for the literal sense of Hoc est Corpus meum an universal consent of Fathers or of Tradition yet what shall we be the nearer in dealing with such men who say they must rather believe the evidence of Sense as being the foundation of the Christian Faith But if the
definition in matters of faith upon Anathema to all dissenters in their inserting them as thought fit in the Church's Creeds and the Church Catholick upon this having esteemed all opposers of them Hereticks c. mentioned before § 50. He answers thus p. 128. That this argument is so weak that he wonders N.O. had not considered how often it had been answered by their own Writers For that it is certain that Provincial Councils as well as General have Anathematized dissenters pronounced them Hereticks that Bellarmine ‖ Concil l. 2. c. 10. saith that this doth not imply their Infallibility And that if it doth not in the case of Provincial Councils why should N. O think it doth in the case of General Thus He. And whereas N.O. who had well pre-considered such Objection said to it Consid p. 40. that these subordinate Councils granted in themselves fallible did not denounce such Anathemas nor require assent to their decrees but with relation to the same Infallibility residing in the General Body of Church-Governours and their concurrence therein that they passed not such Acts without consulting the Tradition and Judgment of other Churches and especially of the Apostolick See To this he replie That the Anathemas of Provincial Councils did not relate to the acceptation of their decrees either by the Pope or the whols Church as N. O. supposes but did proceed upon their own assurance of the truth of what they decreed otherwise their Anathemas would have been only conditional and not absolute and peremptory as we see they were Lastly That he needs to give no other answer to this argument than in the words of Dr. Field ‖ l. 4. c. 4. That Councils denounce Anathema not because they think every one that disobeys the decree of the Council to be accursed but because they are perswaded in particular that this is the eternal truth of God which they propose therefore they accurse them that obstinatly shall resist as S. Paul willeth every Christian man to anathematize an Angel coming from heaven if he shall teach him any other doctrine that he hath already learned yet is not every particular Christian free from possibility of erring Thus the Doctor § 65 To which I return this That whereas the Concession of Catholicks and particularly of Bellarmine De Concil l. 2. c. 10. is produced as ruining this weak argument of N.O. that would prove from anathematizing dissenters Infallibility First here consulting Bellarmine I find him De Concil l. 2. c. 3. where he maintains the Infallibility of General Councils to urge together with N.O. this Argument for it in these words 2º Docent Patres Concilia esse Haereticos excommunicandos omnes qui non acquiescunt Conciliis plenariis Ex quo manifestè sequitur eos putasse Concilia non posse errare atque in primis omnia Concilia Generalia dicunt anathema contradicentibus ut Athanasius testatur de Nicaeno c. Next That for the Objection concerning Provincial Councils which N.O. well considered he thought it sufficiently solved and so may think still by those words of his before recited and that Bellarmine also because the Dr. quotes him answers this Objection much-what in the same manner saying Provincial Councils have sometimes used such anathema's to dissenters in such points Quando res est facilis and this facilis he explains in quâ omnes ferè Doctores i.e. Ecclesiae Catholicae conveniunt Ferè for it is not necessary that all should no more than in the first four Councils they did Et quando a Sede Apostolicâ confirmationâ—m accipiunt Which seems to say the same with N.O. namely when Provincial Councils have such a concurrence of the whole Church as is sufficient to render their Act equivalent to that of a Council General and so in all necessaries infallible And therefore in the same place the Cardinal instancing in the Anathemas passed in the Affrican Councils against Pelagianisme observes out of Prospers Chronicon A.D. 420. that Pelagianisme condemned by them yet non priùs ab Ecclesiâ totius orbis damnata est quà m Zosimus Papa decreta illius Concilii firmasset Prospers words are Concilio apud Carthaginem habito 217. Episcoporum ad Pentificem Zosimum synodalia decreta prolata sunt their Anathemas quibus probatis per totum mundum Haeresis Pelagiana damnata est and these Anathemas obtained their just force And that S. Austin in his Retractations ‖ l. 2. c. 50. saith not postquam Pelagiana haeresis a Conciliis Affricanis but postquam ab Episcopis Ecclesiae Romanae prâ—ies Innccentio deinde Zosimo cooperantibus Conciliorum Affricanorum literis i.e. relating to those Popes these their decrees convictâ— atque damnata est though the Affrican Anathema's were pronounced before the Pope's confirming their Acts for which Confirmation we finde them writing to him after their Council ended in this manner Vt statutis nostrae mediocritatis say they ‖ Apud August Ep. 90. etiam Apostolicae Sedis adhibeatur authoritas c. who in his Answer to them also justifies them to consent with whole Body of the Catholick Church Thus then were their Anathemas grounded To the Dr's Reply that follows that in such a case their Anathemas would have been made only Conditional I answer § 66 That their Anathemas though relating always to the general approbation of their Decrees yet were penned not Conditional but Absolute either because such a sufficient concurrence with them of the Catholick Church was well known to them before the composing their Decree as it may be when yet the Confirmation of their Act is only received after it Or because such Post-Confirmation and Acceptation after the penning of the Decree yet precedes the promulgation and just force or obligation of it It being to run absolute upon such a consent presupposed as it is the ordinary custome in all Laws the establishment whereof depends on many successively yet in their first stile to run absolutely because such ratification is presupposed to their having the due force of Laws And so in General Councils the Anathemas are penned absolute though these Councils and their Decrees have not their full strength till the Confirmation thereof by the See Apostolick and also such an admittance and acceptation of them by the Church Catholick Dissusive where the Representatives of a Considerable part of it are absent as is thought necessary †Next That ‖ See Bellarm de Concil l. 1. c. 17. §. 4. l. 2. c. 11. §. objiciunt by the Dr's words of the Anathemas of such Councils proceeding upon their own assurance I know not what he means Doth he allow fallible Councils upon a perswasion they have of the truth of what they decree to anathematize dissenters and pronounce them Hereticks Then why may not the Council of Trent do so Or if he means by their assurance that Provincial Councils are certain without relation to any consent of the whole that they do
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
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
no certainty of the meaning of the Levitical Law because there is no High Priest or Sunhedrin to explain it Not all Persons in all things without an Explainer And there was anciently a Guide Infallible or so authorized as that all were to stand to its judgment appointed for deciding several doubtful parts of Moses his Law Of which see in the former Discourse § 22. Pag. 101. l. 8 Yet after all he cannot certainly understand the meaning of them Not of some of them exclusively to an Infallible Church-Authority and his Submission thereto Pag. 102. l. 10. And after all this cannot we understand c That every one cannot without some other helps than only our Lord's and his Apostles discourses I think this Authour grants before p. 96. 97. And Sic oportebat ut diceretur quod non ab omnibus intelligeretur saith S. Austin ‖ In Joan. tract 27. of our Lord's Sermon about the Eucharist in the 6th of S. John Ibid. l. 7 Our Question is not about may be 's Therefore N.O. in those Considerations on Princip 13. p. 14. c. contends that God not only may but hath so revealed his mind that in many things it is clear to some persons when not to others and for this quotes Dr Field on his side Ib. l. 5 It is taken for granted on both sides that God hath revealed his mind in writing But not granted that he hath revealed it so clearly in writing as none may mistake any part of it I am afraid I tire out the Reader with so often repetition of the same limitations and restrictions applied to a discourse that renders it self plausible by omitting them The use of Indefinite Terms and propositions is a sure way and a fine art for Controvertists to answer one another and both speak truth So these two Scriptures are clear in points of necessary faith and Scriptures are not clear in points of necessary faith are both very true as to several persons and in several matters of necessary faith Pag. 103. l. 14. But when I had expresly said things necessary for salvation why doth he avoid that which the dispute was about and only say many things It was an oversight in N.O. but no advantage made by it who in speaking of the clearness of Scriptures adds the term as to Necessaries frequently and that in the Consideration upon the very same Principle See p. 15. If these in all necessaries are clear Of every particular Christian in all points necessary Such a clearness in Necessaries must the Scripture have c. By which the Reader may see whether his Adversary had cause to complain but so doth not the Dr when speaking of Church Infallibility add this term as to necessaries used by N.O. Ib. l. 10 I never yet saw one difficulty removed by the pretended infallible Guides of the Church General Councils are these pretended Infallible Guides and the doubted and disputed Sense of many Scriptures in necessary matters have been cleared by these Councils and some of them put in the Church's Creeds Pag. 104. l. 8. Nothing of it their talent of infallibility ever appeared above ground See the last Note Ib. l. 15. Supposing we believe their Infallibility we are still as far to seek for the meaning of many difficult places The Church is not said to be infallible in all things whatewer as the Scriptures are but in necessaries As these are explained in the former Discourse § 2 and in 2d Discourse concerning the Guide § 9. c. viz in all points that are any way beneficial either as to the General Oeconomy or Government of the Church or as to the Salvation of Particulars to be believed or practised by her Subjects and the truth of which the Scripture or Tradition at least as to the necessary Principles from which such point is extracted do sufficiently evidence unto her Such from time to time as they are called in Question are stated and determined by her whilst neither having leisure nor perhaps light to determine all other I mean such as are no way necessary to be determined Of which thing what points are and what are not so the Church her self and not her Subjects is the most proper Judge Ib. l. 6 So that not making use of this talent of Infallibility gives us just reason to question whether God continues it Then from the Church's having well used this talent we may gather the contrary viz. the Divine Providence it s still preserving it to her Pag. 107. l. 9. Which several expressions of Dr Field's amount to no more than this that there will be alwayes some true Christians in the world Contrary to this Dr Field holds that in all ages there is and shall be not some true Christians only but some Visible Society and Church or other consisting of a Ministry or Clergy openly publishing and teaching and a People receiving their doctrine that in such age doth not err in necessaries to salvation which tenent of his very well consists with that advice in his Preface produced by N.O. That therefore men not having time or leisure or strength of understanding to examine controversies in Religion of such consequence should diligently search out which amongst all the Societies of the world is that blessed Company of Holy ones that Houshold of Faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the living God which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth that so he may embrace her Communion follow her Directions and rest in her Judgment Thus he Which cannot be spoken only of the being alwayes of some true Christians in the world that do not so err but of a visible society or Communion such as gives directions and delivers her Judgment And to shew him coherent to himself This Visible Society in all ages the excellency of it and their happiness that are in it he further thus describes in his 1st Book 10th Chapter Visible saith he there in respect of the profession of supernatural verities revealed in Christ use of Holy Sacraments order of Ministry and due Obedience yielded thereunto and they discernable that do communicate therein Such then he allows that Church in my age to be that he maintains not to err in necessaries what Church soever of that age it hapens to be as one or more it must be And if this be not enough to clear this N. O out of his Common-Place book for thence our Author saith he had his quotation can furnish him with several other places out of Dr Field that say the same thing Such that Ibid That the constant profession of saving truth is preserved and found amongst men and the ministery of salvation continued and known in the world For how saith he shâ—uld there be a Church gathered without a Ministery And the like l. 2. c. 6. That the Ministery of Pastours and Teachers is absolutely necessary to the being of a Church For how should there be a Church gathered guided and governed without a Ministery
Therefore he will have in every age a Ministery that in necessaries doth not err Such that l. 4. c. 2. where he grants to Bellarmine expounding himself to mean Ni mine Ecclesiae non unum aut alterum hom inom Christianum sed multitudinem congregatam in quâ sunt Praelati Subditi he grants to Bellarmin I say That the visible Church i.e. such a one as the Cardinal speaks of consisting of Prelates Subjects never falleth into any Heresy so that saith he he is much to be blamed for idâ—â— and needless busying himself improving that which we most willingly grant Again l. 1. c. 10. Bellarmin laboureth in vain in proving that there is and always hath been a visible Church and that not consisting of some few scattered Christians without order of Ministry or use of Sacraments add what follows in Bellarmin sed in quâ sunt Praelati subditi for all this we do most willingly yield unto Expresly excepting there against the opinion of those Protestants that hold Though all other falling from the faith the truth of God should remain only in some few of the laity yet the promise of Christ concerning the perpetuity of his Church might still be verified See also l. 2. c. 2. where he speaks thus This entire profession of the truth revealed in Christ though it distinguish right believers from Hereticks yet it is not proper to the happy number and blessed company of Catholick Christians because Schismaticks may and sometimes do hold an entire profession of the truth of God revealed in Christ It remaineth therefore that we seek out those things that are so peculiarly found in the companies of right believing and Catholick Christians that they may serve as Notes of difference to distinguish them from all boâ—â— Pagans Jews Hereticks and Schismaticks The last of which Notes he saith there is this An union or connexion of men in this profession and use of these Sacraments under lawful Pastors and Guides appointed authorized and sanctified to direct and lead them in the happy ways of eternal salvation Again l. 4. c. 4. he describes this Church That alway retaineth a saving profession of heavenly truth such that by strength of Reasons force of perswasions timeliness of admonitions comforts of Sacraments and other means of saving grace it strengtheneth and stayeth the weakness of all them that depend upon it Language not suting to a Church but such as hath in it Pastors and people and there contends That it doth not only preserve the truth as a hidden treasure but by publick profession publisheth it unto the world and stayeth the weakness of others by the knowledge of it in which respect it is fitly compared to a Pillar and not as Bellarmine accuseth his Church unto an Ark or Chest And so â—lâ—o Ibid. c. 5. in the words here quoted by the Dr Thus then we think saith he that particular men and Churches may err damnably because notwithstanding this othâ—rs i.e. particular men and Churches may worship God aright but that the whole Church at one time cannot so err i.e. all particular Churches that are in that time for besides these particulars there is no whole for that then the Church should cease utterly for a time and Christ should sometimes be without a Church i.e. such as consists of an united Body of Clergy or Ministers and People as he had said before After which he begins thus his 6th Chapter Thus having spoken of the Church's assured possession of the Knowledge of truth in the next place we are to speak of her Office of Teaching and Witnessing the same The Church therefore which he understands to possess this truth is such also as teacheth and witnesseth it Thus Dr Field justifying some such Church always to be not erring in Necessaries but not always the same or the most eminent Or those that possesse the greatest places of Office and Dignity in it and I am sorry Dr St's mistaken glosses upon him have occasioned to me and the Reader this trouble Meanwhile since from this alledged here the mistaking of Dr Fields sense appears not on N. O's but the Dr's side this his own errour might have been attended with less exulting and triumph and exclaiming O the mischief of Common-place-books which makes men write what they find c. But yet here the Intelligent Reader may discern two great flaws in this opinion of Dr Field The one that though there is such a Blessed Society of Clergy in every age that doth not err yet private men cannot be secure that this society for a year or a month longer shall continue such since though some one or other always doth not yet any particular Church may err from Necessary faith whilst some other retains it The other that for knowing what particular Clergy doth not err in necessaries for he saith ‖ l. 1. c. 10. that those who passesse great places of office and dignity in the Church of God may depart from the soundness of Christian faith the private person muâ—â— first know its doctrines to be true which is one of the essential Notes he gives to distinguish iâ— by from all other Churches in he place before-cited l. 2. c. 2. from which true Doctrine in Necessaries retained to day it may also vary to morrow But then how shall they foreknow its Doctrines to be true who as he saith in his Preface have not leisure or capacity to examine Controversies and therefore who are advised there for these doctrines to rest in its judgment for these doctrines meant of points Necessary For those only are the points in which such a Blessed Society certainly errs not Ibid. l. 15. And is it now imaginable after all this that Dr Field should make any particular Church infallible The precedents shew Dr Field to make some Visible Church or other in whatever age not to err in necessaries Otherwise he saith Christ would sometimes be without a Church But Dr Field is urged by N.O. only as advising very differently from our Author that so few having time or lâ—isure or strength of understanding to examine Controversies in Religion of such consequence they should diligently search out watch amongst all the Societies of the world is that blessed Company of Holy Oâ—â—â— that Houshold of Faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the living God which is the Pillar and ground of Truth that so he may embrace her Communion follow her Directions and rest in her Judgment contrary to the Dr's 13th and 15th Principle That Gods will in Necessaries is so clearly set down in Scripture as none endeavouring to understand the meaning of them can mistake in these And N.O. contends also though such society should not be infallible that yet it is the wisest course for a private man to follow Dr Fields advice and rather to acquiesce in their judgement as more skilled c than in his own As in a suit of Law we follow the directions and rest in the
judgement of an expert Lawyer though not infallible Ibid. l. 6 A man convinced that the Church of England is a sound and good Church ought to rest in her judgment so as not to forsake her communion for any cavils that are raised about particular controversies of which he is not a capable Judge Vpon being convinced that the Church of England is a sound or orthodox Church to rest in her judgment is only to rest in her judgment where such person first knows it right or true but how then rests he thus in Controversies wherein he is no capable Judge and so doth not foreknow her soundness in them The same may be said to that he mentions afterward concerning a man's foreknowing the Church's integrity honesty skill all which sincere and good in one matter may fail in another Again where the Dr mentions resting in this Church's judgment for people who have not either leisure or capacity to understand particular controversies means he in Necessaries Then how will his 13. and 15th Principles stand good that from the clear delivery of such points in the Scriptures the diligent cannot mistake nor need for their guidance therein any infallible society of men and much less then need they a fallible But if he makes this Society Dr Field speaks of only useful for private men to submit their judgment to in non-necessaries it is clear Dr Field intends it otherwise who saith such a Society in non-necessaries may err but in Necessaries doth not and therefore in these not the other may safely be relied upon But lastly if thus private men unseen in Controversies may and ought to rest in the judgment of a particular Church so qualified why are not such much more obliged to rest in the judgment of N. O's Church contended to be infallible in all Necessaries viz. in the Definitions of a lawful General Council Or in matters not so defined to rest in the judgment of the supremest Courts of the Church Catholick that can be had which Church Catholick is but One and subordinate in its members see-before § 26 In stead therefore of some particular Church Orthodox let this be sought out and perpetually adhered to when found Pag. 109. l. 7. Do make all men impeccable if they will So far as God gives any man grace not to sin every one may be impeccable or may not sin if he will i. e if he uses his best endeavours That all are sinners I speak as to Actual Sin is from all failing in their will and endeavours Ibid. l. 14. Who can believe the Goodness of God and yet think that he will suffer those who sincerely endeavour to know what is necessary to their salvation not to understand it They are not to be supposed sincerely to endeavour to know things Necessary as they ought who do not repair to the Church to learn of her Gods Truth where this is obscure to them in the letter of Scripture Ib. l. 17. How often doth the Scripture promise a greater degree of knowledg to the meek and humble and diligent God teacheth the humble and diligent as well by his Church as by his Scriptures and one and a great duty of such persons is their seeking instructions from and the submission of their judgment to those Spiritual Guides and Pastors whom God hath set over them on purpose that they may not be carried away with every wind of doctrines Eph. 4.11 13. in matters that are otherwise to them obscure Pag. 110. l. 2. His word so clear in necessary things that no one who sincerely endeavours to know them shall ever miss of salvation Here notwithstanding what was said before by our Author p. 96 97. and 107 108. of using others directions resting in the judgment of a Church trusting the learned so and so qualifyed we are relapsed again into the 13th and 15th Principles and all the weight laid on the Clearness of Scripture as to all persons in all Necessaries for in some none deny it Annotations on his §. 6. N. O's Proofs of Infallibility examined PAg. 112. l. 12 I come to his particular Arguments which ly scattered up and down but to give them the greater strength I shall bring them nearer together N.O. writing no set Discourse on a chosen or single subject but Considerations on 30 several Principles of the Dr's and some Consequences also drawn from them his Considerations varying so as the Principles expected the Dr should in the same order have vindicated his 30 Principles as he laid them down and have discovered the Considerer's mistakes Instead of this as if loth to come to such a trial close and perspicuous to the Reader he finds the Dr adorning a new Discourse as an Answer to a former Treatise that had pitched on the same subject casting new Methods gathering together here and there his Adversary's Concessions extracting his Principles and with what fidelity the Reflections on them have shewn contracting and giving the summ and sense of what N. O. thought he had writ most compendiously and not after the manner of an Harangue or Sermon that needed to be epitomized and telling his Reader here p. 112. that he will bring nearer together N. O's arguments which ly in him scattered up and down that is are there fitted to the particular Principle that is discoursed of to give them the greater strength a kindness Controvertists use to do to one another for their own advantage and so after much pains taken in altering and transforming and transplacing N. O's Conceptions and drawing them off from the Principles they were fixed and applied to and omitting them also where he thinks fit and where they will not come within his Methods and so leaving his Principles also together with them abandoned and unguarded for of the Thirty Six the Reader will find in all this Book a very few re-confidered he in fine confutes a thing of his own making not N. O's Pag. 113. l. 14. Is it then to be imagined that if Christ had intended such an infallibility as the foundation of the faith and peace of his Church he would not have delivered his minde more plainly and clearly in this matter N. 1 Our Lord hath delivered his mind by his Apostles plainly and clearly enough concerning this matter in the Scriptures and to his Apostles before them The knowledg of which Promise of our Lord concerning such an infallible Assistance to be for ever continued to his Church and its Guides should alwaies have descended to Posterity by Tradition had there been no Scriptures Delivered this so plainly as that upon all Controversies concerning the dubious sense of Scriptures thought necessary to be decided the Church's subjects de facto have repaired to these Guides as believed infallible in all Necessaries upon the account * of our Lords assisting them with his Holy Spirit promised in and before these Scriptures * of their being left by our Lord behind him for this end amongst others to keep 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
to believe it just But in matters of Religion such a Judge is required whom we should be obliged to believe to have judged right So that in civil controversies every honest understanding man is fit to be a Judge but in Religion none but he that is infallible at least in all necessary matters Thus he Ib. l. 9 Which absolute obedience we are ready to yield 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 What thinks he of our Lords Dic Ecclesiae and Si Ecclesiam non audierit sit tibi sicut Ethnicus c in the sense wherein Church-Tradition hath understood this Text as applied to the highest Courts of the Church and to their cutting off by a spiritual death the disobedient whether contradicters or dissenters Is there more injustice and tyranny in this than inflicting a corporal death on the dissenters or contradicters under Moses his law This Discourse of the Dr as also what he hath said of the same matter Rat. Account p. 239. I had occasion to examine in the former Discourse § 22. c to which I referr the Reader for what is here omitted Pag. 117. l. 7. Such a pretence implying an infallible assistance of the Spirit of God there were but two ways of proving it either 1. By such Miracles as the Apostles wrought to attest their Infallibility or 2. By those Scriptures from whence this Infallibility is derived What thinks he of a third way of proving it viz. By Tradition But then If the Church-Guides give this evidence of their being infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost in necessaries namely the clear Testimony of the Scriptures I ask is not this sufficient for the world to credit them to be so without their doing Miracles Doth not this Author of the two ways to prove it named just before allow either of them sufficient Now see this latter proved before in Note on p. 113. l. 17. and so I hope we may peaceably take leave of Miracles Pag. 118. l. 2. When I speak of infallibility in fundamentals I there declare that I mean no more by it than that there shall be always a number of true Christians in the world Now whence learns he this that true Christians shall never faile I suppose whence other Protestants do viz. from the Promise of our Lord in Scripture that the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against his Church See Archbishop Lawd p. 140. That the whole Church saith he cannot err in doctrines absolutely fundamental seems to me to be clear by the promise of Christ Mat. 16. That the gates of hell c. And it is as clear that the Arch-bishop meant it not only of a number of true Christians as our Author doth here but of true Pastors also and Doctors of the Church If this Promise then be enough for believing of this the non-failing of Christians that shall believe all necessary truth without Miracles will it not supposing such a promise made to them be as sufficient for believing the other the indefectibility of the Church-Guides as to teaching all necessary faith without their doing Miracles Ib. l. 16. But in case any persons challenge an infallibility to themselves antecedently to the belief of Scriptures c such persons are equally bound to prove their infallibility by Miracles as the Apostles were What if they challenge this Infallibility like wise from the Scriptures as most certainly they do This latter challenge of theirs surely will supersede Miracles But let us suppose no such challenge What thinks he if they produce the evidence of Tradition for their Infallibility antecedently to Scripture as also they do Is not this we here suppose there is such a Tradition which is proved before ‖ Note on p. 113. l. 14. a sufficiently clear and self-evident proof of it If not of their Infallibility how then is the same Tradition without Miracles a sufficient proof to Protestants of the Canon or Infallibility of Scriptures Suppose the same promises made no Scriptures written would not the Catholick Church have been what it is and must it then have perpetually-shewn Miracles or no Infallibility as to Necessaries have been believed in it Ib. l. 7 The Sum of which is c. In the Dr's suming of N. O's Answers still somthing is lost as here the Reason is omitted why no such need of Miracles to be done by the Church-Governours delivering only from age to age that Doctrine which by the first Teachers was sufficiently confirmed by Miracles viz. this the Evidence of Tradition which received from the Apostles and from their Ancestors they unanimously convey unto Posterity Yet such Miracles were necessary then to more persons than those Apostles who made the very first Sermons concerning the Gospel because the bare Tradition of a few at the first was not so evidently credible as that which by many Sermons made and Miracles done in many places afterward became Vniversal Pag. 119. l. 12. The necessity of Miracles was to give a sufficient motive to believe to all those to whom the Gospel was proposed Must all then in the Apostles times who received the faith see their Miracles Or if their Miracles only related to them by a creditable Tradition would serve the turn why not the same Miracles related now Pag. 120. l. 1. Those persons ought to confirm that authority by Miracles as the Apostles did And again l. 20. See Note on p. 118. l. 11. N. 1 Ibid. l. 11. Yet he is very loth to let go the Miracles of their Church done in latter times as well as formerly N.O. ‖ See Consid p. 29. is loth to let go the Miracles of their Church i.e. of the Catholick Church East or West for both have been noted for Miracles In latter times i.e. from the Apostles daies to the present there being the same evidences in all ages of the facts I say not of all the facts that are related but of many of them which is sufficient and the same Reasons where and when the World is already Christian in all times for the doing of them N.O. loth to let them go not as to this his affirming a Necessity of them now in the Church for the believing of its Infallibility or any other part of the Christian Doctrine or also for the Conversion of the yet Infidel and Heathen Nations after such a plenitude of Tradition appearing in the greatest part of the world already subdued by the Gospel Of which non-necessity N.O. saith ‖ Princ. Consid p. 29. That Miracles having been wrought by the Apostles in confirmation of that Doctrine which their Successors deliver from them are not now alike necessary to or reasonably demanded of these their Successors N. 2 But he is very loth notwithstanding this to part with true Miracles still wrought in the Church since the Apostles times and these too of the very
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
distinguishable or diversified from those of our Lord or his Apostles were seen to be really done by false Religions as well and as usually as in the Church Catholick the End wherefore done would be a thing of the greatest uncertainty and most easily mistaken or misrelated and after the Clear evidence of such Miracles done there this end would be represented by every Religion to their own advantage as they pleased and thus all Religions would come to have an undiscernably equal Plea of their Confirmation by Miracles Therefore in the Scripture we finde not the End why the Miracle was done chiefly insisted on or proved to the people Yet the clearing of which End in such case of all Religions doing the same True Miracles were the thing the most necessary but the Fact and from it presently gathered the Catholickness and the Divine approbation of the Person See John 9.16 17 30 31 33. Such and so well attested Miracles therefore as our Lord and his Apostles did I gather never have been never shall be done by any persons in false Religion or that are no members of the Catholick Church 3. And then this granted I may hence safely conclude also that such Miracles do always evidence the Church wherein they are done to be the Catholick and so that Church to which our Lords Promises of Infallibility as to all Necessaries do belong Add to this that if any True Miracles can be shewn in the Roman Church the Dr's words following seem to make good its Infallibility For saith he ‖ p. 121. l. 1. they would do well to shew where ever in Scripture God did bestow a gift of Miracles upon any but for this end i.e. to give evidence of the Authority and Infallibility those by whom they were done and what reason there is that God should alter the method and course of his Providence in a matter of so great concernment to the Faith of Mankind So he If then God never bestows a gift of Miracles for any other end save this then if true Miracles such as our Lord 's be proved Infallibility also is proved to be in the Roman Catholick Church But to reflect on these words of his They would do well to shew c. a litle further If our Author means here by the Miracle's shewing the infallibility of the Worker such an Infallibility as the Apostles had in delivering nothing by word or writing but Gods word and the Dictates of the Holy Ghost I can shew him in Scripture many that were the Instruments of working miracles and had not this as those Corinthians and others in the Apostles times 1 Cor. 12.10 28 30. God bestowing this Gift on several others there besides the Apostles who had not an Apostolical Infallibility Of all which holy persons whom God honours thus with Miracles though it may be said that what such deliver for Gods Faith certainly is so who otherwise would never be assisted with Miracles which are alwaies a seale of truth if delivering falsityes as Divine truths Yet it cannot be said of them as of the Apostles that whatever they deliver is Gods Truth whilst in their delivering it they do not pretend it so as the Apostles did so pretend it and therefore upon doing Miracles were to be believed in such their pretension But if those whom God honours with miracles are to be believed in what they say then cannot their Miracles be urged for an infallibility in all they shall teach or hold who do themselves say and professe the contrary Their Miracles confirm and make good what they pretend to but not more I say then if the Dr means here That whoever have the gift of doing Miracles have likewise such an infallibility in all they say as was in the Apostles it holds not true For the Corinthians also had such a Gift who were not in such a manner infallible But if He means here that none have had this Gift or done any such evident and frequent Miracles but such only as have taught or held the infallible Catholick faith as to all the necessary points thereof the faith I say which being entirely delivered by the Apostles there is no further need of infallibility like to that of theirs for conveying the same as it was received from them to posterity I accord with him and contend that none to this day have had such Gift save such Orthodox persons No Pagans no Hereticks true Miracles such as our Lord and his Apostles did being distinctive signes that accompany and follow only true Believers according to our Lord's promise Mar. 16.17 for whatever Ends these Miracles happen to be bestowed as they may be for many besides the Confirmation of the Catholick Faith Therefore where a Frequency of true Miracles is seen in any Communion we may safely follow the profession of its Faith God having provided that his Catholick Church and true Miracles shall never be parted i.e. that where the latter are there is the former By True Miracles I mean such though it needs not to be all such as our Lord and his Apostles did and so clearly testified by Eye-Witnesses as their's were or might be And I exclude here all such effects though miraculous to us as evil Spirits God permitting have a power to effect by the instrumency and â—pplication of some natural Agents though this transcending any humane Art or Capacity For such miracles I willingly grant both Magicians and also Hereticks and Schismaticks may operate by the assistance of these Angelical powers therein either Voluntary or also constrained as to the inferiour sort of these Spirits compelled thereto by their Superiours But the former such as our Lord and his Apostles wrought surpassing all the power of Nature do also that of Evil Spirits or of any their Instruments are by Christians easily distinguishable from these other Pag. 121. l. 7. Such Miracles as were wrought by Christ and his Apostles we defy all other Religions in the world to produce any like them to confirm their Doctrine i.e. As one may understand him Neither Heathens neither Heretical Churches can ever do any such Miracles as were wrought by our Lord and his Apostles viz. give sight to the blind cure the sick raise again the dead c. From which it follows that whatever Church doth such Miracles must be the Catholick from this that such Miracles whereever they are found in any age do shew the Church wherein they are done to be Infallible in Necessaries for so the Catholick Church is But if here he puts in the last words to confirm their doctrine as limiting the former and carrying such a sense that other Religions beside the Catholick may also do all such Miracles as our Lord and his Apostles did for some other ends but not for this viz. to confirm their doctrine or Religion I think he will have an hard task of it either * to shew that the Historians that have related such miracles have not also applied them
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
any Circle or Petitio principii or identical arguing that whatever be doth witness of himself is true And can the Doctor disprove this Pag. 123. l. 5. Not shewing at all how the infallibility of the Church can be proved from Scripture And the reason of this was to shew that Catholicks have no necessity for proving Church-Infallibility to return to the testimony of the Scriptures for it as the Dr and some other Protestants say they must Annotations on his 8. §. The Argument from Tradition for Infallibility PAg. l. 11. The method of his discourse is this c. Whoever learns the method of ones discourse from an Adversary is seldom rightly informed who will not be deceived must consult the Author As for example here in the Dr's giving an account of N. O's Method concerning Tradition he hath fairly left out that which N.O. most pressed viz. these Governours of the Church in their General Councils inserting from time to time as they thought fit their Decisions in the Church's Creeds which shews what opinion both General Councils and the whole Church have had of the Infallibility of their Decisions and which by N. O. was named in the first place and preceded their Anathematizing of Dissenters Pag. 124. l. 8. What thinks he of the Religion of the Patriarcht who received their Religion by Tradition without any such Infallibility 1. First he thinks it somewhat strange to see the Dr plead the certainty of Oral Tradition elsewhere by him so much decried to evade Church-Infallibility 2ly He thinks that in those first times for their Religion people were not left wholly to Tradition which as to many points of their Religion could not have afforded them especially such persons as had not much conversation abroad a sufficient Certainty therein but that then also they had Priests and Prophets endued with Gods Spirit and who as to the Office of Teaching were not only set over them for exhorting thein to a good life but for directing them also in all necessary Credends and Truths and that the traditive doctrine of these Priests so assisted must be granted much more not to be liable to errour in those points wherein the Tradition of the people is thought by the Dr sufficiently certain so that the mor◠the certainty of Tradition is established the more is confirmed their Infallibility also who were the principal Conservers of it 3ly He thinks also that the Church of God had even from the beginning many Positive Divine Laws besides that of Nature prescribing many things in the Worship of God So we find early in Genesis mention of several laws committed afterward to writing by Moses See before Note on p. 85. l. 14. Neither can he suppose Oral Tradition such a faithful and exact Guide in all these laws and to every one so well known and that so free from all controversy in necessary matters as to supersede the necessity of any Church-Infallibility in them But however it be in the Church under the Old Testament the Promises of an infallible guidance by Gods Holy Spirit to its Governours seem much more necessary in the New for the certainty and stability of Christian Religion in all its parts where is such an enlargement made of the Articles of Faith and especially if these should not have been committed to writing Ib. l. 12 No such necessity of infallibility for that purpose viz. for receiving the Scriptures or Churches infallibility by vertue of common and universal Tradition True there is no necessity of Church-Infallibility to prove or assure them of Church-Infallibility or other points of their faith such as are sufficiently evidenced to them by the forementioned Tradition But 1 there is a necessity of Church-Infallibility still that so there may be a stability and certainty in them even to the unlearned as to many other points of Necessary Faith not so clear in Tradition as Church Infallibility is nor so clear as to be thereby self-evident to all Christians As for example for this point of faith the Divinity and Consubstantiality of onr Saviour against the Arian Unless we may perhaps imagine that the same or greater Controversies in Religion that have risen notwithstanding the Scriptures would not so without them See before Note on p. 84. n. 4. a. Next Observe also That Church Infallibility as it is divinely assisted being a Divine Revelation is in its delivering to us the other Articles of our faith much more relied and rested upon in the same manner as all other Divine Revelations are than the Evidence of Tradition in its delivering to us the same Articles though the Ground and Reason that such Infallibility is believed to be a Divine Revelation be Tradition Pag. 125. l. 1. For if the Tradition may be a sufficient ground if faith how comes Infallibility to be necessary Thus Tradition may be a sufficient ground of Faith for some points clearly delivered by it and as to the persons clearly knowing such Tradition and yet Church Infallibility be necessary for many other points not cleared sufficiently to all men by Tradition For things of a sufficiently generall Tradition which Tradition is reposed presently in writings cannot be so well known to all Christians many neither having learning nor much conversation abroad as Definitions of a Council may Ib. l. 7. And that therein the will of God is contained c. Contained but not clearly And this is the reason of putting Church-Infallibility notwithstanding these Divine writings which reason holds also much more for it without them Ib. l. 17. That the Church would otherwise have failed if there had been neither Writings nor Infallibility Might have failed i.e. by erring in such Necessaries as are not as to all clearly delivered by Tradition Ib. l. 9 For we see God did furnish the Church with one the Scriptures and left no footsteps of the other Church-Infallibility Yes the Definitions of the Church contained in the Athanasian Creed are footsteps of it Ib. l. ult Not left in to the determinations of men liable to be corrupted by interest and ambition i.e. Of Lawful General Councils our pretended Infallible Church-Guides Pag. 126. l. 2. But hath appointed men inspired by himself to set down whatever is necessary for us to believe and practise Add and hath appointed others divinely-assisted also as to Necessaries to determine both in belief and practice what the former as to all capacities have not so clearly set down as that they may not be therein mistaken or also by some teachers misguided Witness Dr St.'s testimony hereof Rat. Account p. 58. pressed by N.O. p. 63. where he grants this here said and upon it allows as far as his line will let him go the sense that the Catholick Church in succeeding ages gives of the Scriptures to be a very useful way for them to embrace the true sense of the Scriptures even in Necessaries His own words are It seems reasonable that because art and subtilty may be used by such who
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
of the Christian Faith And here in what hath been urged out of him but now doth not he grant the just requiring of an internal assent to inferr Infallibility Or will he justify it lawful for 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 why doth the Church of England as themselves say forbear such things I say I see not clearly what here the Dr would have N. 4 2ly Coming to that which he presseth concerning the practice of Provincial Councils anathematizing Dissenters and yet these Councils granted by Catholicks not Infallible which Concession of Catholicks and particularly of Bellarmine de Concil l. 2. c. 10. is produced as ruining this weak argument of N.O. that would prove from Anathematizing Dissenters Infallibility First here N.O. consulting Bellarmin he is found De Concil l. 2. c. 3. where he maintains the Infallibility of General Councils to urge together with N.O. this very Argument for it See his words recited in the former Discourse § 65. Next for the objection concerning Provincial Councils N.O. had considered and answered it thus ‖ Consid p. 40. We finde indeed subordinate Councils also stating somtimes matters 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 to 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 anthentick and valid so as those of General Councils are And Bellarmin's answer ‖ l. 2. c. 16. is shewed to be in substance much-what the same Dr St. replies to this †p. 125. l. 6. That the Anathemas of Provincial Councils did not relate to the acceptation of their Decrees either by the Pope or the whole Church as N.O. supposes but did preceed upon their own assurance of the truth of what they decreed otherwise their anathemas would have been only conditional and not absolute and peremptory as we see they were Thus He. To which I Answer that though such Anathemas of Provincial Councils do relate to the general approbation of their Decrees yet their Anathemas are rightly made not conditional but absolute either because such a sufficient concurrence with them of the Catholick Church is known to them before the composing their Decree as it may be when yet the confirmation of their Act is only received after it Or because such post-confirmation and acceptation after the penning of the Decree yet precedes the promulgation and just force or obligation of it It being penned absolute upon such a consent presupposed as we see the Affrican Anathemas were and as it is the ordinary custome in all laws the establishment wherof depends on many successively yet in their first stile to run absolutely because such ratification is presupposed to their having the due force of Laws And so in General Councils the Anathemas are penned absolute though these Councils and their Decrees have not their full strength till the Confirmation thereof by the See Apostolick and also such an admittance and acceptation of them by the Church-Catholick diffusive as is thought necessary Neither is the transaction of these Moral things to be exacted according to the Rules in Mathematicks Pag. 129. l. 10. But did proceed upon their own assurance of the truth of what they decreed Here Doth our Author allow fallible Councils upon a perswasion they have of the truth of what they decree to anathe matize dissenters and pronounce them hereticks Then why may not the Council of Trent do so Or if he means by their assurance that Provincial Councils are certain without relation to any consent of the whole that they do 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 Council have whether by the evidence of Scripture or of Tradition or of a necessary Consequence from something Traditive or at least of our Lords promised Assistance that they do not err in those things they decree though in many other things they be sallible Ib. l. 14. He goes on thus But I need give no other answer to this argument than in the words of Dr Field whom N.O. appealed to ‖ Fieid of the Church l. 4. c. 4. but in another matter not this before viz. That Councils denounce anathema not because they think every one that disobey the decree of the Council to be accursed but because they are perswadâ—â— in particular that this is the eternal truth of God which they proâ—se therefore they accurse them that obstinately shall resist as S. Paul willeth every Christian man to anathematize an Angel coming from heaven if he shall teach them any other doctrine than he hath already learned yet is not every particular Christian free from possibility of erring If the argument then were good from anathematizing dissenters and calling them hereticks every particular person must by it be proved infallible who are bound to anathematize even Angel from heaven in case of delivering any other doctrine from the Gospel N. 1 Where it is said first that these General Councils do not denounce anathema to dissenters because they think every one that disobeys the decree of the Council i.e. by dissenting to be or to incurr their Anathema I answer to this that then they must hold their Anathema universally pronounced to be as to such persons unjust Which I suppose the General Councils did not It is said again that because these General Councils are perswaded in particular that this is the eternal truth of God that they propose therefore they anathematize them that obstinately shall resist But 1st N.O. presseth not these General Councils their anathematizing them that shall obstinatly resist that which they propose but them that shall dissent from it and he presseth their putting it also into the Creed and under anathema requiring from all the belief of it and that as a matter of faith 2. I contend that no Council that only is perswaded but not certain that that which it proposeth suppose the Consubstantiality or Divinity of our Lord is the eternal truth of God can justly insert such point in the Creed or anathematize Dissenters But it is agreed that the four first Councils did justly these things and therefore they were not only perswaded but certain that those were truths and that in them they were infallible and then much more did hold themselves so since one may think himself to be and yet not be infallible N. 2 To that which follows out of S. Paul It is answered that S. Paul or a Galatian must be certain of his not erring in that for the meer
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
certainty of faith can be had of the meaning of those decrees for we see they are as liable to many interpretations as any other writings If the Scriptures cannot put an end to controversies on that account how can General Councils do it when their decrees are as liable to a private sense and wrong interpretation as the Scriptures are Nay much more for we have many other places to compare the help of Original tongues and the consent of the primitive Church to understand Scriptures by when the decrees of Councils are many times purposely framed in general terms with ambiguous expressions to give satisfaction to some dissenting parties then in the Council Which words limited only as he saith here to some decrees of some Councils framed in general terms with ambiguous expressions serve nothing to the purpose of that discourse and would make his words run thus for example If the Scriptures cannot put an end to controversies on that account how can General Councils do it when some of their decrees in some Councils that are in general terms and ambiguous expressions are as liable c. Yes very well say I because other decrees in that and other Councils may be clear enough Pag. 134. l. 17. They Councils ought never to be liable to the same ambiguity True but if it mis-happen that Councils be so in some things some of them are they therefore no more serviceable in any other things for deciding controversies where the sense of the Scriptures to some at least is ambiguous and their Decision clear Ibid. l. 18. Vpon the account of which obscurity Scripture is rejected from being a certain Rule of faith Contrary Scripture is received by Catholicks for a certain Rule and also in many things for a clear Pag. 135. l. 8 In answer to my Lord of Canterbury's adversary c. To the reason given for the Vnity of Catholicks viz. their being ready to submit their judgments to the determinations of the Church in her Councils our Author returns this reason as good or better he saith for the Vnity of Protestants viz. their being all ready to submit their judgments to Scripture Which Reason since it must needs fail on the Protestants side if the sense of Scripture which serves to unite them be more ambiguous in several things than that of Councils is which unites the other Therefore he labours to make this good that the sense of Scriptures is not more ambiguous than that of Councils For which see his next page ‖ p. 136. where he saith The meaning of the decrees of Councils whâ—n they are made raise as many divisions as were before them as it appears by the decrees of the Council of Trent Where in his using indefinite terms as frequently he doth if he means some of its decrees only such as he saith are purposely framed in general terms c this serves not his purpose for so there will still remain a greater union amongst Catholicks because of their union in the rest of its decrees which how true soever they be are plain enough But if he means all its decrees then this is apparently false that there are such divisions raised about them Now his addition or reply to this conceding here which had he done in his Rational Account he had faved N.O. p. 136. some pains in making it good that the Roman Church hath some advantage in point of unity but that all the advantage it hath comes from force and fraud of which frequent Maledicency to ward his Superiors and those in so sacred an Assembly I could wish this Author would make more Conscience this Concession I say is deserting his former Answer to my Lord of Canterbury's Adversary as faulty and passing to another viz. That their Union is indeed greater but is compassed by force and by fraud I suppose he means of these Councils But then since Roman Catholicks are united not only in the Definitions of the Council of Trent but of all or be it many of those that 〈◊〉 been within these thousand years most if not all of which are 〈◊〉 bâ—â— Protestants dares he fasten his Force and Frâ—â—d onâ—â—â—â— thâ—â—◠〈◊〉 so why not a Socinian or Arian extend 〈◊〉 to the foâ—◠〈…〉 â—hose whom their cause constrains to disobey 〈…〉 speak well of it Aâ—â—â—â—â—â—ions on §. 9. The Argument from Parity of Reason Ag. 139. l. 9. After N. O's words And are we not here again â—â—â—rrived at Church-infallibility i.e. its not erring in matters of Nicessary Faith If not from extruordinary divine assistance add what is left out by the Dr Yet from the clâ—arness of the Rule Only we must suppose such sincere endeavour in the Church as the Dr allows may be in every private man Pag. 140 l. 12. How doth it hence follow that the Guides of the Church must be infallible in teaching matters of faith From the Guides not erring or not being deceived in matters of faith it follows not that they must be infallible or not deceive in teaching matters of faith Nor are any such words or consequence in N.O. But it follows well from the clearness of the same Scriptures to these Governours as much as to private men and from their endeavours as well as private mens to understand them these two supposed that the Church-Governors cannot erre in all necessary matters of faith of which necessaries only N.O. speaketh if private men cannot the thing maintained in the Drs 13th Prineiple And then I hope the Drs charity will allow these Governours in a General Council of them at least not to teach contrary to what they know and are certain of And this Reason too these Holy Fathers have to do this beecause otherwise in their inserting such things as they thus falsifie in the Creeds and in their anathematizing all dissenters they shall make a publick profession of their faith just contrary to their Faith and anathematize themselves Pag. 141. l. 8. The Guides of the Church supposing the same sincerity shall enjoy the same priviledge which I know none ever denied them but what is this to their Infallibility in teaching all matters of faith which is the only thing to be proved by him If he can prove this as necessary for the salvation of mankinde as the other is then he would do something to his purpose but not otherwise So that all this discourse proceeds upon a very false way of reasoning from believing to teaching and from Necessaries to salvation to all matters of faith which the Guides of the Church shall propose to men Thus he Where after I have acquainted the Reader that N. O's express words and sense are here corrupted for he 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 in Necessaries saith N. O not in all matters of faith as here the Dr It seems the Infallibility of the Church he now opposes is not an Infallibility
For the Bishop and Clergy of Rome we owe none to them Nor none is required save to the Roman Bishop as S. Peter's Successour and Supreme Pastor of the Church and Patriarch of the Weâ—â— more as to any submission of the Metropolitan English to the Metropolitan Roman Church these being co-ordinate 〈◊〉 not desired Ib. l. 7 We are not to submit to those who are lawful Guides in alâ— things they may require Yes To submit to all their Definitions if they Supreme Yes though they fallible yet to submit in all things where we not certain say learned Protestants Pag. 180. l. 9. So my adversary N. O. in his Preface saith that by the principles we hold we excuse and justify all Sects which have or shall separate from our Church By the Principles we hold i.e. by the Dr's and some other's Principles the followers of Chillingworth Excuse and justify Sects N. O. saith not that you excuse or justify them in every thing but in this one thing that every one of them may undertake to be his own Guide in Necessaries upon such a Principle as the Dr's 13th since the sense of Scripture in all these points is said to be so plain as none well endeavouring can mistake it and then for non-necessaries what need they seek for a Guide * Or that Since none owe submission of their judgment to * their Ecclesiastical Superiours every one may follow their own Or that if you may depart from your Superiours Persons or Councils upon 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 they also think just * Or that if there be no decisive Judge for differences between you and your Superiours to whom you can be obliged so neither is there for differences between them and you * and that as you appeale from your Ecclesiastical Superiours to Evidence of Scripture so seeming to you in your cause so may they from you in theirs Exemplified at large in the Socinian's Plea in the 4th Discourse concerning the Guide in Controversies Hence I say Sects take liberty in this Church I think contrary to the intention of the 4th and 5th Canon of the Synod 1603. to hold and believe what opinions they please though different from the Church of England's Articles since they think she cannot justly require an Assent from her Subjects which she denies to her Superiours In this thing it is that N. O. saith you seem to justify these Sects that daily fall from you upon such a mistaken Christian liberty from Obedience to their Guides who also observes ‖ p. 98. that Dr St's Principles that appear in the defence of the Religion established in the Church of England for any thing he sees make the same A pology also for all those other Protestant parties and Sects disclaimed by it But N. O. is far from saying that you excuse and justify these Sects in every thing they do or differ-in from you or that you do not dissent from them in many things very just on your side culpable on theirs which may be granted and the other thing still be true viz that Dr St's Principles make an equal Apology for all dividing Partyes as to several other their practices And therefore much of that He saith in the Consequents here to that purpose seems no way pertinent to N. O's Observation Ib. l. 12 We appeale to the doctrine and practice of the truly Catholick Church in the matters of difference between us and the Church of Rome Compare p. 182. l. 7. we are as ready as they to stand to the unanimous consent of Fathers and to Vincentius Lerinensis his Rules of Antiquity Vniversality and Consent we declare let the things in despute be proved to have been the practice of the Christian Church in all Ages we are ready to submit to them N. 1 1. First here by appealing and standing to the doctrine and practice of the Catholick Church doth He mean submission of his private judgment to the doctrines taught by it But what if the Catholick Church be fallible in such its doctrine as I think he saith it is see before § 7. p. 118. When I speak of Infallibility i.e. of the Catholick Church in fundamentals I there declare that I mean no more by it than that there shall be always a number of true Christians in the world And Protestants ordinarily affirm that in non-necessaries the whole Catholick Church of any age and consequently the unanimous consent of the Fatherâ— or Primitive times may err nor will they here allow the Church-Governours of any Age to be the Judges of the necessity or non-necessity of the doctrines they teach I say then what if the Catholick Church be fallible in such its Doctrine And next what if he should be Certain of the contrary as possibly he may How therefore he can rightly engage thus I see not Again in this truly Catholick Church to whose doctrine and practice he will submit doth he include all particular Christian at least Metropolitan Churches and so his own which there is no reason for if Heretical or Schismatical Churches be extra-Catholick And by the consent of these Churches doth he require an unanimous and universal consent of them all so that if any suppose his own do dissent he shall be disobliged But thus he makes sure work and may safely venture his submission upon these terms for if his own Church be but true to him or he to himself he shall not be cast And an Arian an Eutychian a Quaker and Heretick or Schismatick may safely make such an appeal Again by the doctrine of the true Catholick Church means he the Catholick Church of the present age which is the only now living Judge to be appealed-to and to decide any thing concerning former times if question be made about it Or means he not this but the Church of all ages past taken together and next means he the universal and unanimous consent of this Catholick Church also nemine contradicente As Bishop Tailour also elsewhere ‖ Dissuasive c. 1. p. 7. saith That it is impossible for the Roman Doctours to conclude from the sayings of Fathars their Doctrines to be the Catholick doctrin of the ancient Church Because saith he any number that is lesse than all doth not prove a Catholick Consent If the Dr then mean thus Here he is as safe or safer from being refuted than before and whereas he requires this consent also to be proved to him he that undertakes it would have a fine task For it is to be proved universally as to Persons Times Places none of any age left out well suting with Vincentius his Rule which therefore he saith he is content to follow and stand to Quod ab omnibus quod ubique qùod semper if it is to be so rigidly understood But as Dr Hammond notes upon this Rule ‖ Of Heresy §. 5. n. 8.
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
in the plainness of Scripture to all well endeavouring capacities and conditions he will make an amends for now in the restraining of Necessaries On whose Judgment I pray is it fit a particular person should rely in this Question which seems of great concernment What or how many points are to be called Necessary On Mr Chilling worth's or the Dr's Or on that of the Supreme Guides of the Church assembled in her General Councils who from time to time declare to Christians by their Decrees as the Apostles did in the first General Council Act. 15. what is Necessary for them to believe what to practise against all such erroneous Tenents as shall arise in the Church that may any way pervert their Faith or Manners Ib. l. 7 If a person then by reading and considering those things which are plain may do what Christ requires all that which Christ requires for his salvation what necessity hath such a one to trouble himself about an infallible Guide I add or Any Guide at all as to those For either he may go to heaven without him without having any such Guide fallible or infallible or not If he may let him the Dr shew the necessity such Guide is of to that end which may be attained without him if not then the things necessary to salvation cannot be known without him as the Dr saith before they may by ones reading and considering those things which are plain and doing all those things Christ requires for his salvation So easily may his arguing against an infallible serve as well against any Guide at all Meanwhile N.O. affirms some Persons cannot Know all Necessaries without a Judge Pag. 190. l. 12. But doth S. Peter say 2. Epist c. 3.16 that the Scriptures are so hard to be understood that sober and devout minds cannot learn therein what is necessary to their salvation Yes if the sober and devout be unlearned as they may be Cannot learn therein all that is necessary for surely where the erring therein works their destruction the right sense is necessary for their salvation Ib. l. 11 Which men that wanted-judgment were ready to pervert to their own mischief c. As some may want that are sober devout and diligent and which want of Judgment as to some no care or diligence can remove Ib. l. 9 But if there be such difficulties in S. Paul's Epistles is there nothing plain and easy Yes many things But if many things plain and easy are there no such difficulties Ib. l. 7 If bad men may pervert them may not good men make a good use of them And if learned men make good use of them may not yet the unlearned mistake them Or must all these get learning that they may not Pag. 191. l. 15. If on so fair and just an occasion offered S. Peter himself whom they believe to have been Head of the Church at that time and at Rome at the writing of this Epistle doth wholly omit referring men in the sense of obscure places to infallible Guides what can we else inferr but that S. Peter thought no such thing of necessity for his Church A Negative argument is often invalid Every thing is not every where said If we find not in S. Peter 't is sufficient if in S. Paul Whose Faith follow ‖ Heb. 13.7 1 Tim. 3.15 And The Church i.e. in its Governours is the Pillar and Ground of Truth But we read in S. Peter such things as these That they should submit it themselves to their Presbyters such Presbyters as he was that fed the flâ—ck of God i.e. with their doctrine and so that they should submit to It. 1. Pet. 5.5 compared with 1 2. We read in him 2.10 15. That God will surely punish those that are self-willed and despise Government and speak evil of Dignities which I apply in the first place to Spiritual Gevernours and Ecclesiastical Dignities And chap. 3.2 that he writ his second Epistle to them that they might be mindful of the Commandements of the or the. Apostles of our Lord and Saviour and so of their Suecessours And here in the next verse after these unstable wresters we find S. Peter advising them to take heed of being led away with the errour of these wicked ones and of falling from their stedfastness i.e. in their adhering constantly to the doctrine learnt from their Spiritual Superiours N. 2 Here then the Reader hath an account from the Dr how right let him judge of the place in S. Peter urged by N. O but what answer returns he to Eph. 4.11 13 14. and to the rest mentioned before in Note on p. 189. l. 1. that are cited by N.O. and what to his own words to make himself at least agree with himself I find none I find him often delivering the state of the Question between him and his adversary in indefinite and so ambiguous propositions and then dividing of his discourse upon it into several heads each copiously prosecuted But mean while N. O's Considerations unconsidered slip through his fingers and out of the memory also of any save a very watchful Reader thus amused with other things Annotations on his §. 12. Of the Necessity of a Judge in Controversies PAg. 192. l. 2. Is it that without this an infallible determination of doubtful places in necessaries the Church's peace cannot be preserved Add nor an Vnity of Faith which is requisite in Necessaries Eph. 4.5 11 13. One Lord one Faith one Baptism into this Faith Ib. l. 6. Vnless there be an infallible Judge to determine which is the true sense of Scripture He should say in Necessaries But then his following Answer would not sute with the Question Ib. l. 16. The strength of this argument depends upon the supposition of the necessity of determining controversies Add necessary to be determined because in Necessaries Ib. l. 8 The weakness of humane understanding the power of interest and passion and the ambiguity of words are as apt to beget disputes in Religion as in any other thing More need still of deciding some of these disputes since so many things even in the most necessary Credends beget them Pag. 193. l. 8. This Question is plainly about a matter of fact i. e whether Christ hath appointed such judges in all ages who are to determine all emergent controversies about the difficult places of his Law Here doth not He question Whether the sitting and authority of lawful General Councils is held from Christ or by his appointment By what authority these Supreme Ecclesiastical Courts make their Definitions and Decrees Upon what ground Christianity appeals to them This is the influence and fruit of his 13th Principle But if he allows here these Supreme Judges to hold their Authority and Commission from Christ for determining all emergent Controversies about the difficult places of his Law But denies their infallibility as to all necessaries to which N.O. confines it then I would know whether they are constituted such Judges as
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
this plea seems to imply more iucluded in the word Prescription than the Dr allows viz. includes not only a just exception against their pleadings but a just plea against their exeeptions But this shall make no contention between us Pag 215. l. ult And makes that sufficient evidence of the truth of a body that it is the object of three senses of sight and touch and hearing Which is the same way of arguing we make use of against Transubstantiation And it is granted a sufficient evidence where no Divine Revelation intervenes declaring such arguing mistaken Which in the matter of our Lord's Resurrection there doth not And in vain had Marcion made any such pretence herein against these senses where he could produce no Divine Revelation for it Pag. 216. l. 14. And the universal reception i.e. by the Churches of the true Gospels Vniversal Reception Which Tertullian urgeth as an infallible proof of the truth of these Gospels See his words Contra Marcion l. 4. before in Note on p. 210. l 2. As also Ibid. contrary to what the Dr saith below his calling in an infallible Guide the same Churches for giving a certain sense of Scripture Pag 218. l. 6. Hitherto we find nothing c. Concerning this let the former places ‖ Note on p. 201. produced out of them bear witness Though this hath the infirmity of a Negative argument Pag. 219. l. 1. I now proceed to Clemens of Alexandria And therefore so must I though methinks he hath led his Reader and me a great way from the Consideration of his Principles He that reads the 7th Book of his Stromata here cited as he will find much of studying the Scriptures and learning Demonstrations from thence against Hereticks so will he of the Vnity of the Church contradistinct to Heresies and of the verity of its Traditions Of which he saith there Num ergo si quis pacta conventa non obseâ—vaverit i.e. adhaerendo Regulae Ecclesiasticae transgressus fuerit eam quae fit apud nos confessionem propter eum qui non stetâ—t suae professioni abstinebimus nos quoque a veritate i.e. hujus confessionis And he cals this afterward via regia trita Non dubit averit quispiam viam ingreâ—i propter dissensionem of some others strayin sed utetur viâ regiâ tritâ sejuncta a periculo ita cùm alii alia dicant de veritate hujus Confessionis Regulae Ecclesiasticae non est discedendum sed est exactiùs diligentiùs inquirenda ejus exactissima accuratissima cognitio Ibid. he saith In solâ veritate antiquâ Ecclesiâ i.e. Ecclesiâ deriving its doctrine from Antiquity est perfectissima cognitio ea quae estreverâ optima haeresis id est electio And Homo Dei esse Domino fidelis esse perdidit qui adversus Ecclesiasticam recalcitravit traditionem in humanarum haeresum desiluit â—piniones There he saith Qui in ignoratione quidem versantur sunt gentes qui autem in scientiâ vera ecclesia qui verò in opinione ti qui sectantur haereses And afterward Exciso ostio muro Ecclesiae jam perfosso veritatem transgredientes efficiuntur principes ac duces mystâ—riorum animae impiorum and then shewing as also Irenaeus and Tertullian the Doctrine of the Church ancienter that of Hereticks later he goes on Exiis quae dicto sunt manifestum esse exâ—stimo unam esse veram Ecclesiam eam quae verè est antiqua quam conantur haereses in multas discindere Et substantiâ ergo cogitatione principio excellentiâ solam esse dicimus quam etiam dicimus antiquam Catholicam Ecclesiam in unitatem unius fidei quae est ex proprus testamentis i.e. contained in the Scriptures in quibus Dei voluntate per unum hominem congregat eos qui jam sunt ordinati ‖ Act. 13.48 quos praedestinavit Deus c. saith he Ecclesiae quoque eminentia sicut principium constructionis est ex unitate omnia alia superans nihil habens sibi simile vel aequale And that Fuit una omnium Apostolorum sicut doctrina ita etiam traditio Ex haere sibus autem aliae quidem appellantur ex nomine aliae ex loco aliae ex gente aliae ex propriis dogmatibus c. A parallel to which both in his description of the Church and Heresies may be observed in our present times These things then he hath of the Church there where he hath those things our Authour brings of the Scriptures And in all these things he seems to own and remit us to this Church antiqua sola una eminens omnia alia superans as a Guide that cannot sail us in necessary truth And as he presseth the studying of the Scriptures to the contemplative so he leaves the unity of the Church and the verity of its doctrine as a secure refuge for all the rest that cannot intend such studies Pag. 222. l. 10 Stephen was against rebaptizing any Hereticks and the others the Eastern and Affrican Bisho were for rebaptizing all Any Hereticks i.e. such whose former Baptisme was not for want of a right Forme nulled the baptizing of whom when returning to the Church was indeed no Rebaptization and thus S. Stephen and latter Councils well accord Of whose sanctity and orthodoxness thus Vincentius Lerinensis ‖ c. 9. after these Councils Quo quisque floreret religiosior eo promptiùs novellis adinventionibus coâ—trairet Exemplis talibus plena sunt omnia Sed ne longum siat unum aliquod hoc ab Apostolicâ potissimùm Sede sumemus ut omnes luce clariùs videant beatorum Apostolorum beata successi qu nâ—â vi semper quanto studio quantâ contentione defenderit susceptae semel relâ—gionis integritatem speaking of this Stephen Mâ—an wâ—â—le the affection Reverence this Author pretends to Antiquity and the Holy Fathers is not unliable to suspition when he upon every or rather no occasion given endeavours to uncover their nakedness and lay open their deficiencies and divisions Those that defend their departure from the novelties of the Roman Church by their retreat to Antiquity and the doctrine of the Fathers methinks should have a greater tenderness of Their Reputation But here meanwhile the more He aggravates the dissentings about this point the more he confirms the necessity of the Infallibility of General Councils for fetling such Truths and allaying such Contests to which Councils we owe the present peace that the Church in latter times enjoys in this matter once so much agitated Pag. 225 l. 13 What course was taken in this important Controversy with Samosatenus concerning the divinity of Christ to find out the certain sense of Scripture Do they appeale to any infallible Guides Nothing like it But in the Councils of Antioch c. The sense of Scripture may be cleared either by comparing Scriptures c. or by examining Church-Tradition for confuting
these words The Body of Christ cannot be present at one time in many and diverse places c. and because it was taken up into heaven c. a faithful man ought not to believe the Reall and Bodily presence as they term it of Christs Body and Blood in the Sacrament of the Lords supper But not long after in the beginning of Qu. Elizabeths Reign was thought fit by her Divines reviewing this 2d Book to be ejected thence again as being prejudicial to the foresaid Reall Presence and so also was the foresaid clause cast out of the 28th Article of which Reall Presence Queen Elizabeth was a great Patronesse And such a Presence being confessed by Queen Elizabeth and her Clergy I hope this Author here will not make to be denied by S. Austin Pag 239. l. 8. Whatever consequences are charged upon me for making that a fundamentâ—l Principle must reflect as much upon S. Austin as me See the contrary Note on p. 236. l. 1. Pag. 240. l. 4. Who Vincentius Lerinensis seems to attribute more to the Guides of the Church than S. Austâ—n doth yet far enough short of Infallibility Now we must follow our Author to Vincentius Lerinensis As for this Father first he held in all ages the existence and being of a Catholick Church distinct from others if any Heretical how numerous soever they might be in which Catholick Church was preserved entire the Catholick Doctrine especially in all Necessaries and if so therefore a Church in whatever age always consentient with Antiquity So that Vniversalitas as to the consent of the Catholicks of any age and Antiquitas can never be severed 2ly He held the Decrees of the Councils of this Catholick Church in whatever times convened to be true and never to swerve from the Apostolical doctrine i.e. to be infallible and that all were to receive and obey them and all dissenters from them to be Hereticks To this purpose he saith c. 33. on that text 2. Jo. 10. Si quis venit ad vos hanc doctrinam non affert nolite recipere cuns in domum nec Ave ei dixeritis Quam doctrinam saith he nisi Catholicam universalem unam eandemque per singulas aetatum successiones incorruptâ veritatis traditione manentem usque in saecula sine fine mansuram And c. 24. Prophanas vocum novitates devita quas recipere atque sectari nunquam Catholicorum semper verò Haereticorum fuit And c. 32. he describes the Catholick Church thus i.e. the Ecclesiastical Governours and Prelates thereof Christi verò Ecclesia sedula cauta depositorum apud se dogmatum custos nihil in iis unquam permutat nihil minuit nihil addit Hoc unum studet ut quae jam expressa enucleata consâ—lidet firmet siqua jam confirmata definita custodiat Denique quid unquam aliud Concilisrum decretis enisa est nisi ut quid antea simpliciter credebatur hoc idem postea diligentiùs crederetur quod prius a majoribus solâ traditione susceperat hoc deinde posteris etiam per Scripturae chirographum consignaret He saith c. 35. that the Hereticks ancient modern urged the testimony of Scripture Propè nullam omitti paginam quae non novi aut veteris Testamenti sententiis fucata colorata sit And c. 2. Multum necesse esse propter tantos tam varii erroris anfractus ut Propheticae Apostolicae interpretationis linea secundum Ecclesiastici Catholici sensus normam dirigatur Where I ask did the Father think this fallible And c. 41. he saith Duo quaedam vehementer studioseque observanda Primùm si quid esset antiquitùs ab omnibus Ecclesiae Catholicae sacerdotibus Vniversalis Concilii auctoritate decretum Deinde siqua nova exurgeret quaestio ubi id minimè reperiretur recurrendum ad Sanctorum Patrum sententias Et quicquid uno sensu atque consensu tenuisse invenirentur id Ecclesiae verum Catholicum absque ullo scrupulo judicaretur c. 40. Descanting on 1. Cor. 12.28 He saith of the Church-Governours Hos ergo in Ecclesiâ Dei divinitùs per tempora loca dispensatos quisquis in sensu Catholici dogmatis unum aliquid in Christo sentientes contempserit non hominem contemnit sed Dâ—um a quorum veridicâ unitate nequid discrepet impensiùs obtestatur idem Apostolus dâ—cens Obscâ—ro autem vos fratres ut idipsum dicatis omnes non sint in vobis schismata sitis autem perfecti in eodem sensu in eadem sentenâ—iâ i.e. of these Church-Guides unum aliquid in Christs sentientium Quod si quis ab eorum sententiae communione desciverit audict illud ejusdem Apostoli Non est Deus dissensionis sed Pacis And c. 4â— after he had made an instance in the 3d General Council but a little before this writing this Commonitorium its settling the faith in the points then controverted he joines to it in the last place the Authority of the See Apostolical Nequid saith he deesse tantae plenitudini videretur ad postremum adjecimus geminam Apostolicae Sedis auctoritatem unam scilicet Sancti Papae Xysti qui nunc Romanam Ecclesiam venerandus illustrat alteram praedecessoris sui beatae memoriae Papae Caelestini quam hic quoque interponere necessariam judicavimus Let the Reader by this judge now whether Lerinensis hath said nothing for Church-Infallibility Pag. 241. l. 3. Vniversality in any one age of the Church being taken without the consent of Antiquity is no sufficient rule to interpret Scripture by It is true Vniversality departing from or contrary to Antiquity is no sufficient Rule to interpret Scripture by But Vincentius as I have shewed holas the Vniversality of the Catholick Church in any age never to do so especially in any Necessaries And if Arians in any time out-numbred Catholicks which they never did taking in both East and West yet still the whole Body of them was extra-Catholick being formerly condemned of Heresy by a General Council ‖ cap. 6. Tunc quisquis verus Christi amator cultor extitit antiquam fidem novellae perfidiae praeferendo nulla contagie istius pestis maculâ—tus est Here then was in all Arian times a Catholick Body suppose lesser consentient with Antiquity and safely to be relied on in its Decrees But here whenever this comes in question Whether the present Vniversality dissents from Antiquity whose judgment should be sooner taken than its own rather than that of those few who oppose it for both are Parties and if its owne when can we think it will witness its departure from the former Faith Ib. l. 15. In some cases the universal consent of the present Church is to be relied upon c. as in that of the Dona its Vniversal consent of present Churches in any age so this be limited to Churches Catholick contradistinct to Hereticks or those condemned by former Councils can never falsify former
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
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
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-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