so adoring iâ— as they ought should it be so how come they I say to commit such gross Idolatry as the Dr. in his Book charges them with and so all without Repentance of it if Idolatry be a Mortal Sin miscarry in their salvation And if from a Major part of the present Church interpreting Scripture an Appeal be made to a Major part of the Ancient Church pretended to interpret them on the Protestant side Consid p. â—â— neither will this relieve the Dr because since this also 〈◊〉 what side Antiquity stands is a thing in Controversy foâ—â—d â—â—â—râ—omg of it we are to presume here like wise that a sincere â—nâ—â—â—â—owr being allowed to all parties to understand the sense of the former Church this also stands on that side as the Major part apprâ—â—â—e 〈◊〉 it Now the present much Major part of Christianity preâ—e â—â—oth 〈…〉 the sense of the Ancient Church inâ—â—â— pâ—â—â—ing this Scripture 〈◊〉 a Corporal Presence § 7 To this Query of N. O How the Controversy shall bedecided when in a matter of Necessary Faith two contrary Pâ—â—ties say the Scripture is â—lear on their own undeâ—â— I and this Author answering first p. â—92 〈…〉 of determinine Controversies in Religion by a Living Judge is not built on any sufficient Foundation of Scripture or Reason i.e. as I understand him there is no necessity of it Mr Chillingworth made such an Answer before him but more clearly in these words ‖ p. 59. That those places of Scripture which contain things necessary and wherein errour were dangerous need no infallible Judge or Interpreter because they are plain and thâ—se that are obscure need none because they contain not things necessary neither is errour in them dangerous But the Reader may observe here that the Dr. saith only of determining Controvdrsies in Religion leaving this term Controversies indefinite as is usual with him when as N. O. speaks not of Controversies in general many of which he grants not necessary to be decided but expresly of controversies in points necessary that it is requisite the true sense of Scripture herein be some way or other cleared else Christians cannot know what to believe in them Upon which reason the Dr. himself also in his Principles ‖ Princ. 13. pleads a necessity that the Scriptures be clear in them § 8 2ly He tels us p. 197. That there are means ef attaining the certain sense of Scripture in doubtful places without the supposition of an Infallible Guide and so makes a long discourse from p. 197. to p. 260. concerning the Means used in the Primitive times and the many good Rules given by the Ancients for this As a diligent comparing of Scriptures Considering the scope designe connexion whether the sentence be literal on figurative illustrating the difficult by places more plain few by many recurring to the Original Tongues c. Where 〈◊〉 N. O. eâ—quiâ—eâ— how necessaries may be decided for those persons who after all these means used remain still in some suspense or also for those whose low and mechanick condition or weak judgment cannot examine these things can neither compare Scriptures nor search the Testimony of Antiquity Whether 1. 〈◊〉 q. for such it is not much safer to adhere to their Guides though fallible who also have used all those other helps the Dr mentions for deciding these than to be committed to their own judgment much likelier to erre herein than the others § 9 Next I find him when some twenty leaves have been spent in shewing thiâ—â—â—riety of means p. 249. delivering this as the sâ—â—se of the Fathers formerly pâ—toted by him and so also I suppose his own That If after examining and comâ—ering Scriptures c. the dispute still continues and that it be not against the Rule of Faith in express words but about the sense of it then if ancient General Councils have determined it which had greater opportunities of knowing the sense of the Apâ—stolical Church than we it is reasonable we should yield to them but if there have been none such then that the unanimous consent of Fathers is to be taken so it be in some new and upstart Heresies And so saith he There is no necessity of Infallibility in the Guides of the Church to give us a certain sense of Scripture which was the thing to be proved § 11 But here are several things that leave us still without a Determination of such Controversies so as in them to have any settlement of our Faith For 1st he saith If Ancient General Councils have determined it c. But I ask When may Antiquity and such obliging authority expire and What if such ancient General Councils have not and some latter General Councils have determined it whether is it not reasonable we should yield to them and Whether the Church in all ages since the Apostles hath not the same and equal Authority Otherwise if a certain distance from the Apostle's times doth alter this Authority why may not the Arrians put in such an exception against that of Nice not held till after 300. years and so much more against other Councils later than Nice Again since new Controversies in Necessaries may arise in latter times which such ancient Councils have not considered or decided as there did after 300 years several such as had not been discussed or so resolved before thus we shall have no Judge left for deciding them lastly when any Controversy ariseth concerning the Determinations of ancient Councils or Consent of Fathers in any such Point surely some Judge we must have for determining this before the Controversy can be determined 2ly The Terms he useth It is reasonable we should yield to them are general and ambiguous Doth he mean It is reasonable to yield our assent unto them Else how do such Decisions direct our faith or belief at all in these necessaries 3ly He saith So it be in some new and upstart Heresies But why may not this unanimous consent of Fathers be taken against whatever opinions Elder or newer that contradict them But if this Authour means reasonable to yield our assent unto them and if to lawful General Councils of whatever times he allows the same and equal authority and will admit the authority of the latter to resolve any disputes touching the consent or statings of the former what other thing is this but to come home to N. O's Infallible Guide which is lawful General Councils or other known unanimous consent of the Church-Governours Ancient or Modern Which Councils also for the matters they do decide are a standing Guide not only to those present times when they sit or wherein they live but to all Posterity And so this Author at last hath pitched upon that very means of ending Controversies in Necessaries where the sense of Scripture is disputed and other means the comparing of Scriptures c. as to many are either not practicable or effectless which he had endeavoured to avoid the truth of which
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.
Judge leave his Seat Pag. 196. l. 18. I say the places of Scripture which are alledged for such an infallible Judge are the most doubtful and controverted of any 1. What then If I may be certain of the Infallibility of this Interpreter another way than by these Scriptures that are urged for it viz. by Tradition Is it any news to our Author that Catholicks say this 2ly I may be certain of the Infallibility of this interpreter from those Scriptures not as expounded by this Interpreter but by Tradition I say Tradition both hath declared such Judge Infallible in necessaries and hath also declared the true Sense of these Scriptures to affirm this Which Tradition hath not so clearly delivered the sense of all other doubtful Scriptures Nor if it had is the sense of Tradition in all other Scriptures so easily to be known at least to the meaner sort of Christians as this concerning the Infallibility of the Supreme Church-Guides in necessaries by reason of the Church's more evident practice herein See Note on p. 113. l. 15. Pag. 197. l. 7. I come therefore to the 2d enquiry which is about the means of attaining the certain sense of Scripture in doubtful places without the supposition of an infallible Guide N. 1 The Dr here from this p. 197. to p. 250. makes a long Digression about the means used in the Primitive times of attaining the certain sense of Scripture in doubtful places without the supposing of an Infallible Guide Of these Means he names two One means he saith ‖ See his p. 249. was by examining and comparing places of Scripture with all the care and judgment that may be Where he gathers out of the Ancients such Rules as these That the Scope and designe of Scripture chiefly be regarded and the Connexion well considered that nothing be interpreted contrary to the Coherents that the sense of no plâ—ce is to be so interpreted that it hath repugnancy with others that plain places be not interpreted by obscure nor a many by a few bat the contrary that figurative expressions are not to be understood literally nor thâ—se intended in a plain sense figuratively that examples are to be drawn from plain places to illustrate difficult and from those which are certain to clear the doubtful that in matters of doubt recourse is to be had to the Original Tongues that for understanding Scriptures we are to come with minds duly prepared to it by humility prayer purity of heart love of God and our Neighbour c. and many more N. 2 But if after all this comparing Scriptures the dispute about the sense of them still continues the other Means he saith the Ancients speak of was the examining the Tradition of the Apost lical Churches from the beginning concerning the sense of them delivered from the Apostles ‖ p. 213. For that any one's setting up other expositions of Scripture than the Christian Church hath received from the Apostles times this without any further proof discovers their imposture For as he gives us it out of Tertullian ‖ p. 212. it is unreasonable to suppose that the Apostles should not know the doctrine of Christ or that they did not deliver to the Churches planted by them the things which they knew or that the Churches misunderstood their doctrine because all the Churches were agreed in one common faith and in an exposition of Scriptures contrary to theirs and therefore there is all the reason to believe that so universal consent must arise from some common cause which can be supposed to be no other than the common delivery of it by all the Apostles Again p. 249. He speaks on this manner If after all this i.e. the examining and comparing Scriptures the dispute still continues then if it be against the ancient Rule of Faith universally received perhaps he means the Apostles Creed that is a sufficient prescription against any opinion if not against the rule of faith in express words but about the sense of it then if ancient General Councils have determined it which had greater opportunities of knowing the sense of the Apostolical Church than we it is reasonable we should yield to them but if there have been none such then the unanimous consent of Fathers is to be taken c. N. 3 For the first of these means the attaining the certain sense of Scripture by comparing Texts c. 1. First the Reader may observe that if this proves the non-necessity of an Infallible Guide so it doth the non-necessity of any Guide at all as to teaching us the meaning of the Scriptures For in this first means no repairing at all to our Spiritual Guides fallible or infallible for the sense is mentioned 2ly I grant that there is a means of attaining a sufficient certainty of the sense of some obscure places of Scripture from others more clear without the necessity of any other infallible Guide therein and that the Fathers also have laid down many excellent Rules concerning this and practised them in disputing against Hereticks 3ly The more and the more certain these means are for knowing the sense of Scripture the more they seem to inferr the Infallibility and non-erring of the Supreme Governours of the Church met in Council herein and the more security of their Subject's as to all necessary faith relying on their Judgment Nor do I see any thing that can be replied here but That these Governours well knowing the right sense of Scriptures yet by ambition interest and several other passions may be corrupted from teaching it and also may be induced to define as an Article of their Faith to all posterity the contrary falshoods and themselves also first take their Oath of their belief of the truth thereof which though a very strange charge yet might pass for a more tolerable exception if those who will judge of this swerving and erring of Councils were themselves exempt from any such passions or interests or could well know when they are biass'd with them but otherwise it seems a very poor subterfuge yet the only one they can alledge for disobedience to Councils 4ly It is here to be remembred that if this means by comparing Scriptures c. named before be not such as all men those of weaker judgments and secular emploiments void of literature can use and practise this Infallible Guide for the certain sense of Scripture will still remain necessary to such where useless to some others 5ly That If any others of more liberal education more leisure for study of better capacity after such means used shall remain still in doubt concerning any such Texts in matters necessary as suppose in the Trinity or Deity of our Lord Christ our Lords Satisfaction Justification here also will be need of an Infallible Guide or Judge to decide these things to him Or if all well capable by their parts or condition of life of using this means yet otherwise employed de facto do not use it
infallible Judge it is a plain demonstration they thought there was none appointed Such thing was then heard of viz. the consenting Testimony however had of the present Apostolical Churches concerning former Traditive Doctrines or necessary Deductions from them was accepted and submitted-to by all save Hereticks as infallible And after the Church's liberty obtained of assembling General Councils that of Nice was in those times repaired to as an Infallible Judge by the whole Body of Christianity for deciding that great Controversy concerning our Lord's Divinity and the Decision thereof afterward accepted by the whole Church Catholick as Infallible Annotations on §. 13. Of the way used in the Primitive Church for finding the sense of Scripture PAg. 201. l. 5. What course now doth Irenaeus take to clear the sense of Scripture in these controverted places Doth he tell them that God hath appointed infallible Guides in his Church to whom appeal was to be made in all such cases Nothing like it through his whole Book Though the Dr here only urgeth a Negative Argument which often fails and though as to Hereticks utterly denying Church-Infallibility the Fathers had their liberty to chuse rather to convince them upon some other Principles by both sides agreed on Yet Irenaus we find against these Hereticks frequently pleaded this Church-Infallibility as not reasonably rejectible by them viz. Urged the consenting Testimony of the present Apostolical Churches as no way fallible in relating and delivering to posterity the former Apostolical Tradition For which see his l. 1. c. 3. Hanc praedicationem hanc fidem Ecclesia velut dixi adepta quanquam per totum mundum dispersa diligenter conservat quasi unam domum inhabitans similiter his credit velut unan animan idem cor habens consonè haec praedicat docet ac tradit velut uno ore praedita Nam linguae in mundo dissimiles sunt verùm virtus Traditionis una eadem est Praedicatio veritatis ubique lucet illuminat omnes homines ad cognitionem veritatis venire volentes And see the four first Chapters of lib. 3. where he hath much to this purpose There he saith in the Preface Resistens eis pro solâ vivifica fide quam ab Apostolis Ecclesia percepit distribuâ—t filiâ—s suis Ecclesia i.e. Patres ecclesiae that instruct the others And Ibid. c. 2. he saith Ad eam Traditionem quae est ab Apostolis quae per successiones Presbyterorum in Eccleseis cust ditur provocamus eos i.e. Haereticos And afterward accuseth them Neque Scripturis neque Traditioni of the sense the Church gives to the Scriptures consentire eos c. 3. Traditionem itaque saith he Apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam in Ecclesiâ i.e. in the unanimous consent of the present Church adest perspicere omnibus qui vera velint audire And then appealing to the preeminent authority of the Roman Church he thus goes on Maximae antiquissimae omnibus cognitae a gloriosissimis Apostolis Petro Paulo Romae fundatae constitutae Ecclesiae eam quam habet ab Apostolis traditionem annunciatam hominibus fidem per successiones Episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos indicantes confundimis omnes cos qui quoquo modo vel per sui placentiam malam vel vanam gloriam vel per coecitatem malam sententiam praeterquam oportet colligunt Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam propter poteâ—tiorem principalitatem because a Petro Paulo fundata hence frequent Appeals from thither all parts necesse est omnibus convenire ecclesiam bee est eos qui sunt undique fideles in quâ senper ab his qui sunt undique conservata est ea quae est ab Apostolis Traditio somwhat like that of S. Cyprian Ep. 55. Post ista adhue saith he speaking of two Schismaticks navigare andent ad Petri Cathedram atque ad Ecclesiam principalem unde unitas Sacerdotalis exorta est a Schismaticis profanis literas ferre nec cogitare cos esse Romanos quorum fides Apostolo praedicante laudata est ad quos perfidia habere non potest accessum And c. 4. Tantae igitur ostensiones cùm sint haec non oportet adhuc quaerere apud alios veritatem quam facile est ab Ecclesiâ sumere And see what was quoted before Note on p. 197. l. 7. Quid enim si quibus de aliquâ modicâ quaestione disceptatio esset c. In which places suppose a fallibility of the consenting-Testimony of the present Church-Governours when consulting concerning the Traditive faith that hath descended to them and all this Father saith falls to the ground Pag. 204. l. 13. And surely then he did not imagine that God had appointed an infallible Judge on purpose to prevent the being of Heresies by giving an infallible sense of Scripture Yes such an infallible Judge hence the more necessary to cure and remedy the Heresies which Tertullian saith the Scriptures were so framed as not to prevent Neither hath God in providing such a Judge constrained also all mens free wills to believe his Infallibility and acquiesce in his judgment And so the Oportet esse Haereses may be verified still Pag. 207. l. 4. The sense they the Hereticks gave of Scripture was contrary to the Doctrine of faith c. Which he Irenaeus calls the unmoveable rule of faith received in B. pt sm and which the Church dispersed over the earth did equally receive in all places with a wonderful consent If the Dr here would restrain the Father's urging the Testimony of the Apostolical Churches against Hereticks only to the Tradition of the Canon of Scriptures or the Rule of Faith the Creed Prosessed in their Baptisme we must know that they urged not the concurrent Testimony of the present Churches only for those against some gross Hereticks that denied the Text and Letter of them but also against others more subtile perverting such a sense of them as these consenting Churches pretend d was Apostolical See Jrenaeus l. 3. c. 2. Cùm ex Scripturis arguuntur in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scripturarum where amongst other their accusations he alledgeth this quia variè sint dictae ambiguous in their sense quia non possit ex his inventri veritas ab his qui nesciant traditionem Cùm autem ad eam iterùm traditionem i.e. concerning the right sense of these Scriptures quae est ab Apostolis quae per successiones presbyterorum in Ecclestis custoditur provocamus eos qui adversantur traditioni i e. Ecclesiae dicent se c. Evenit itaque neque Scripturis jam neque tradiâ—â—oni consentire eos And the words c. 4. cited before Quid enim 〈…〉 si quibus de aliquâ modicâ quaestione c. shew he holds such concurrent Testimony valid concerning any such Tradition though there had been no Scriptures and indeed there seems no reason why these Churches should be more credited in
to their liberty to believe in such matters what seems to them truest p. 228 230. Whether a Church fallible can justly require of all her Clergy the assenting to and maintaining of all her Articles of Religion And then How Errours can be rectified in such a Church where all the Clergy stand obliged to teach nothing contrary to the publick doctrines thereof And 2ly Whether if this be justly done by the Church of England it be not so by the Roman and by Councils as to the Clergy subject to them p. 228. Whether the Church of England doth not require Assent from all her Subjects to her Articles of Religion Or leaves all men at least saving the Clergy to their liberty of opinion p. 82. 227. Whether a Superiour Authority was not opposed by the Church of England in the Reformation p. 235. 238. How she Principles of some later English Divines are said to justify Sects p. 157. That private Men's relying on their own judgment in the Sense of Scripture believed clear to any sober Reader in all Necessaries against that of their Ecclesiastical Governours occasions a multiplication of Sects p. 221. 241. That the only effectual means in the Catholick Church for preserving her Communion from Heresies and Sects is requiring Submission of Judgment from her Subjects to her Definitions in matters of Faith and removing Dissenters from her Communion p. 241. Justified by the Apostolical Practice p. 242. And in any particular Church is its Adhering to and Vnion in Faith with the Catholick Of the Inquisition used in some parts of the Roman Church not used in others p. 242. Errata PAg. 29. line 26. reade assert p. 39. l. 6. after us so adde where also we are to believe our senses that it tells us so p. 53. l. 23. r. to Scripture p. 59. l. 10. r. did from p. 73. l. 4 r. to beare p. 87. l. 6 r. faith is Ib. l. 5 r. nor without p. 96. l. 20. r. n. 3. p. 105. l. 8. r. sorry p. 163. l. 8 r. praxi p. 164. l. 24. r. Patron p. 183. l. 6 r. thither from p. 207. l. 6 Salvator p. 258. l. 12. r. till that Contents p. 3. l. 13. r. parts of CHURCH-GUIDES Necessary for Directing Christians in Necessary Faith CHAP. I. Câ—ncerning Points necessary and a right understanding of the Scriptures in them AFter N.O. In his Considerations hath conceded to Dr. Stilling fleet 1. That the Holy Scriptures do contain all points of faith that are necessary to be of all persons believed for attaining Salvation § 1 2. And again See Consid p. 22. That in several necessaries the Scriptures also are so clear that a very mean understanding in his reading them needs no further Instructer therin Yet He there denies such an universal clearness of them in all necessary matters of faith as that they may be understood by all persons who sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their salvation And whereas the Dr. saith ‖ Princip 13 That it is repugnant to the nature of the design the wisdom goodness of God to give an infallible assurance to persons in writing his will for the benefit of mankind if those writings may not be understood by all persons sincerely endeavouring to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their salvation N. O. there answers Consid p. 13 that this may as well consist with the Design and the Wisdom and Goodness of God if in those things wherin these Divine Writings are clear only to some persons more versed in the Scriptures and in the Church's Traditional Sense of them and more assisted from above according to their Mission and Employment he hath commissioned and appointed these persons continued in a perpetual Succession to guide and instruct the rest of Christians many of whom are of a mean Capacity and no learning and hath appointed these others also to learn of them the true sense of those places or points of Gods written Will wherin to these it happens to be obscure As also it would had he left no Writings at all but only Teachers to deliver his will perpetually to his Church Either way I say sutes well with Gods Wisdom Goodness the writing his Will in all parts of it so clear as none sincerely perusing this writing can have in any necessaries to his salvation any doubt For this Will if supposed so written would render any further Ecclesiasticall Guide I say not as to many other parts of the Pastorall Office but yet as to the expounding of such Scriptures to such a person useless 2 Or the leaving a Standing Ministry to explicate this his Written Will the course taken also in giving the Law of Moses in any necessary matters wherin the sense of it is to some disputable and ambiguous Which of these two God hath done is the Question N. O. denies the former as the Dr. asserts it and for his disallowing it gives many Reasons and Evidences dispersed here and there in the Considerationâ—â—â— as the Doctors Principles ministred occasion which I shall endeavour here to recollect in some better Order and shall consider where I find any his Replyes Reducing the Considerations as relating to those Principles forementioned to these chief Heads or Chapters 1. Concerning Points Necessary and a right understanding of the Scriptures in them 2. Concerning a Necessity of Church-Guides for instruction of the people in points Necessary 3. Touching Obedience and submission of Judgment due from the Church's subjects to the Definitions of these spirituall Governors in Divine matters and this more in those matters which are more necessary 4. Concerning the Infallibility of these Governors herein 5. And the Impossibility of suppressing Sects Heresies and Schisms without admitting such an Ecclesiastical Judge § 2 1. First then N.O. observes here that in the Dr's mentioning Necessaries for Salvation Necessaries cannot rationally be taken so strictly as to include only those doctrines delivered in Scripture wherin all persons that bear the name of Christians do agree for this would be to say that whatever is any way controverted is not necessary which would conclude all controversies heretofore defined in General Councils to be of non-necessaries even those definitions of theirs put into the common Creeds and so it would become not necessary if any thing now generally consented-to shall happen to be disputed hereafter But that by the same reason as we do not bound necessaries with the Apostles Creed so neither can we with the latter common Creeds I mean in such a sense as some of the Articles of those Creeds are accounted necessary For some Heresies may arise in latter times as pernicious as the ancient were and as the four first Councils lawfully thereupon enlarged the former Creeds so may other Councils in latter ages enlarge those of these first Councils to preserve the Church's subjects from any such new corruption of such
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
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
evidence of our Senses then is to be preferred before that of Tradition concerning the Revelation hence it follows that so often as Tradition delivers God to have done any thing contrary to the evidence of our Senses as in the former Instance God's sending Angels that appeared to Lot and the men of Sodom to be Men so often the Tradition or Revelation is not to be credited for Divine or any Text in God's Word concerning this not to be taken in its literal as that Gen. 19 1. implying them to be Angels but in some figurative sense And is not this cum ratione or sensu if you will insanire And §. 62. n. 2. here may we not use the same words as this Author doth in his Roman Idolatry p. 540 against Transubstantiation against such a sense of the 19th chapter of Gen. that these to-Sense-appearing Men should be really Angels I desire to know saith he there how the Sense he means in the Eucharist concerning the Bread suppose we of Lot and the men of Sodom here concerning the Angels comes to be deceived supposing a Revelation contrary to it Viz. that those whom they saw to be Men were indeed Angels Doth God impose upon their senses at that time then he plainly deceives them Is it by telling them they ought to believe more than they see that they deny not but they desire only to believe according to their senses in what they do see as saith he in what they see to be bread that that is Bread so I in what they see to be Men that those are Men. c. Besides if this Revelation is to be believed by them against sense then either that revelation is conveyed immediately to their minds c or mediately by their senses which we affirm as in those words This is my Body saith he and I as in those words Gen. 19.1 And there came two Angels to Sodom If so then they are to believe this revelation by their senses and believing this revelation they are not to believe their senses which is an excellent way of making faith certain Try we the same arguing again §. 62. n. 3. in his Dispute against Transubstantiation Rat. Account p. 117 by this Instance That these Persons being seen to be Men the Divine Revelation was not to be so understood as that they were Angels There he pleads thus If this Principle be true here that the judgment of the senses suppose here of the men of Sodom that those persons they saw were really Men which he speaks of the Eucharist being really Bread was not to be relied â—n in matters which sense is capable of judging of it will be impossible for any one to give any satisfactory account of the grand foundations of Christian Faith For if we carefully examine the grounds of Christianity in Christian Religion we find the great appeal made to the judgment of Sense That which we have seen and heard and handled If then the judgment of Sense must not be taken in a proper object at due distance and in such a thing whorein all mens Senses are equally judges I pray tell me what assurance the Apostles could have or any from them of any Miracles which Christ wrought c. In things which are the continual objects of Sense if men are not bound to rely on the judgment of Sense you must say that our faculties are so made that they may be imposed upon in the proper objects of them and if so farewell all certainty not only in Religion but in all things else in the world And so all the rest of his discourse there if any please to view that place will pass as currently against understanding the Text in Genesis literally that those persons were Angels whom Lot and all the inhabitants of Sodom saw to be Men as against the General sense of Hoc est Corpus meun that that is Christs Body we see to be Bread or rather collect from the Accidents we see that it is so To what is said by N. O. in this matter §. 62. n. 3. I find no answer returned by him Nor can I imagine how he can shape any but by removing the Controversy from what is the evidence of Sense concerning the thing to what is the evidence of Tradition concerning the Revelation till which cleared against the truth of any such Revelation any evidence of or from Sense or seeming-Reason must be laid aside Several of the other things that are here pressed by N.O. for Infallibility are also by the Dr in his Answer passed-over in silence whether neglected by him for the slightness of them or avoided for the difficulty is left to the Reader 's judgment and some others spoken to with what successe is now to be weighed § 63 To that mentioned before § 51. of the necessity of a perpetuall Infallibility in the Church-Governors for preserving a stability and Certainty in the Christian faith especially supposing there had been no Scriptures as for some time there was not nor in every place the presence of an infallible Apostle or supposing the sense of them in several such points doubtfull he answers p. 124. to this purpose That mens Faith and Religion may be well grounded stable and certain either without Scriptures or Church-Infallibility viz. by vertue of common and Universal Tradition instancing in the Religion of the Patriarchs received by Tradition without any such Infallibility and in Christian's receiving the Scriptures or the Roman party maintaining Church-Infallibility upon Tradition as a sufficient ground thereof But N.O. speaks of a stability and certainty of the Christian Faith not as to some one of a few parts or points thereof which as instanced in by the Dr so are here willingly granted by N. O to receive a sufficient evidence and firmness from Tradition antecedently to any Infallibility of the Church for neither doth N.O. require Church-Infallibility for the proof or assurance of Church Infallibility but as to all the necessary parts and Credends thereof to the believing of which being not all of them especially as to all sorts of Christians delivered with the same evidence of Tradition as the Canon of Scriptures or Church-Infallibility are he affirms this Infallibility necessary for the establishing a certainty in their faith when such persons are left either without Scriptures or with Scriptures in such points of an ambiguous sense in which necessary matters surely it is necessary that all men believe aright though not that they have an infallible certainty that they do so Where as N. O. observes such an Infallibility signifies much Consid p. 54. for men's having a right and saving faith in all these matters proposed by the Church then when perhaps it may signify nothing as to their infallible assurance of that which it proposeth § 64 Again to the proof of Church-Infallibility from the practice Councils allowed and submitted to by the whole Church Catholick diffusive in their requiring assent to their
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
the Schisms that ordinarily follow them But in conceding such a submission Protestants well see there could have been no justifiable Reformation in Luther's time nor can be hereafter in any other against such erroneous doctrines of the former Church Again the teaching them that they ought not to become their own Guides what sense soever he will put upon it yet if not this that they ought to submit their judgments to the Doctrines of their Guides I mean as to the Decrees of their General Councils and ought to follow their faith a thing his Principles admit not it must fall short of suppressing Heresies or Sects whilst every one retains his own opinion still notwithstanding the contrary doctrine of his Guides § 95 For what he adds That his Church exacts of none a blind obedience if it be not meant a blind i.e. an obedience which there is no Reason for which obedience it is granted may never be exacted or exhibited but signifies the Church not to require of her subjects an absolute assent where all either do or ought to know they owe it though they perhaps do not yet see the Reason or grounds of those Truths wherein they give it so any less obedience than this exacted can never crush Heresies and Sects We see the Church of England made her Articles for establishing consent in judgment and for avoiding diversity of opinions Yet these Articles are not proved by her to their Reasons there where they are delivered And S. Austin writ a book De Vtilitate Credendi i. e of believing the Church upon some other grounds before men saw the Reasons of those things that were proposed by her to be believed and relates a Story of those who first doing this yielding their obedience to her proposals said a Gratias Deo afterward for their understanding the other viz. a good reason of the things she proposed Gratias Deo Qui expertos doeuit quà m vana inania de Ecclesiâ mendax fama jactaverit S. Augustin Epist 48. and when we see no Reason of the thing to be believed being not yet cleared to us we may see much to believe and rely on the judgment of the Church proposing it to be believed rather than our own § 96 These things our Authour here hath returned in his own defence In which methinks Mr Chillingworth hath dealt somewhat more plainly and openly Who seeing that a diversity of Opinions according to such Protestant Principles must be allowed and that all Judge to decide and end them or declare amongst these opinions what is Heresy must be taken away besides only the Scriptures the clearness also of which Scriptures for one side can hardly be maintained as to such places thereof though touching matters of great moment where whole Nations do understand them in a contrary sense one to another thought of another way of preserving perpetually the peace of the Church in ordering rather that diversity of opinions might be no hindrance to unity of Communion i.e. that men of all opinions should peaceably live to gether in one external communion His words to this purpose are ‖ ch 4. §. 39 40. This is most certain that to reduce Christians to unity of Communion there are but two wayes that may be conceived probable the one by taking away dâ—versity of opinions touching matters of Religion the other by shewing that the dâ—versity of opinions which is among the several Sects of Christians ought to be no hinderance to their Vnity of Communion Now the former of these is not to be hâ—ped fâ—r without a miracle that is unless it could be made evident to all men that God hath appointed some visible Judge of Controversies to whose judgment all men are to submit themselves What can be made more evident than besides the Scriptures the Laws and Practice of the Church in her General Councils have made this He goes on What then remains but that the oâ—her wâ—y must be taken and Christians must be taught to set a higher value upon these high points of faâ—th and obedience wherein they agree than upon thâ—se mâ—tâ—ers of less moment wherein they differ and understand that agreement in those ought to be more effectual to join them in one Communion then their diffâ—rence in other things of less moment to divide them But here I pray why must the matters wherein they differ be of less moment than some of those wherein they agree Or are there not some points wherein those that are involved within the General Name of Chriâ—tians do differ of the highest consequence and concernment or of much greater than some others are wherein they acâ—ord Since then this is a law that ought if in any to be observed in all times men may consider here of what great consequence some of the ancient Heresies and differences were And in some of tâ—ose points of greater moment wherein men agree now may not they differ hereafter § 97 Suppose them among these diversities of opinions there happen to be also some errour in some Fundamental or Essential as they use to stile it to the constitution or being of a Church which is Heresy in their notion surely such Errours ought not to be tolerated among the rest for example Socinianisme but suppressed and if to be suppressed how may it be discerned or by what Judge is it to be declared such for knowing it must precede suppressing it Is it to be known by clear Scripture because in all such points Scripture is affirmed clear on their side So Mr. Chillingworth saith being asked this Question by his Adversary ‖ ch 2. §. 127 For If Scripture saith he be sufficient to inform us what is the faith it must of necessity be also sufficient to teach us what is Heresy seeing Heresy is nothing but a manifest deviation from and an opposition to the faith That which is straight will plainly teach us what is crooked and one contrary cannot but manifest the other Thus he Now this is very well If all men that read the Scriptures were all agreed in the same Opinion But in our endeavouring to discover what or on which side is Heresy the Sense of Scripture is the very Ball of the contention and the Heretick suppose a Socinian will say for himself as readily as the Catholick that the Scripture the straight Rule for what he holds plainly shews him the tenent crooked which he opposeth This I say were a good Answer if Mr. Chillingworth will maintain as I think he doth and can justify it that no points are necessary or essential in the Christian Religion but what all Christians or all except a very few in their reading the Scriptures are agreed in To which purpose ‖ Answ to Pref. §. 26. in requiring the using mens best endeavour to believe the Scripture in the true sense he saith also that He hopes many on all sides I understand him in all Sects of Christians and Divisions of Opinion do perform
study of his notions to the underâ—tanding Reader I shall only add these notes after it though the same hath been said already by N. O. and not taken notice of if they may serve to remedy any of his scruples and difficulties found herein N. 2 1. That a Christian hath always for the Object of his Faith and that whereon it formally relies and finally rests Divine Revelation or God's own Word Which Word of God is most absolutely infallible and so to which as infallible after whatever manner declared to him the believer may most firmly adhere N. 3 2ly That such things as are proposed to him for Divine Revelation or God's Word are so indeed and among the rest that of Church-Infallibility as assisted by the Holy Ghost and the Canon of Scripture both here believed infallible the Believer is or may be antecedently as to these sufficiently assured from the Tradition thus commonly discribed viz. the Testimony of a multitude in all ages of illustrious Persons qualified with the many Motives of Credibility their Wisdome Sanctity Martyrdomes their being honoured with Miracles relating things contrary to carnal appetites and their secular-interests unanimous consent in so many ages c which Tradition carries a sufficient self-evidence in it And that any further external and rational evidence of or introductive to his faith than that Certainty whatever it be stiled which this Tradition affords no Christian needs to have or also can have antecedently to all the Articles of his Faith unless God to attest them should send a Voice from Heaven or Miracles and these so as to be seen by every particular person For else Tradition also must witness these Miracles to others As likewise in the Apostle's dayes it is most credible that the major part believed upon Tradition without seeing Miracles As for the Certainty which such a Tradition yields us if it be urged that it is not such as the Christian Faith necessarily requires for the suffering all manner of deaths and Martyrdomes in attestation of the truth thereof namely an assurance or certainty cui non potest subesse falsum as this is taken in the most rigid sense we may here consider that neither such would our certainty be if we all had it like to that of S. Thomas quia vidisti credidisti and believed only that which we first saw with our eyes For the Certainty of our Senses even when all things naturally required to a true sensation are present and where no Divine Revelation discovers to us their mis-apprehension or mis-arguing collection as it hath in the Angles their coming to Sodom is not such cui non potest subesse falsum if taken in the highest sense For if not by the ordinary power of Angels God's permission supposed yet by the supernatural effects of the Divine Power all the senses of the whole world at once possibly may be deceived either by thinking they see those colours or other proper object of them which they do not or by collecting from these truly seen somthing to be joined with or the subject of them that is not so As the men of Sodom were and all the world might have been deceived in the sight of the truly Angels their appearing as Men in their entring Sodom Since then none desires or needs a greater evidence of his faith for example concerning our Lord crucified or risen again than Sense may afford us or S. Thomas by his Sense had consequently must we not say either that an evidence cui potest subesse falsum as this is taken in the strictest sense is abundantly sufficient for a ground or Reason of faith Or that a ground of faith cui non potest subesse falsum ought not to be taken in any higher notion than it is verifiable of our Senses And such a Ground is the Tradition we speak of a ground cui non potest subesse falsum considering the Nature of Man which Nature in such a Tradition improved with such circumstances cannot have the least inclination or inducement to deliver or propagate to posterity so general an Vntruth N. 4 3ly That an infallible assent is said in a Divine Faith to be yielded to Divine Revelation or Gods word as well by Protestants as Catholicks See Archbishop Lawd p. 360. where he saith That A. C. concludes well that an infallible certainty is necessary for that one faith which is necessary to salvation And of that faith saith he amost infallible certainty we have already in the Scripture the Creeds c And again see p. 330. where he saith I believe the entire Scripture infallibly and by a Divine infallibility am sure of my object and below that he is infallibly assured of his Creed So that if hence any difficulties press the Catholicks in the Resolution of Faith how they come to yield an infallible assent thereto the same do the Protestants Now by such infallible assent asserted by both I say may either be meant N. 5 1. An Assent grounded on the Infallibility that the forenamed Tradition affords being the greatest self-evident testimony of a thing past as of that which our Lord and his Apostles did said or writ that can be had except Miracles Of the infallibility of which Tradition thus the Archbishop ‖ p. 124. A man may be assured nay infallibly assured by Ecclesiastical and Humane proof Men that never saw Rome may be sure and infallibly believe that such a City there is by Historical and acquired faith And in the next page Certain it is saith he that by humane authority consent and proof a man may be assured infallibly that Scripture is the word of God N. 6 2. Or by infallible Assent is meant an Assent yielded to an Object that as being Gods owne word is believed to be most supremely Infallible and immutable As the Archbishops words seem to explain themselves where he saith †p. 86. That Faith is an evidence as well as knowledge and the belief is firmer than any knowledge can be because it rests upon Divine authority which cannot deceive And so Dr Potter ‖ p. 199. The assent of Faith is more certain if it be possible than that of Sense or Science or Demonstration because it rests on Divine Authority which cannot possibly deceive And as some Catholicks also explain themselves when they say that no Divine Faith without an infallible assent i.e. an assent to an object that is most infallible Gods Word not without a Proponent or Expositor of the sense of this Word where ambiguous that is also really infallible And thus they say the illiterate and vulgar sort among Catholicks are infallible in the assent they give to the Articles of their Faith not formally by an infallible knowledge or certainty that the thing or person they believe is so true or infallible but materially by their adherence to that which is a reall truth who therefore from the Object of their Faith Gods Word and the Proponent of the sense of
it where disputed viz. the Church being both infallible are alwayes actually preserved from erring in their Faith though all such persons are not infallibly certain either of the Object of their faith that it is Gods Word or of the Proponent that he is not liable to errour whilst on the other side a Protestant having or believing no such certain and infallible Guide in the Sense of doubtful Scriptures and following his own judgment in the interpretation of them either actually errs in some part of his Faith or casually hits right and fluctuates to and fro the same man as he meets with several arguments differing from himself and one from another in those matters wherein all Subjects to the Church's Authority are agreed To which purpose a late Adversary of the Doctor 's perceiving him to mistake the meaning of Catholicks in the former proposition explains himself in Errour Non-plust p. 133. 139. 143. c. the same Author mean while affirming that all Catholicks may be and that the learned are formally infallible in their assent to the object of their faith i.e. have an infallible certainty of the Infallibility both of the Scripture and the Proponent thereof viz. from Tradition the evidence of which Tradition is accounted by him to be impossible to be false but so also it is as to this Author's sense of impossible by Archbishop Lawd p. 124. but now cited And perhaps Infallible Assent thus taken by Catholicks in a various sense occasions the Dr's apprehending in them contradictions N. 7 3 Or by this infallible Assent may be meant an Assent in respect of the Subject having a Certitude of Adhesion to the matters believed exceeding that to a Science according to that of Biâ—l cited by the Archbishop ‖ p. 75. Scientia certior est certitudine evidentiae fides verò certior firmitate adhaesionis Majus lumen in scientiâ majus robur in fide N. 8 Now How proper these expressions be in the explaining of an infallible Assent and whether these two laâ—t Notions are not coincident I meddle not But however it be by such infallible assent is never meant an assent grounded on any absolutely-infallible Testimony that the Revelation is Divine transcending that of Tradition and equalling that believed infallibility of the Church the Church I mean as assisted by the Holy Ghost and as its infallibility as to necessaries is one of the Articles of our Faith or equalling that believed infallibility of the Scriptures Which Testimony were there any such absolutely infallible must either be proved by other Testimonies of an equal weight in infinirum or must rest in some one that is a per se notum I say an infallible assent so grounded Catholicks pretend not nor need pretend to The Church in necessaries the Holy Scriptures in all things are believed are affirmed to be infallible by an infallibility cui non potest subesse falsum because believed Divine Revelation and so are adhered-to as such by a firmer and constanter assent than Sense or science causeth but are not need not to be infallibly known to be so as to any rational or demonstrative evidence by any infallibility transcending that of the forementioned Tradition whereever Miracles do not intervene Which infallibility or certainty of Tradition is abundantly sufficient to render and represent the Christian the moâ—t rational Religion in the world N. 9 This that no other precedent Testimony is necessary for proving the Infallibility of the Church as it is effectually assisted by the Holy Ghost in necessaries than that of Tradition But neither do Catholicks affirm it necessary that every one for a Divine or saving Faith have that certainty of faith that Tradition affords And to see that this is no Paradox among Catholicks I referr the Reader to what F. Bacon hath said of it in his Analysis Fidei extracted out of other Catholick Authors Disp 3. c. 7. and 8. Though it is affirmed necessary in the Catholick Church that It always have a most rational and certain proof of the truth of the Christian Faith and such as no other false or Heretical Religion can equall N. 10 4ly That notwithstanding such a sufficient rational assurance and actual certainty in Tradition and so in the infallibility of the Scriptures too as to the most part of the Canon thereof sufficiently attested by the same Tradition Yet remains there still a great necessity also of the Infallibility in the Governours of the Church so assisted by the Holy Ghost as never to err in Necessaries upon a manifold account N. 11 Because though many are yet all Points of Faith are not delivered and transferred to Posterity by the forementioned Tradition in their express and explicit termes but some have only descended in their Principles the necessary Deductions from which are by this Infallible Church extracted and vindicated from age to age against those dangerous errours that may happen to assault them Again Because though this Tradition is also assisted or improved with the Infallible Scriptures for a compleater direction in the Christian Faith yet are not all Credends and Agends so clearly delivered in these Scriptures as that Christians the illiterate especially and plebeians have no need of such an Interpreter thereof as may not mistake or misguide them in any such necessary Agends or Credends To which unlearned persons though it is said not to be necessary that they be infallibly certain of the truth of that which they believe and therefore Church-Infallibility cannot be said necessary as to them upon this account yet it is necessary to them that in such points where one of the two contradictories is of necessary faith it be truth that they believe and hence necessary also that the Proponent thereof be infallible as to all such points And it is here observable that though in the Descent of Tradition the Congregatio fidelium when it first delivers to a person the Infallibility of Church and of Scripture appears not to him as yet absolutely infallible Yet indeed as to delivering necessaries it then and always is so For this Congregatio fidelium in every age that testifies such things It or some part of it is the very same Body that is promised by our Lord his perpetual assistance and is preserved for ever by Gods Spirit and Providence from erring in Necessaries 3 Again Because the same Church-Infallibility is necessary as to other Controversies so also to those if any happen concerning the Canon of Scripture so far as any part thereof hath hapned in some times not to have had in all parts of Christianity so clear a current of Tradition 4 Because after this point of Church-Infallibility is once established and confirmed by such Tradition one may hence sooner and easilier learn his faith from her plain definitions and proposals thereof than from Tradition much dispersed abroad whereby its uniformity is the harder to be discerned or from the Scriptures in several points not so perspicuous and so the
more subject to mis-interpretations and where for the thorow studying the one or the other the vocations and employments of most Christians admit not a competent vacancy 5 Lastly the Questions that tend to void Church-Infallibility from the sufficiency of Tradition may as well serve for rendring useless the Infallibility of Scripture on the same account and the same Question that demands Why the Church is believed more infallible than Tradition which Church-Infallibility is proved only by Tradition may as well be put concerning the Scriptures Why these held more infallible than Tradition the strongest proof of which Infallibility of Scriptures among Protestants is from it Annotations on his §. 3. of N. O's Concessions PAge 85. l. 14. N.O. yields That there is no necessity at all of Infallibility under natural Religion 1 There are no words so put together in the Doctor 's 2d and 3d Principle conceded by N. O but by taking his own Principles in what sense he pleaseth he may represent N. O's Concessions of them what he pleaseth 2 If by what he saith N.O. yields he means this see his p. 86. l. 5. That we may have a sufficient certainty of some Principles in Religion without or antecedently to the Infallibility of the Church as it is assisted by Gods Spirit first known to us it is willingly granted him But meanwhile from the Beginning besides the Law of Nature teaching in general the Worship of a God there were also Positive Divine Laws concerning his Service conserved in that Body which constituted his Visible Church So we finde early in Gâ—nesis mention of Sacrifice Firstlings Holocausts Peace-offerings clean and unclean beasts birds in Sacrifice not divided not eating the bloud mention of Holy Times Places Persons Priests Prophets of Tithes paid to the Priest Purifyings Cleansings changing their garments Vows Prohibition of Polygamy as we may gather from Matt. 16.4 8. of contracting Marriages with unbelievers as may be gathered from Gen. 6.2 compared with 1. Excommunication or expulsion out of the Church as we may gather from Gen. 4.12 14 16. And these Laws we may presume were received from an infallible external Proponent and were preserved by the Ecclesiastical Superiours and Teachers of these laws in such a manner as those delivered since and for the certainty of Religion there seems an infallibility in these as necessary if not more for solving the great doubts arising therein before as after the times of a Written Law These laws and statutes are made mention of Gen. 26.5 when God promised his blessing upon Isaac and his seed because that Abraham had obeyed his voice and kept his Precepts and Commandments observed his Ceremonies and Laws Whose Service had been performed more publickly and solemnly from the times of Enos ‖ Gen. 4.26 and after that the days of Adam were half run out And of these Positive Laws and the Tradition of them and of these Ecclesiastical Superiors thus S. Athanasius †De Synod Nicen. Decretis Quae Moses docuit eadem ab Abrahamo observata sunt quae porrò Abraham observavit eadem Noe Enoch agnoverunt Abel quoque hujus rei testis habendus est qui ea quae ab Adam perceperat Deo obtulit Adam autem Magisterio Dei instructus fuit Pag. 86. l. 8. He yields That Reason is to be Judge concerning Divine Revelation i. e. as I understand him Judge whether that which is pretended be a true Divine Revelation or if such Judge again what is the true Sense of it To this I say 1. That whereas He collects this from N. O's granting his 4th Principle there is no mention at all of Reason in this 4th Principle from which this Author deduceth such a Concession 2. That N.O. upon the Dr's 5th Principle hath delivered the just contrary to this Concession imposed upon him in these very words ‖ Consid p. 6. Here if the Dr means that every Christian hath a faculty in him which as to all Revelations whatsoever proposed to him can discern the true and Divine from others that are not so and when a Revelation certainly Divine is capable of several senses can discern the true sense from the false and all this exclusively to and independently on the instruction of Church-Authority This Proposition is not true For then none will need as experience shews they do to repair to any other Teacher for instructing him in a dubious Revelation or the sense of any Divine Revelation controverted which is the true Revelation or which is the Sense of it 3. Yet however this shall be granted him in relation to that Principle that nothing ought to be admitted for Divine Revelation which overthrows the certainty of or is contradictory to true Reason But if the Revelation be of somthing above Reason Reason may be no fit Judge of it Ibid. l. 12 He yields That the will of God may be sufficiently declared to men by writing This and the following Concession That the written will of God doth contain all things simply necessary to Salvation I have re-considered and â—â—nd no advantage to our Author's cause from N. O's yielding them Pag. 87 l. 9. But he quarrels c. Whether the Dr's consequence Princip 21. drawn by him from what was said Princip 20. be well deduced or no which is called N. O's quarrel here I appeal to any judicious Reader reviewing these Principles after this our Author's defence Pag. 88. l. 11. As for instance that the Church is infallible is in the first place to be believed upon their principles Their Principles affirm no such thing c. See N.O. Consid pag. 37. saying the contrary in these words A Christians faith may begin either at the infallible Authority of Scriptures or of the Church and this infallible Authority of either of these be learnt from Tradition and that of the other from it Ibid. l. 10. The Ground on which a Necessity of some external infallible Proponent is asserted must rather make every particular person infallible If no divine faith can be without an infallible assent and sorenders any other Infallibility useless Any infallible assent necessary to the right believing this Artiele of our faith the Church's Infallibility more than that which Tradition affords N.O. affirms not See what the Dr puts in the next page for N. O's 6th Concession As for the Dr's arguing here The ground on which c it is not good For every particular person's being antecedently infallibly assured i.e. by Tradition of this particular point of faith that the Church is Infallible renders not at all the Church's Infallibility useless as to the same person his being assured of several other points of faith only by the Church's Infallibility which according as the person's condition needs instruction may both ascertain him of many more points of Faith and more clearly ascertain them to him than Tradition doth Ibid. l. 3. Our only Question is about Infallibility whether that be necessary or no Writing thus
in general is full of ambiguities Whether infallibility be necessary means he Whether Church-Infallibility be necessary at all Notwithstanding that a sufficient certainty from Tradition sufficeth for our being assured of such Infallibility in the Church See this Question I think sufficiently solved in the Note on pag. 84. l. ult n 4. Or means he Whether an absolutely infallible Testimony be antecedently necessary for knowing or rightly believing the Infallibility of the Church If so such infallible Testimony is affirmed not necessary unless he will allow Tradition such Ib. l. ult If sufficiently certain evidence will serve for the Church's infallibility why may it not for the Scriptures or any matters of faith contained therein It may where it can be had See N. O's Concess 6. in the Dr's p. 89. Pag. 89. l. 3. If they mean no more by infallibility than sufficient certainty c. Catholicks by Church-Infallibility as assisted with Gods Spirit mean more than a Moral Certainty such Church-infallibility being affirmed a Divine Revelation and so believed to be absolutely infallible And affirm Christians in such Necessary Points of Faith where neither the sense of Scripture nor of Tradition is clear and doth afford sufficient certainty without this Church-Infallibility to be no way secure from errour Ibid. l. 7. We all say matters of faith have sufficient certainty What that all matters of faith have sufficient certainty as to us if Church-Infallibility be excluded as it is by Protestants I ask from what have we this certainty From the Scripture How this where its Sense is doubtful and controverted as in the Text Hoc est Corpus meum From Tradition But all Necessary Points of Faith are not in such clear and express terms delivered by It that no Christian can have any reasonable doubt therein Ibid. l. 12. I only desire to know why a like right and saving faith may not be had concerning the Scriptures without their Church's infallibility A Catholick may have a right and saving Faith concerning the Scriptures I suppose their being the Word of God or concerning any other Article of Faith clearly delivered in them without such a person 's being infallibly assured of Church-Infallibility but without Church-Infallibility cannot have a certain and unerring faith as to those points that are not so clearly set down in Scripture but that some persons may mistake or also as to those Books of Scripture that are not so clearly attested by Tradition or this Tradition not easily knowable to such person Ib. l. 9. From hence it follows that an infallible assent is not requisite to saving faith directly contrary to my former adversary E.W. Whatever difference may be amongst Catholicks concerning What assurance of their faith in some Catholicks is necessary to salvation yet all agree that all Catholicks may have a sufficient certainty of their faith from Church-Infallibility which sufficient certainty for this serves our turn as to this Author's Principles Protestants cannot have in many points thereof as â—elying on their own Judgment in the Sense of dubt us Scriptures and not on the Definitions of the Church See before Note on pag. 84. l. ult Pag. 90. l. 7. He yields That the utmost assurance c. N. O's words p. 56. that he referrs to are Any person may be and that antecedently to the testimony of Scripture at least with a morally-infallible certainty or whatever certainty that may be called which Vniversal Tradition can afford assured of this Divine Revelation the Church's Infallibility from such Tradition and other Motives of Credibility as Protestants allow for a sufficiently or morally infallible and certain means of believing the Scriptures to be the word of God Here is no mention of utmost Ib. l. 5. It moral Infallibility is joining two words together which destroy each other Surely the Author in such passages as these studies some recreation for his Reader or some relief of the Stationer in an age given so much to jeâ—ts even in the most grave and serious subjects N O before he writ these Considerations on his Principles found him in this merry Critical humour in his Rational Account Where pag. 154. the Replier to the Archbishop saying that the Church's infallibility must come from the Holy Ghost and so be more than humane and moral He falls on descanting thus upon it You tell us very wisely that this infallibility is not a thing that is not infallible And It is well you tell us of such a rare distinction of infallibility for else I assure you we had never thought of it viz. of an infallibility that may be deceived Thus He. But forgetting the like language in the Archbishop whom he defends The Archbishops words p. 124. are If you speak of assurance only in the general I must then tell you and it is the great advantage which the Church of Christ hath against Infidels a man may be assured nay infallibly assured by Ecclesiastical and humane proof Men that never saw Rome may be sure and infallibly believe that such a City there is by Historical and acquired Faith And if consent of humane Story can assure me this why should not consent of Church-Story assure me the other Now what is this but Moral Infallibility And so Mr Chillingworth ‖ p. 330. We are and may be infallibly certain that we are to believe the Christian Religion i.e. from the more reasonable Grounds we have for it than for any other and I find our author himself in the same Rational Account p. 96. where this Critical humour was not so violent and where he had some inducement to advance the credit of a Moral Certainty treating this term Infallible a little more gently If by infallible certainty saith he there you mean only such as excludes all possibility of reasonable doubting upon the consideration of the validity and sufficiency of that testimony I am to believe the Canon of Scripture upon then I assert c. And p. 197. Thus we see how impossible it is to avoid a Circle in the supposition of a supernatural Infallibility in the Church's Tradition But if no more be meant but a kind of rational Infallibility though those terms be not very proper i.e. so great evidâ—nce as if I question it I may upon equal grounds question every thing which mankind yields the firmest assent to because I cannot imagine that so great a part of the wisest and most considerative part of the world should be so grosly deceived in a matter of such moment especially supposing a Divine Providence then I freely and heartily assert We have such a kind of rational infallibility or rather the highest degree of actual certainty concerning the truth of the Canon of Scripture and that the Catholick Church hath not de facto erred in defining it But without all this defence our Author knowing N. O's meaning what needs he quarrel about his words unless it were to gain this poor victory that N.O. hath in somthing spoken improperly But
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
to the justifying of the Doctrine and Religion that such Heathen or Heretical Miracle-workers professed and of the Honour of those Gods they served suppose those Miracles of Pythagoras or Aesculapius or Apollonius Thyanaeus or of the Arian or Donatist-Bishops who urged them against S. Austin for a justification of their sect and orthodoxness of their doctrine Or on the other side * to shew that those who have related our Lord's and his Apostle's Miracles have to give these their just force and value expressed alwaies that they were done to this end the Dr mentions here and not to some other ends from which consequently nothing could be concluded concerning the truth of their doctrine Of which end of them therefore it concerned the world chiefly to be informed not of the fact Or * to shew that our Lord or his Apostles alwaies cleared this to be their end to their Auditors and spectatours which was in the first place necessary to be done But the people we see without examining this argued the men to be from God from their beholding the Miracles done And the Pharisees not dreaming of the necessity of such a circumstance never offered to elude any of our Lords Miracles as for example that done upon the blind man Jo. 9. alledging them to be done not in confirmation of his doctrine but upon some other by-account and so as they might possibly be done also in a false Religion and so his Doctrine to be rendred no way more creditable thereby Ib. l. 10 But such as the Church of Rome pretends scarce any Religion in the world but hath pretended to the same 1st Here that the same Miracles are pretended by other Religions that are by the Roman Church will signify nothing if they have not as good ground for or proof of what they pretend Or if those which are not only pretended but really done in the Roman be only pretended in the other 2ly The Roman Church pretends many such as the whole Catholick Church if such a Church there was in being did in many ages before Luther and even all along from the Primitive times as sufficiently appears in Ecolesiastical History 3ly These Miracles pretended both by the present Roman and by the Ancient Catholick Church were of the very same kind as those wrought by Christ and his Apostles i.e. giving sight to the blinde healing the sick raising the dead casting out devils Fiunt ergò nunc saith S. Augustine multa miracula eodem Deo faciente per quos vult quemadmodum vult qui illa quae legimus in the Scriptures fecit ‖ De Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 8. and which Miracles are such as this Authour here seems to say can never be done by any other Religions than the true 4ly That such Miracles were not only pretended but really done in the Church Catholick in the ancienter times as in S. Austin's this Authour I suppose will not deny or also hath granted See in his 2. Disc c. 3. p. 578.580 and then there seems no reason why he should deny the like in the Church of latter ages or in the present If there appear first as no absolute necessity of these Miracles in latter times so neither in S. Austin's 2ly If there be the same ends and benefit of them still in these as in his viz. the greater manifestation of Gods Presence and Providence in his Church the Honour he is pleased to do to his more extraordinary faithful Servants the rewards of a strong and unwavering Faith of obtaining what is asked for his better service and greater glory and lastly that end mentioned by S. Austin our greater edification in the true faith See De Cura pro Mort. c. 16. where he faith that Miracles are done Per Martyrum Memorias quoniam hot novit expedire nobis ad adificandam fidem Christi pro cujus illi confessione sunt paessi 3ly Where the Histories of latter times produce as evident and irrefragable testimonies of the truth of several of these Miracles done in them which is sufficient as those in S. Austin's days had Ib. l. 7 Who all pretend to Miracles as well as the Church of Rome Pretend as well but I hope not so truly nor 2ly so much the pretences of Heathens or Hereticks to Miracles being no way comparable for number or greatness to those pretended in the Church Catholick or Roman No more than Simon Magus his are to those of the Apostles and those few also that are said to be done by the Heathens after the Apostles days seem seigned in emulation of the great reputation of those of Christians But Pretences on any side signify nothing The Catholick and the Roman Church require belief of Miracles not upon pretence but a Rational Evidence Pag. 122. l. 15. But he saith a Christians faith may begin either at the infallible authority of Scriptures or of the Church i.e. That the first Article that a Christian believes or that in his learning the Faith is by his Parents or other instructers first made known to him may be this that the Scriptures are Gods word and infallible or may be this that the Church is Infallible I add or perhaps neither of these but some other As that God hath a Son and that he became Incarnate for his sake and the like Any of which Articles such Christian may savingly and with a Divine faith believe without being made infallibly certain thereof from some other formerly-known Divine Revelation on which this Article may be grounded As for example such person may with a divine and saving faith believe the Scriptures to be Gods word before he believe the Church to be infallible that hath defined the Canon of Scripture Or believe the Church to be infallible before he knows those Scriptures to be Gods Word by which Cnhurch-Infallibillity is proved Ib. l. 18. It seems then there may be sufficient ground for a Christian faith as to the Scriptures without believing any thing of the Church's Infallibility and for this we have reason to thank him whatever they of his own Church think of it Yes there may so A Christian not as yet believing the Infallibility of the Church as divinely assisted may both believe and have a sufficient ground of believing the Infallibility of Scripture viz. the forementioned Tradition And as Catholick Writers ordinarily state it to whom the Dr owes his thanks as well as to N. O It is not necessary that the first thing every Catholick believes or is sufficiently certain of be Church-Infallibility See the Catholick Authors cited in 3d Disc of the Guide § 129. n. 4. c. Ib. l. 3 Nay he goes yet farther and saith That the Infallibility of Scriptures as well as the Church may be proved from its own testimony And adds this Reason For saith he ‖ Princ. Consid p. 37. whoever is proved i.e. by some other medium or granted once infallible in what he saith the consequence is clear without
dissent from which he can justly anathematize Angel or Man and none may anathematize another for his dissent not receiving or for his not believing any thing of the truth whereof he himself is not certain much lesse if he doth not so much as hold himself so which latter will make the fault the greater Unless perhaps such were the supreme and unappealable Ecclesiastical Judge and knew that none other could be in such matter certain of the contrary But this I grant that who is certain and infallible in some things may not be so in all neither do I contend for an universal Infallibility even of General Councils in all things whatsoever but in all that are any way necessary to be determined See Note on p. 104. l. 15. Pag. l. 130. l. 7. Let the Reader now judge in his Conscience c. What thing is there more publick in the Church's Tradition and of which there hath been a more remarkable Testimony in all ages than of the repairing where the Ecclesiastical affaires required or times permitted it following the precedent of Acts 15. to General Councils or those some way equivalent for deciding the more important Controversies in Religion that disturbed the Church and than of these Councils when met their requiring a belief and assent from all Christians to their Definitions and this assent accordingly yielded by the Vniversal Church which inferrs also a General belief and acknowledgment of their Infallibility And Councils are as well known for thus deciding controversies in the Church as he saith the Judges are for trying causes in Westminster-Hall Ib. l. 7 I challenge him to produce any one age wherein the infallibility of a standing Judge of Controversies appointed by Christ hath been received by as universal a consent as the authority of Scripture Review the last Note 1 This standing Infallible Judge are affirmed to be Lawful General Councils Which though as being a Court consisting of many it is not at all times actually assembled and sitting Yet the Members of this supreme Ecclesiastical Court are alwaies existent and in being and retain their Authority from Christ for judging matters of Faith equally whether conjoined or distant in place from one another And when happens no conveniency of assembling such a General Council the Consent of the Body of the Catholick Clergy manifesting a concurrence in their judgment whether by several Provincial Councils or by any one that is generally approved Or whether by Communicatory and Synodical Letters or whether appearing in a general accord in their publick Writings Catechismes and Explications of the Christian Doctrine I say such Consent is equivalent to a General Council The Decrees also and Definitions of former General Councils are always standing in force and the execution of them committed to the care of the present Church-Governours This of the standing Judge 2 As for the Infallibility thereof the Vniversal consent of the Church hath admitted as the Authority and Infallibility of Scriptures so of Councils as to their defining points of necessary faith as hath been shewed before Note on p. 113. l. 14. 3 But in the 3d place it is not necessary that every point of Faith to have a sufficient Attestation or Evidence from Tradition have it as ample and Universal as some other point hath no more than it is for a just ratifying of the Canon of Scripture that all points of it be shewed to have alwaies had as General an Acceptation as any other Or that the Definitions of Chalcedon equall in this those of Nice Pag. 131. l. 5. The Infallibility of a standing Judge is utterly denied by one side and vehemently disputed between several parties on the other Not the infallibility of General Councils in all necessaries disputed save only by some Protestants agreed in by all the rest whether Eastern or Western Church And if the Common Reason or Body of Christianity were to decide this contest between N. O and Dr St Dr St. would be cast Pag. 132. l. 15. If the Infallibility of the Church be as liable to doubts and disputes as that of the Scriptures it is against all just laws of reasoning to make use of the Church's infallibility to prove the Scripture by It is true that the Infallibility of the Scripture cannot be proved from Infallibility of the Church to any that doubts as much of this as of the other till this proof is also proved to them But then it is true too that a Neophyte may first be taught from Tradition the Infallibility of the Church and from this so made known to him have the Infallibility of the Canon of Scripture proved to him as this Church hath in her Councils declared and delivered it for which Church it were to no end to define the Canon if the Canon thereby received no more certainty as to any Christian than formerly Ib. l. 3 N.O. turns my words quite to another meaning In the meaning the Dr now explains his words the sense of the latter part of this Principle which I leave the Reader to compare seems coincident with the former and so is granted to him Princip 17 as the former is And if N.O. not imagining such a reduplication mistook the Drs sense here from what he found him to say in another place ‖ Rat. Accountâ—p 512 the discourse is still pertinent if not to this to the other place and N.O. hath not lost his labour Pag. 133. l. 13. Men can have no certainty of faith that this was a General Couneil that it pâ—ssed such decrees that it proceeded lawfully in passing them and that this is the certain meaning of them all which are necessary in order to the believing those decrees to be infallible with such a faith as they call divine Christians have a sufficient certainty as to all the former particulars that the Council of Nice for example hath delivered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the true sense of the Scriptures which Sense of Scripture we believe with a divine faith and this divine faith relies on the word of God as thus expounded by this Council The same to which therefore may be said as to other points and other Councils Ib. l. 3 But I expresly mention such decrees as are purposely framed in general terms and with ambiguous expressions His words in Rat. Account are Suppose saith he p. 510. we should grant that you might in general be certain of the Infallibility of General Councils when we come to instance in any one of them you can have no certainty of faith as to the infallibility of the decrees of it For you can have no such certainty 1 that this waâ— a lawful General Council 2 that it passed such decrees 3 that it proceeded lawfully in passing them and 4 that this is the certain meaning of them Then examining these four particulars coming to the 4th he proceeds thus 4ly Saith he Suppose men could be assured of the proceedings of the Council yet what
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
to any Guides of the Church ever since we are sure they spake by an infallible Spirit and where they have determined matters of faith practice we look upon it as arrogance presumption in any others to alter what they have declared Where they have determined matters of faith or practice But who 's Judge of this what Christ and his Apostles have determined the Church's Councils or private men each for himself Ib. l. 13 Til ignorance ambition private interests swayed too much among those who were called the Guides These vices in all ages are found in some and are justly by others reproved But doth He charge these on the Church's Supremest Guides or its General Councils Then if we declining their judgment on this account to what other Courts or Persons will He direct us to apply our selves that are more free what private Person or inferior Court Ib. l. 3 In matters imposed upon us to believe or practise which are repugnant to plain commands of Scripture or the evidence of sense or the Grounds of Christian Religion no Authority of the present Guides of a Church is to overrule our faith or practice In things contrary to the plain commands of Scripture or grounds of Religion we join with him No Church-authority is to overrule our faith or practice But the former Question still returns Who shall judge among us what is or is not so contrary As for the other thing he mentions contrary to the evidence of sense If a Divine Revelation be contrary to such evidence I hope our Faith is to be over-ruled by the Revelation and for this I think I have the Dr's consent in these words in his Rational Account Where discoursing of Transubstantiation whether consistent with the grounds of Christian Religion he saith ‖ p. 567 That which I am now upon is not how far reason I suppose he will allow me to say or sense is to be submitted to Divine authority in case of certainty that there is a Divine Revelation for what I am to believe but how far it is to be renounced that is Reason or Sense when all evidence that is brought i.e. for such a Divine Revelation is from the authority of the Fathers So that that Question in short is Whether there be greater evidence that I am bound to believe the Fathers in a matter contrary to Sense and Reason or else to adhere to the judgment of them though in opposition to the Father's authority Where I understand him to say that he is to believe a Divine Revelation that is certainly such made known to him by one Sense the Hearing though against the perceptions of another Sense the Seeing but notwithstanding this that he is still rather to adhere to the judgment of his Senses than credit the Fathers concerning the truth of such a Divine Revelation as contradicts his Senses So The certainty of the Divine Revelation is here the only thing in question which once any way proved the evidence Sense gives-in against it is to be neglected Now of the certainty of the Divine Revelation or of the true sense of Scripture we reckon the unanimous consent of the Fathers or Primitive Church if such can be shewn so expounding it a sufficient proof And I think sometimes so doth Dr St. in these words Rat. Account p. 375. We profess to be guided by the sense of Scripture at interpreted by the unanimous consent of the Fathers and the four first General Councils And p. 56. It is a sufficient prescription against any thing that can be alledged out of Scripture that it ought not to be looked on as the true meaning of the Scripture if it appears contrary to the sense of the Catholick Church from the beginning And so laying the evidence of Sense here aside what their consent is is the first thing to be discussed Pag. 150. l. 4. For there are some things so plain that no man wil be guided by anothers opinion in them Catholicks willingly allow withdrawing obedience where you have Certainty But how vainly doth any one pretend or promise himself a certainty of any thing wherein a General Council or a much major part of the Church having all the same means of certainty as he judgeth contrary or fancy that such a matter carrieth the like evidence to persons as doth the Whiteness of Snow Ib. l. 12. I am certain if I destroy the evidence of Sense I must overthrow the grounds of Christian Religion What if I disbelieve Sense only in such a particular thing where Divine Revelation declares the contrary Though indeed the Sense in Transubstantiation is not deceived at all its Object still remaining there out the Person if from it He collect the Substance of Bread to be under it Ib. l. 19. To reject that authority which overthrows the certainty of Sense He must meane with his Exception unless it be Divine Ib. l. 3 We preferr the grounds of our common Christianity before a novel and monstrous figment Good reason but not before a Divine Revelation This Controversy therefore must first be decided before any argument from Sense can be used He goes on Ib. l. 2 Hutched in the times of ignorance and barbarisme fostered by faction and imposed by tyranny Speaking evil of Dignities Jud. 8. Concerning the evidence of Sense N.O. †Consid p. 92. had this Discourse on Dr St's 4th Consequence charging the Church of Rome as maintaining opinions repugnant to the principles of Sense and Reason 1. That the judgment of our Senses appointed by God the Instruments by hearing or reading them of conveying Faith and his Divine Revelations to us affords a sufficient natural certainty or infallibility whereon to ground our belief in all those things subject to our senses wherein the Divine Power doth not interpose But 2ly That where the Divine Power worketh any thing supernaturally that is contrary to our sense as it may no doubt here we are not to believe them And 3ly That we are to believe this divine power doth so so often as certain Divine Revelation tells us so though by the same senses it tells us so We believing our Senses as our Hearing or Reading for this as we ought where we have no Divine Revelation or other evidence concerning their deception when at the same time we do not believe the same Senses for some other thing as that that which we see is Bread when a Divine Revelation tells us the contrary The truth of which Divine Revelation in any non-evidence and questioning of the Sense of Scripture we are to learn from Gods Church infallibly assisted in necessary Faith c. For which I referr the Reader to what hath been said more at large in § 60.61.62 of the preceding Discourse Thus N.O. in his Considerations ‖ which the Dr passeth over in silence For it is better not to debate or acquaint a Reader with those Scruples we cannot easily satisfy Cosa ragionata via và P. 151. l. 1. We
to these also this Infallible Guide is necessary to supply the effect of such studies N. 4 As for the 2d means viz. The Ancients urging the general Exposition and sense of Scriptures testified in the Apostolical Churches to be conformed to Catholicks affirm that this viz. the Apostolick Churches their unanimously delivering such a doctrine or sense of Scripture as received first from the Apostles was always held to be infallible and not liable to errour and all Chri tians held oblâ—ged to believe or embrace such a doctrine or sense of Scripture so generally consented in and the dissenters and opposers thereof always held by the same united and consenting Apostolical Churches for Hereticks in the Faith To which Traditive Doctrine I add here or any necâ—ssary and evident Deduction made by them from such a tradiâ—ive doctrine In both which the Tradition or the Deduction the Câ—urch was con tantly believed to be so preserved by God's providence over it and his Holy Spirit abiding with it as not to err in any necessaries And the unanimous consent of these Churches concerning any doctrine to be Apostolical however their minds were made known whether by Communicatory Letters or Provinciâ—l Synods for it could not be in these times of persecution by a Council General had then the self same authority as afterwards the Decrees and Definitions of Councils And thus is the Dr in urging the 2d means of knowing the true sense of Scripture fallen upon the Infallibility herein of the Church And this was the Infallible Guide in the first times whose Tradition and Ordination for matters of our faith Irenaeus saith ‖ l. 3. c. 4. Chriâ—tians muâ—t have followed and believed had the Apostles lest us no Scriptures and consequently Dissenters had been held no less Hereticks Siquibus saith he speaking of the present Churches de aliquâ modicâ quaestione how much more in greater disceptatio esset nonne oporteret in an iquissinas i.e. by succession recurrere ecclesias in quibus Apostoli conversati sunt ab eis de praesente quaestione suâ—ere quâ—d certum re liquidum est what was the certain and cleare tâ—uth to which he was to adhere Quid autem si neque Apostoli quidem Scripturas reliquissent nobis nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis quam tradiderunt iis quibus committebant Ecclesias cui ordinationi assentiunt multae gentes Barbarorum corum qui in Christum creâ—unt sine charactere vel atramento scriptam habentes per spiritum in cordibus suis salutem veterem traditionem diligenter custodientes c. N. 5 Neither was this general Consent of Churches then consulted or repaired-to only concerning their conserving of the Written Rule of Faith the Canon of Scripture or the Creed that they received from the Apostles the perpetual conservation of which in the Church the Fathers urged against some grosser kind of Hereticks denying the same Creed and some part at least of this Canon but also was consulted and repaired-to concerning the sense wherein the Scriptures and this Creed were understood by these Churches so often as disputes in those times were raised about it by other Hereticks more refined and who admitted the Scriptures and the Creed but varied concerning the sense of them in several points Against both which Hereticks the Fathers urged the prescription of the present testimony of these Churches to those who would consult them concerning the Tradition descending to them from the times of the Apostles And Tertullian frequently complains as of some Hereticks not reâ—eiving the Scriptures so of others misinterpreting them ‖ De praescript adv haeres c. 17. c. Ista Haeresis non recipit quasdam Scripturas siquas recipit adjectio ibus detractionibus ad dispositionem instituti sui intervertit si recipit non recipit integras si aliquatenùs integras praestâ—t nihilâ—minùs â—iversas expositiones commentata convertit Tantum veritati obstrepit adulter sensus quantum corruptor stilus And afterward Dicunt a nobis potius adulteria Scripturarum expositionum mendâ—cia inferri And ubi apparu rit esse veritatem disciplinae fidei Coristianae illic erit veritas Scripturarum omnium traditionum Christianarum Where I note his urging the Church's consenting Exposition of Scriptures as well as reception of Scriptures as prescribing against Hereticks Ib l. 11. It will not I hope be denied that the Primitive Christian Church had a cercain way of understanding the sense of doubtful places as far as it was necessary to be understood and that they wanted nâ— means which Christ had appointed for the ending of controversies This is willingly granted and it is contended that this inerrability in Necessaries accompanied the Clergy and preserved the Church in the unity of a true faith in all even the Primitive times being annexed to the whole Body or much major part of this Clergy not only when met in a General Council but out of it also whenever and however they manifested a concurrence in their judgment and agreement in their doctrine whether it were by several Provincial Councils assembled or perhaps only by some one convened in the place more infested with some new and dangerous errour and ratified by the Apostolick See and other coordinate Churches or not opposed and censured but taciâ—ly admitted by them Or by their Communicatory and Synodical Letters Or whether in their publick Liturgies and Offices Or in a general Consent in their publick Writings and explications of Christian Doctrine In none of which as to the Doctrine Necessary the whole Body of the Clergy or that which in any dissent is to be accepted for the whole did ever erre Of which times before Constantine and the first General Council of Nice thus Mr Thorndike in his Epilogue l. 1. c. 8. The daily intercourse intelligence and correspondence between Churches without those Assemblies of Representatives we call Councils was a thing so visibly practised by the Catholick Church from the beginning that thereupon I conceive it may be called a standing Council in regard of the continual settling of troubles arising in some part and tending to question the peace of the whole by the consent of other Churches concerned which settlement was had and obtained by means of this mutual intelligence and correspondence The holding of Councils being a way of far greater dispatch but the express consent of Churches obtained upon the place being a more certain foundation of peace And afterward he affirms That the succession of Pastors alledged by Irenaeus and Tertullian to convince the Hereticks of their time by S. Augustine and Optatus to convince the Donatists to be Schismaticks proceeded wholly upon supposition of daily intercourse and correspondence between Churches as of force to conclude particular Churches by consent of the whole And this agreement in all times hath kept the Faith of the Church steady and uniform Ib. l. 4 If no such thing was then heard of as an
their testimony when pretending one thing Tradition Apostolical than when another though these things perhaps be not of an equal importance Pag. 208. l. 1. Which Tradition they the Hereticks accounted the key to unlock all the difficulties of Scripture Hereticks indeed so accounted their false tradition but so the Churches also their true Tradition Ib. l. 12. Irenaeus appeals to the most eminent Churches And especially that of Rome because of the great resort of Christians thither where he omits the Necesse est No. Propter potentiorem principalitatem saith the Father which Pricipalitas potentior a Petro Paulo fundata caused the great resort of Christians thither propter quam ad hanc necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam c see the words at large cited before Annot. on p. 201. l. 5. Ib. l. 17. And knew of no such tradition as the Valentinians pretended to But this was not all the Fathers pleaded also in the Churches an Anti-tradition true and Apostolical witnessed by the unanimous testimony of the present Apostolical Churches as the others did a false and untestifyed Ib. l. 9 And supposing no Scriptures we must then have followed the Traditien of the most ancient and Apostolical Churches Thus said Irenaeus I add and this Tradition witnessed by the present Churches must be in necessaries infallible else Christian Religion would be liable to errour in such necessaries Pag. 209. l. 14. But Irenaeus knew nothing of any infallible Judge to determine the sense of Scripture For the contraty see Note on p. 197. l. 7. and l. 11. Pag. 210. l. 2. There must be a certain unalterable Rule of faith c. Now this Author removes his discourse from Irenaeus to Tertullian Who also as Irenaeus speaks not only of the Creed professed in Baptism nor of some chief Articles but of the whole doctrine of faith and manners necessary to salvation as also of the right sense of Scriptures controverted that it was delivered to and deposited in the Christian Churches by our Lord and his Apostles and from the unanimous agreement of the same Churches therein in any controversy made concerning it might be certainly learnt and known What hath been said of Irenaeus needs not be repeated concerning him both do tread in the same steps and Tertullian had perused the works of Irenaeus ‖ See contra Valentin c. 5. both referr Christians to the consentient Testimony of the Apostolical Churches in any doubting in matters of faith or disputed sense of Scripture a these Churches firmly conserving and rightly delivering the Tradition Apostolical and as not liable to errour herein Of these Churches thus he De praescript c. 19. Vbi or apud quos apparuerit esse veritatem disciplinae fidei Christianae delivered to them by the Apostles illic erit veritas Scripturarum expositionum omnium traditionum Christianarum And how this if these consentient Churches not held infallible in rightly delivering such Tradition c. 21. And Quid Apostolis Christus revelaverit hic praescribam non aliter probari debere nisi per easdem Ecclesias Proinde constare omnem doctrinam quae cum illis Ecclesiis Apostolicis matricsbus originalibus fidei conspiret veritati deputandam id sine dubio tenentem quod ecclesiae ab Apostolis Apostoli a Christo Christus a Deo suscepit These Churches therefore in no age are errable in conserving or delivering such such doctrine for else how any certain that not in Tertnllian's Superest ergo uti demonstremus an haec nostra doctrina cujus regulam supra edidimus de Apostolorum traditione censeatur Which he demonstrates thus Communicamus cum Ecclesiis Apostolicis quod nulla doctrina diversa facit hoc est testimonium veritatis And after c. 36. speaking of the Apostolical Churches in any diversity of doctrine to be consulted he goes on thus Proxima est tibi Achaia habes Corinthum Si non longè es a Macedoniâ habes Philippos c. Si autem Italiae adjaces habes Roman unde nobis Affricanis authoritas praesto est where he advanceth this Church above the rest as also Irenaeus Faelix ecclesia saith he cui totam doctrinam Apostoli cum sanguine suo profuderunt Videamus quid didicerit i.e. haec ecclesia quid docuerit cùm Affricanis quoque ecclesiis contesserarit Then naming some part of Its Faith and doctrine against the contrary of the Hereticks of those days adversus hanc institutionem saith he neminem recipit into its communion Then concludes Si haec ita se habent ut veritas nobis adjudicetur c non esse admittendos haereticos ad candem de Scripturis provocationem quos sine Scripturis i.e. by the infallible Testimony of the Church discovering their faith not right Probamus ad Scripturas non pertinere And Illic or apud cos igitur Scripturarum expositionum adulteratio deputanda est ubi diversitas invenitur doctrinae from the consentient Churches This occurrs in his Book of Prescriptions against Hereticks In his Books against Marcion are found like things From which authority also of the Apostolical Churches he saith there ‖ l. 4. c. 5. we receive the Canon of Scripture Eadem authoritas ecclesiâ—rum Apostolicarum cateris quoque patrocinabitur Evangeliis quae Evangelia proinde per illas secundum illas habemus Ib. l. 9 He Tertullian shews this Rule of Faith is by repeating the Articles of the Ancient Creed See Note on p. 207. l. 4. I hope He will not confine the consentient Church's authority and testimony only to the express Articles of the Creed used in Tertullian's time for then its testimony will not or may not have the same verity in those of the Athanasian Pag. 213. l. 11. Discovers their imposture Let the Reader well consider whether the Dr's translation in this and the precedent page doth not also make Tertullian clearly enough affirm Church-infallibility and whether he brings not witnesses against himself Pag. 214. l. 14. Thus Tertullian lays down the rules of finding out the sense of controverted places of Scripture without the least insinuation of an infallibility placed in the Guides of the Church for determining the certain sense of them Contrary If we Review what hath been said Tertullian lays down a certain Rule of finding out the sense of controverted places of Scripture viz. a general Consent of the Apostolical Churches touching such sense traditional and descending from the Apostles which Consent ought to determine such sense unto them Ib. l. 5 Prescription or just exception against their pleading for so prescription signifies in him The Plea Tertullian useth against the novelty of ancient Hereticks as also Roman-Catholicks do still against the Protestants namely this Mea est possessio olim possideo prior possideo c. 38. And this ‖ c. 31. Id est dominicum verum quod est prius tradtum id autem extraneum falsum quod est posteriùs immissum I say
in the places controverted between thâ—◠〈…〉 Story in brief is this Maximinus an Arian in the beginning of their dispute hath these words Si quid de divinis Scripturis protuleris quod commune est cum omnibus necesse est ut audiamus Hae verò voces quae extra Scripturam sunt homousion nullo casu a nobis suscipiuntur alluding to the definition of homousion by the Nicene Council S. Augustine takes his challenge and as he waved the Council of Nice so did S. Augustine that of Ariminum Upon which here lib. 3. c. 14. after he had said Hoc est illud Homousion quod in Concilio Nicaeno adversus Haereticos Arrianos a Catholicis Patribus veritatis i. e of the Scriptures authoritate authoritatis i.e. by the just authority of a lawfull free General Counci veritate firmatum est quod postea in Concilio Ariminensi c. multis paucorum fraude deceptis Haeretica impietas labefâ—ctare tentavit He condescends thus I say after this uttered in Justification of Nice Sed nunc nec ego Nicaenum nec tu debes Ariminense tanquam praejudicaturus proferre Concilium Nec ego hujus authoritate nec tu illius detineris he saith not tu non teneris but nunc non detineris Scripturarum authoritatibus non quorumque propriis as the two Councils were sed utrisque communibus testibus res cum re causa cum causâ— ratio cum ratione concenset That is this our conference or dispute shall only be as you desire from Authorities of Scripture Of the sense of which Scripture it is willingly granted that in many things many persons may be sufficiently certain without the directions of a Guide but not therefore all persons in all points necessary See before Note on p. 230. l. 15. Mean while none more than S. Austin pleads or vindicates the Authority of the Council of Nice needless to be further proved one would think to Dr St. Pag. 236. l. 1. This is in terms asserted by him ‖ De Doctrin Christian l. 2. c. 9 as a fuundamental principle that in those things which are plainly set down in Scripture all things are to be found which concern our faith and rule of life S. Austin doth not meane that all things containing our faith or manners are so plainly set down in Scripture as to all capacities that many do not need the direction of an infallible Church-authority for settling a certainty of their faith in them a thing affirmed by the Dr To which infallible Authority that this Father referrs such persons for learning the true Faith see that excellent Treatise of his De Vtilitate Credendi i.e. of believing Church-authority Where he saith Cûm res tanta sit ut Dens tibi ratione cognoscendus sit omnes ne putas idoneos c. And Tu in cos libros qui Sancti divinarumque rerum pleni c. sine duce irruis And Omnesne putas idoneos esse percipiendis rationibus quibus ad divinam intelligentiam mens ducitur humana an plures an pnucos paucos ais existimo Quid caeteris ergò hominibus qui ingenio tam screno praediti non sunt negandum Religionem putas Whom therefore he refers to this security of believing Church authority For In religione quid iniquius fieri potest saith he ‖ Ibid quà m ut Dei Antistites nebis non fictum animum pollicentibus credant nos eis praecipientibus nolimus credere And c. 16. that for such persons non esse desperandum ab eodem ipso Deo authoritatem aliquam constitutam quâ velut gradu certo innitetes aâ—â—ollamur in Deum Hanc autem authoritatem seposu â rationc quam sinceram intelligere ut diximus difficillimum stultis est dupliciter nos movere parâ—â—â— miraculis partim sequentium multitudine And ‖ Ib. c. 17. Quid est aliud ingratum esse opi atque auxilio divino quà m tanto labâ—re nost praedictae authoritati velle resistere And De Baptismo l. 3. c. 14. Fieri potest ut integra teneat verba Symboli I may say or of Scripture tamen non rectè credat sive de ipsâ Trinitate sive de Resurrectione vel aliquid aliud Neque enim parva res in ipsâ intus Catholicâ tenere integram fidem ita ut omnino non de aliquà creaturâ sed de ipso Deo nihil aliud credat quà m veritas hâ—bâ—t And in this book de Doctrinâ Christianâ l. 3. c. 2. he joines these two the clearer places of Scripture and the authority of the Church for our learning the Rule of Faith Cùm adhibita imentio saith he incertum esse providerit quomâ—do distinguendum aut pronunciâ—ndum sit consulat Regulam fiaci quam 1 de Scripturarum planioribus locis 2 Ecclesiae authoritate percepit More of this needs not Many excellent Rules this Father gives by which to understand the Scriptures i.e. for the more prudent and learned but not this exclusively to those person 's submitting their Judgments to the Church's authority who have no leisure or parts by these Rules to study the Scriptures or else to other's repairing to it where any thing in the Scriptures after their study still seems to them obscure Pag. 238. l. 12. ‖ S. Austin de Doctrin Christian l. 3. c. 16. Which words ‖ Jo. 6.53 seeming to command somthing evil must be figuratively understood of communicating in the Passion of Christ and calling to mind that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us And not imagining as the words strictly taken sound that our Lords Body and Bloud in a carnal or natural and sensible manner as other flesh is to be eaten and drunk by us as some of our Lords Auditors grossly mis-understood him and so forsook him in which sense Dominus flagitium videtur jubere saith S. Austin Not imagining thus I say but yet believing that his flesh and bloud is there really exhibited to us and fed on by us This Real so as also ineffable Presence of Christs Body and Blood though not to the Symbols yet in the Eucharist and so a reall participation thereof the Church of England and her learnedst Writers have much spoken of and contended for heretofore as well as Catholicks before that the Rubrick or Declaration about kneeling in receiving the Communion was by the importunity of some later Sects admitted a second time into the Common-Prayer Book A.D. 1660. Which Rubrick contrary to the Real Presence in that it denies that Christs substance can be both in Heaven where certainly it is and on earth at the same time was first contrived and published in the 5th year of the Reign of King Edward 6. in the new-moulding and correcting of the former Common Prayer Book published in the first yeare upon the Exceptions and complaints of some forraign Reformed Divines made against it and was then backed also with the 28th Article of Religion under the same King in
ambagibus tergiversationibus sic suscipiendus es Quod si non vis non mihi aut cuiquam hominum qui vult ita suscipere sed ipsi Salvatori contra salutem tuam perniciosissimè reluctaris cui te sic suscipiendum esse non vic credere quemadmodum suscipit illa Ecclesia quam testimonio suo commendat ille cui fateris nefarium esse non eredere Here this Father plainly saith in believing and doing as the Church commands and directs us we believe and do that which our Lord and the Scriptures command us which Lord and Scriptures have commended and given a Testimony to us of his Church N. 2 Which recommendation and Testimony let it be meant as the Dr will have it namely of the shewing and pointing ouâ— which of several pretending to be it is this Catholick Church for indeed this thing only needed a proof to the Donatists who allowed the same Infallibility in this Catholick Church as S. Austin and so an Infallibility in themselves conceiving themselves only to be this Catholick Church and that which our Lord and the Scriptures so recommended Yet this Church thus demonstrated which it is it is manifest S. Austin in the former passages affirms that in all things we are to follow and believe to be truth that which it tells us is so as if Christ or the Scriptures that recommended this Church to us had told us so Otherwise if this Church so demonstrated by our Lord and Scripture be fallible after its Resolution we may still be deceived in our Question about Rebaptization whereas the Father saith Quisquis falli metuit c. Ecclesiam consulat and Scripturarum a nobis tenetur veritas cùm hoc facimus quod universaeplacuit Ecclesiae And so after such Resolution we may disbelieve the Church without disbelieving our Lord. Nor can S Austin justly say as he doth to a Donatist refusing to receive Hereticks so as the Church doth without Rebaptization Nunquid Tu meliùs potes nosse quomodo suscipiendus sis qùà m Saltor noster And here it would be a great mistake to rely on the Church for that which it delivers to us as a truth upon our Lord 's recommending it which Church our Lord recommends not for this but some other thing consistent with that which it delivers its being an errour N. 3 But to put this further out of doubt If S. Austin did nâ—t suppose our Lord and the Scriptures to recommend this Church in such doubtful cases as in its Resolutions of them Infallible how comes this Father to require Assent and belief of what this Church defines and doing of what she commands How makes he all Hereticks that dissent from her Definitions even those Donatists to be Hereticks after the Church's Decree for holding Rebaptization who were not so before it Now Haeresis quae in vitio est as he saith ‖ De Haeresibus sine errore aliquo Haeresis esse non potest But if General Councils might erre in such points something thus might be Heresy in opposing them that were no errour If he held not Non rebaptization defined by the Church as a most certain truth how came it to be put in the Creed May something be a part of the Christian Faith that is not truth S. Austin every where expresseth his belief touching the not erring of General Councils otherwise See concerning Non-rebaptization De Baptismo 2. l. 4. c. where he questions not S. Cyprian's yielding to the consenting authority of the universal Church on this account Si jam illo tempore quaestionis hujus veritas eliquatae declarata per plenarium Concilium solidaretur Therefore S. Austin held it was so consolidated afterward So he saith of him Ib. c. 8. Vt quod postea plenario Concilio visum est id verum esse perspiceret doceret But how this his discerning it and teaching it for truth if this Council might err in their definition of it He might indeed have expected S. Cyprian's conserving the Church's peace but not conforming to its opinion He cals the Council's Decree verum liquidum eliquatum sincerum And 2. l. 1. c. he calls it after defined regula veritatis quam tota ecclesia tenuit L. 1. c. 18. he saith Restat ut hoc credamus quod universa ecclesia custodit And Quod in hâc re sentiendum est plenioris Concilii sententiâ totius Ecclesiae consensio confirmat Lib. de Haeresibus he saith of the Donatists Audent etiam rebaptizare Catholicos ubi se ampliùs Haereticos esse firmarunt cum ecclesiae Catholicae universae placuerit nec in ipsis Haereticis Baptisma communc rescindere And Ibid. he saith that Sufficit Ecclesiam contra aliquid sentire ut illud non recipiamus in fidem Why so if something in matters of Faith contrary to what the Church believes may be Truth And if the Father saith thus of this Church cui testimonium perhibet Christus Scriptura it s not erring in Quaestione obscurissimâ as he calls it and having no clear evidence of Scripture what would he do in its defining any other points wherein the Scriptures afford the same Church more light N. 4 To this Church he applies that Text 1. Tim. 3.15 16. Vt scias quomodo oporteat te in domo Dei conversari quae est Ecclesia Dei vivi columna firmamentum veritatis ‖ De Vnit Eccles c. 2. And Magnum est pietatis sacramentum praedicatum est in gentibus creditum est in mundo And †De Verbis Apostoli Serm. 14. speaking against the Pelagians concerning another point already defined by the Church Ecclesiae sanctae saith he pro remissione peccati Orginalis parvulorum quotidiè laboranti non contradicant Fundata ista res est i.e. the benefit of Baptisme to Infants Ferendus est disputator errans in alt is quaestionibus non diligenter digestis nondum plenâ Ecclesiae authoritate firmatis ibi ferendus est error non tantum progredi debet ut etiam fundamentum ipsum Ecclesiae quatere moliatur So saith he Contra Parmenian l. 2. c. 13. De iis qui ab Ecclesiae unitate separati sunt nulla jam quaestio est quin habeant verum Baptismum dare possint Hoc enim in ipso totius orbis unitate discussum consideratum perfectum atque firmatum est And to this might be added all those Testimonies out of him wherein he saith that there can never be any just cause of separating from the Communion of the Catholick Church from which I conceive it follows that she can never commit such an errour in her Decrees that to avoid the subscription thereof exacted by her any shall be justly necessitated to leave her external Communion N. 5 Concerning the same Church's Authority he saith in his Book De Vtilitate Credendi c. 16. Homini non valenti verum intueri Authoritas ab ipso Deo constituta praesto est
of Supremacy which Supremacy is therein given to the Civil Magistrate without any exception of these the Church's fundamental Rights unless the Dr with Bishop Bramhal holds the sense of this Oath to maintain only an external coactive power in such spiritual matters belonging to the Civil Magistrate which I suppose no Catholick will deny to him Or unless he will say that the Oath excludes a forreign Church-Supremacy distinct from that of the State but not so a domestick one as to some fundamental Church-Rights But then how can the Ecclesiastical Supremacy of a General Council though forreign be excluded where the Supremacy of an inferiour and subordinate Church-authority is admitted 2 Or 2ly means he that the Church hath such fundamental Rights given her by our Lord but so that she may not actually exercise them in these things whenever the Civil Power if Christian doth oppose and prohibite them But then what if such Civil Power should happen to be as possibly it may Heretical Here may the Church in such a State neither declare still such Truths nor inflict any Censures I mean of Excommunication on such as are reall Delinquents And to use the Dr's words ‖ Irenicum p. 422. Can we imagine our Blessed Saviour should institute a Society and leave it destitute of means to uphold it self unless it be sustained by the Civil Power Whenas saith he before the Church flourished in its greatest purity not only when not upheld but when most violently opposed by the Civil Power Ib. l. ult Of which Rights this is one of the chief to receive into and exclude out of the Church such persons which according to the laws of a Christian Society are fit to be taken in or shut out Then I hope that this Society may also keep Assemblies as a fundamental Right though these prohibited by the Commonwealth and that the highest Courts thereof may exercise the foresaid Jurisdiction over its members into whatever Commonwealth though opposing this Church these members be incorporated Pag. 268. l. 12. And in establishing those ancient Rites of the Christian Church which are in themselves of an indifferent nature But what if this Authority being fallible judge somthing indifferent that is not May any be forced to obedience and the practice thereof which he calls below over-ruling the practice and consequently first to assenting to the lawfulness of a thing wherein this Authority is fallible And if such Authority execute its Censures on such persons disobeying it is not this Tyranny Or if not why is that of the Roman Church so Ib. l. 5 The Church hath an authority of proposing matters of faith and directing men in Religion But so may any one more learned than others propose and direct them But what thinks he of the Church s defining or imposing any such matter of faith to be believed Surely either the Church hath by Right such an Authority or the first four General Councils usurped it And doth not such an Authority if justifiable inferr an Infallibility But then this directing and proposing is as to Necessaries needless where all is clear and plainly proposed in Scripture for every ones capacity without repairing to this Authority But if he means so plain in Scripture that men following these their Guides cannot mistake in it the plainness lies not in the Text but in their Exposition Pag. 269. l. 15. Authority to declare what the mind and will of God is contained in Scripture c. And are the people to receive what they declare as such Or have they authority to declare what they think the mind of God is and their Auditors to judge whether it be contained in Scripture every one for themselves But this latter must multiply Sects and the former includes Infallibility in Necessaries Ib. l. 6 Especially having all the ancient rights of a Patriarchal Church I suppose He here by the word Patriarchal claims no other rights or priviledges for the Church of England than those of a Primatical Church such as those of the Churches of France Spain or Affrick and that the Primate of Canterbury is no higher elevated by him than the Primate of Carthage or Toledo and that notwithstanding any such Primateship the Church of England and the Prelates thereof are subject as also those of Spain France or Africk to any Reformation of errours made by Superiour Councils whether Patriarchal of the West or General of the whole Church Catholick both which Councils also are acknowledged Superiour to National or Provincial by learned Protestants Ib. l. ult To do as much as in them lyes to reform them viz. by requiring a consent to such Propositions as are agreed upon for that end of those who are to enjoy the publick offices of teaching and instructing others N. 1 Here he allows a just authority in Anglican National Synods to agree upon declare and publish any propositions for reforming or correcting of errours in the Doctrine of Religion i.e. as I understand him only or chiefly in matters of faith though he doth not name it the care of the preservation of which faith in their several precincts is committed to the Bishops of the Church To publish and declare he saith what those errours are and to reform them it is said also in the 20th Article of the Church of England that the Church hath authority in Controversies of faith but not so as to ordain any thing contrary to God's written Word i.e. as I imagine hath authority in deciding of such Controversies For what authority else can be shewed in matters of Controversy since teaching must follow the deciding what is to be taught and the Article requiring that they do not ordain or decree any thing contrary to Gods written word or enforce the same to be believed for necessity of salvation seems to imply they may decree what they think is his Word This Author also saith such Synod may require consent to which I suppose is the same as assent or belief of the truth of such propositions as such Synod hath agreed on from those who are to enjoy the publick offices of teaching and iustructing others i.e. from all the Clergy Now to this I have these things to reply N. 2 1st In this his stating of the Church's Authority to do as much as in them lyes to reform errours in Religion or Faith here is no restraint of any who live in its Communion save only of the Clergy from erring their former errours No consent to its Decrees required of the rest but that they may be Arian Socinian Nestorian and what not yet enjoy her Communion may be partly compounded of Orthodox partly Hereticks as to the Laicks in whom all opinions are tolerated This I say follows according to his stating this Authority here for the Canons of this Church seem contrary and to require assent from all and according to what this Dr hath said also elsewhere Ration Account p. 133. where he describes the Church a Society of
them if the whole be so It follows Pag. 270. l. 3. Not to the end that all those propositions should be believed as articles of faith Not that all but doth the Church of England then require that some of her propositions in the 39. Articles should be believed and assented to by them as Articles of her Faith His saying not all seems to imply as much and see Art 8. which saith the three Creeds ought thorowly to be received and believed This and believed being added by Queen Elizabeths Divines to the former Article as it was penned in King Edwards dayes And several of the other Articles are required to be assented to as things contained in Scripture and so as infallible and these things such as the Church of Rome's errour in them is called erring in matter of faith See Art 19. and since the principal reformation of errours that belongs to Church-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
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
justified all the Sects which have or shall separate from their Church Prefa p. 7. which N.O. speaks not of their justifying these Sects universally in whatever they hold or do or what being practised in the Church of England they take offence at but only of justifying the liberty they take in disceding in their Opinions as they see fit from the Doctrines and Principles of this Church so limited by N.O. both in the precedent and following words whilst these Late men also tell them that they may safely follow their own judgment at least as to all necessaries for their salvation wherein they cannot erre if using a sincere endeavour to understand the Holy Scripture which is in all such points clear In answer to this this Author from p. 180. c. to p. 186. undertakes to shew That there is a different case of the separation of Dissenters from the Church of England and of Her separation from the Church of Rome shewing several Reasons or Motives of the Church of Englands departing from the Roman Church which the sects being of the same opinion in them have not of departing from her But this thing is willingly granted him before-hand that differences herein he may shew many that no way concern N. O's discourse who chargeth him and others only with this that from their teaching that none do owe a submission of judgment to that of their Ecclesiastical Superiors every one may rightly collect that he may follow his own Or that if You may depart from your Superiours Persons or Councils upon a just cause of which cause you say it is all reason that you not your Superiours judge then so may They from you upon any cause also they think just Or that if there be no decisive Judge for differences between you and your Superiours to whose sentence you can be obliged so neither is there for differences between them and you and that as you appeal from your Ecclesiastical Superiours to Evidence of Scripture so seeming to you in your cause so may they from you in their's For I suppose here the Dr will both acknowledge 1 Some Councils to be superiour to a National one and some Ecclesiastical Persons to a Primate And 2 that these Ecclesiastical Superiours fallible when proceeding against Evidence of Scriptures may be therein relinquished And This is the thing wherein N.O. affirms you to countenance and warrant the proceedings of all these Sects § 88 1. Frist then to shew these Differences he saith p. 181. Here lies a very considerable difference that we appeal and are ready to stand to the judgment of the Primitive Church for interpreting the letter of Scripture in any difference between us and the Church of Rome but those who separate from our Church will allow nothing to be lawful but what hath an express command in Scripture To which I say That this difference supposed or granted here of which see more in the Annotations ‖ On p. 181. notwithstanding he will be found still to justify the Sectarists in their departure from the present Church of England as she did the present Church that was before Luther which as the Dr maintains she might do upon a just cause that is appearing so to Her from the evidence of the Scripture so say the Sectarists they may and do from her upon a just cause but I need not say the same Cause And as he holdeth that this Church owed no submission of judgment to the definitions of that Church's former Councils being fallible so neither say the Sects do they to the National Synods of this But if the judgment of such matters be removed from these latter to the Primitive times to Antiquity This as taken ad libitum in a several latitude is a Precedent all Parties pretend to and is a Judge the sense of whose sentence all parties may cispute as they do that of Scripture without matters coming hereby to any strict Decision Neither will the Presbyterians I believe abandon this Hold to the Dr and his Irenicum perhaps will help them to maintain it And for some such reason it may be that he here in comparing the Church of England and the Sects declines the direct Antithesis of their deserting or renouncing contrary to Her Owning or adhering to these Primitive Times As the ingenuous Reader may observe § 89 2ly P. 182. He saith The Guides of our Church never challenged any infallibility to themselves which those of the Church of Rome do He should have said Which the Catholick Church in her lawful General Councils doth Now from this may well be gathered that the Dissenters from the Church of England depart in their judgment from a pretended not infallible but fallible Church And I ask What advantage hence for confuting what is said by N. O Doth not this fallibility of the Church of England in her Doctrines confessed secure any to depart from them and her as they shall think fit without being justly for this called to an account by her And are not all Sects hereby justified in following the perswasion of their own judgment against hers as she also following hers against her Superiours because fallible He saith also there That the Church of England declares in her Articles that all the proof of things to be believed is to be taken from Holy Scripture She may declare so yet the Sectarists not therefore admit that all that Holy Scriptures are alledged-for by the Church of England is to be believed since these differ in the sense of several places of Scripture from this Church and so as to these may depart from her Judgment § 90 3ly He saith P. 183. That the Church of Rome makes the belief of her doctrines necessary to salvation But nothing of this nature can be objected against the Church of England by dissenters that excludes none from a possibility of salvation meerly because not in her Communion To this I say as I did to the last The lesson cessary the Church of England makes the belief of her Doctrines the more liberty still the Sects will think they have of dissenting from them But changing here the Dr's Roman of which N. O. said nothing into the Catholick Church headed by her General Councils she freely tells those who dare depart from her that there is no Salvation to those out of her Communion and that their Conscience mis-perswaded doth oblige indeed but not therefore excuse them And this causeth those who are careful of their salvation and believe her in this to secure themselves in her Communion § 91 4ly P. 184. He saith The Guides of the Roman Church pretend to an immediate authority of obliging the consciences of men i. e as I understand him affirm that their Subjects are obliged in conscience to yield an assent and submission of judgment to their definitions and decrees which is true changing Roman into Catholick But saith he ours challenge no more than Teaching men to do what Christ
this truly and sincerely which they doing he saith It is impossible but that they should believe aright in all things necessary to salvation Seeming thus to make Necessaries those points only wherein all sides or the many on all sides are agreed But then there can be no Heresies i. e contradictions of any Christian Societies or Parties in points necessary if all sides be thus agreed in them Or at least all those differences we have hitherto seen will be no Heresies if hitherto in necessaries hath been no difference And so if any necessary point now generally agreed on by Christians shall happen hereafter by any considerable party to be contested it must be thenceforth cashiered as a non-necessary § 98 The same Mr. Chillingworth elsewhere ‖ ch 6. §. 48. answers a like Question methinks with as litle satisfaction the Question How a Protestant without any Guide save Scripture may know he holds no fundamental errour against Scripture To which he answers That we believing all the Bible are certain enough that we believe all that is fundamental and so maybe certain also that we hold no Heresy But so all Hereticks too will be no Hereticks suppose a Socinian for they believe the Bible to be God's Word as well as others But if he means by the Protestants believing all the Bible his believing the true sense of it all what he saith is very true that such may be certain he holds no Heresy But Is the Protestant then certain of this his believing the true sense of it all Or if not but only he believes he doth so at least in all necessaries so may the Heretick too and still remain an Heretick Since then Hereticks also do both urge and on their side pretend the Scripture clear here the Question returns who there is to decide on which part it is clear Is this then to be decided by the Common Sense or Reason of Christians For I know not what else can be said our Lord 's Dic Ecclesiae being declined and this Common Reason the Dr often appeals to But this also is common to and pretended by Catholick and Heretick Shall it be then the Common Reason of the much major part or the more learned part of the Christian World But now we are fallen upon a Judge beside the Scripture to decide what is Heresy in points necessary and it seems there is need of such a one But then if such Common Reason may decide Controversies for suppressing Heresy these are so decided already against the Protestants as to many points wherein the major part of the world doth declare the Scriptures to be against them For which the inquisitive may see 3d. Discourse Concerning the Guide in Controversy chap. 8. formerly referred to But suppose here it be said No But the Common Reason of Antiquity shall decide this matter Yet since both sides pretend also this Antiquity as Roman Catholicks and Protestants do in their Controversies will not this again return us to the Common Reason of the major part of the present Christianity suppose against a Socinian to judge what is the sentiment of Antiquity in such matter § 99 But besides these difficulties this Device of Mr. Chilling worth and his Disciples seems much to saile in one thing more viz. that diversities of Opinion will cross one another in the very Service and Form of that External Communion wherein he would have them all to be joined so that in this Publick Service what pleaseth one will dislike another for which reason he saith often elsewhere that though Protestants have no cause to depart from the Roman Communion because of her other Corruptions yet have they for those in her Communion a concurrence wherein is exacted of them Here therefore at last must not the Communion be brought to this that all Christians keeping as they think fit several external communions yet should preserve amongst themselves one Internal But then as for remedying such quarrels also about the Form he seems to propose that in such external communion no manner of Service or Worship of God should be used but what all Christians approved for so he requires in the following words That it should be a joint Worship of God after such a way as all esteem lawful But besides that thus scarce any part of the Church's former Publick Service would remain and the Church of England's Liturgy would no more stand than the Roman thus the Publick Service must continually vary hereafter as any Christians shall dislike somthing in it and then what all agree in to day they will not to morrow for Nunquam futurum est ut idem omnibus placeat I add especially where a thing is established modò placeat omnibus sires velut in medio positae singulorum arbitrio relictae fuerint as Calvin ‖ Instit l. 4. c. 10. §. 31. The same proposal or design as Mr Chillingworth for conserving the Church's Peace in the declining of an Ecclesiastical Judge had also Mr Hales of Eaton in his Tract of schisme There p. 10. his words are these Were Liturgies and publick forms of Service so framed as that they admitted not of particular and private fancies but contained only such things as in which all Christians do agree Schismes on the variety of opinion were utterly vanished for consider of all the Liturgies that are and ever have been and remove from them whatsoever is scandalous to any party and leave nothing but what all agree on and the evil shall be that the publick Service and Honâ—ur of God shall no ways suffer Whereas to load our publick forms with the private fancies upon which we differ is the most soveraign way to perpetuate Schisme unto the worlds end And a little before I do not see that opinionum varietas and opinantium unitas are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or that men of different pinions in Christian Religion may not hold communion in Sacris and both go to one Church And that you may know what manner of opinions he includes here he proceeds Why may not I go if occasion require to an Arian Church so there be no Ariamsâ—e expressed in their Liturgy We see what a different complexion this man is of from the Ancient Church and its Governours from our Lord 's si non audierit Ecclesiam sit tibi sicut Ethnious and S. Paul's Haereticum hominem devita against whom may be repeated the same as hath been against Mr. Chillingworth § 100 Not well satisfied with such answers allowing as seemed to me no means effectual for crushing Heresies or diminishing Sects but rather countenancing and increasing them if the toleration of diversity of opinions may be thought to do so I reviewed what the Dr had said in some pages before ‖ p. 267. concerning the Authority that is still left in the Governours of the Church though Infallibility be taken away to see if this Church-authority might be there as to this present matter any further enforced There
one material thing here may be observed by the Reader that this moral Infallibility where mentioned by N.O. is always applied to the said Tradition viz. the Testimony of so great a multicude of learned and pious men but never to Church Infallibility as a Body assisted with the Holy Ghost which Church is always believed not non-morally only but non-possibly fallible as also other Articles of the Christian Faith are as being all Divine Revelations but these certainly known or proved by a rational evidence to be Divine Revelations only from Tradition And Lastly that N.O. in his applying Moral Infallibility to Tradition leaving every one to express it otherwise adds or whatever certainty that may be called which Tradition affords ‖ Consi p. 56. Pag. 91. l. 6. This were well enough If in the precedent page he had not said c. An infallible assent in the former page and a morally-Infallible assent whereby in the latter it is explained do not contradict Ib. l. 7. Had not said That a particular person may be infallible in his assent That is sufficiently infallible as N.O. explains himself afterward and the Dr confesseth it Ib. l. 14. I would fain understand if the Evidence be only sufficiently or morally infallible How the assent which is built upon it comes to be more than so Any assent that is built only upon a sufficiently or morally infallible evidence never comes to be more than so Assensus cognoscitious non excedit Certitudinem Principii quo nititur See Note on p. 84. l. ult n. 2. Ib. l. 17. Late Writers of their Church are perplexed about this word Infallibility Our Author frames to himself strange Chimera's of Infallibility notwithstanding the pains taken by Catholicks to undeceive him and others therein whenas the Infallibility maintained by Catholicks is only that of the Church Catholick in a General Council in the defining of necessaries For the proving of which Infallibility they urge the Practice of former General Councils approved by the whole Catholick Church defining such points and putting them into the Creeds and anathematizing any Dissenters Behold now this terrible monster of Infallibility which this Author saith Mr Cr. and other late Roman Writers retain like a wolf by the ears cannot tell how to hold it and are affraid to let it go and N.O. at last quitting the thing contents himself with the sound of it And yet a few pages hence p. 95. the Dr tells you that the first Principle N.O. sets up in opposition to his is this Infallibility viz. That God hath given an infallible assistance to the Guides of the Church in all ages of it for the direction of those who live in it Ib. l. 10. Loth to part with the sound of Infallibility See Note on p. 90. l. 5 Ib. l. 6. He yields that moral certainty is a sufficient foundation for Faith Such terms neither occur in the Dr's 27th Proposition here referred to as conceded by N.O. nor in any words of N.O. nor any thing equivalent to them without some qualifications annexed The proper Foundation of a Christian's Faith or that on which it mainly relies is Gods word or Divine Revelation But if it be asked concerning the rational Certainty that Christians have or may have that such as they believe to be truly are Divine Revelations this is affirmed to be the Certainty which the Tradition so often forementioned affords call this Certainty by what name any one will This Tradition as the Reader may find in the Dr's next page is said by N.O. for which citation N.O. is obliged to the Dr that his Reader may sometimes at least find N. O.'s tenents in his own words to be the first rational introductive of our Faith And is so acknowledged not only by N.O. but generally I think by the whole Christian world at least by all Catholick Controvertists And yet our Author gazeth upon it as a new coined Position and frequently also calls it yielding the cause It is necessary to mistake or misrepresent the Catholicks Tenents thus to have somthing to say against them Pag. 93. l. 11. By which he fairly gives up the cause of Infallibility as to the necessity of it in order to faith I ask of what Infallibility Church-Infallibility N. O.'s next words following those quoted here by the Dr out of p. 67. are these But notwithstanding this Christians may be deficient in a right belief of several necessary Articles of this Christian Faith if destitute of that External Infallible Guide therein And the perpetual Divine Assistance and so Infallibility in necessaries of this Guide being declared in the Scriptures a Catholick having once learnt this point of Faith from its definitions and expositions becomes secure and settled in the belief of all those controverted Articles of his faith wherein others steered only by themselves do fluctuate totter and vary one from another whilst the Scriptures in such points at least to persons unlearned or of weaker judgments which are the greatest part of Christians are ambiguous in their sense and drawn with much art to several Interests See before Note on p. 84. l. ult n 4. And I ask Will it follow from Dr St's holding a moral certainty of Tradition to be a sufficient introductive to believing the Canon or Infallibility of Scriptures that he therefore gives up the Canon or the Infallibility of Scripture as to any necessity of it in order to matters of faith If not neither doth N.O. give up Church-Infallibility Or means he gives up the cause of an absolute Infallibility its being necessary ex parte subjecti to the having a right faith N.O. doth so yields it up as not being the Catholicks cause and stands to it but so doth he also yield up this of a moral infallibility ex parte subjecti its being necessary to every one for having a right faith Pag. 94. l. 12. I desire N.O. and E.W. to agree better c. Perhaps what is said before in Note on p. 84. n. 3. may satisfy our Author in this matter If not the Reverend Person E.W. if it be though fit is able to give a much better account of himself than N. O to whom therefore with all respect he leaves it But this I say and let the Reader judge that if this Author gives no fairer account of E. W's propositions than he doth of N. O's his Reader hath little reason to credit other mens Positions upon his Relation who by his first changing N. O's notions and then confuting them puts him to the trouble of these reflections Ib. l. 6. N.O. here makes moral certainty a sufficient ground for Divine Faith See Note on p. 91. l. 6. Pag. 95. l. 11. By these Concessions it appears that the Cause of Infallibility is clearly given up c. No. See Note on p. 93. l. 11. Annotations on his §. 4. Touching N. O's Principles PAg. 95. l. 4. The Doctor represents N. O.'s Principles thus 1. That God hath given an
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
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
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
Church where such Pleas as these are permitted to be urged in such a sense as to set men at liberty from the submission of their judgment to the Decisions and definitions of General Councils upon pretence that there shall be many seducers and a falling away and departing from the Faith and upon pretence of Force and Fraud used in the most General Counci's that could be convened for many past Generations Which falling away and departing from the Faith c. why should they not be rather applied to these New Sects and former Heresies and from them be inferred a closer adherence and Obedience to their lawful Church Governours Ib. l. 8 The Apostles told them they had no dominion over their faith What not so far as to oblige them to obey and submit to their Apostolical Doctrine What not such dominion as S. Paul urged 1. Tim. 1.20 to the blasphemers of the Gospel and as he commanded Titus to use Tit. 3.10 Consider the Acts of the Apostolical Council Act. 15. But the Text speaks here of any unjust dominion or authority to treat the faithful as he pleased in punishing or mulcting those who walk uprightly in the faith to alter change censure any thing therein for his own profit or advantage See Dr Hammond on the place Ib. l. 4. No present Guides whatever names they go by ought to usurp such an authority over the minds of men which the Apostles themselves did not challenge although there were greater reason for men to yield up their minds wholly to their guidance If to yield up their minds be to submit their judgments were not Christians obliged in this to the very Apostles and their Doctrines See before Note on p. 144. l. 11. See we not the effects here of the Dr's 13th Principle in the people 's not needing Guides for understanding necessary Scriptures but meanwhile in the Scriptures being needful to them for trying by it their Guides Pag. 147. l. 7. Where there is a Rule for them the Church-Governours or Guides to proceed by there is a rule for others to judge of their proceedings If here He means by these others those who doubting of the true sense of the Rule repair to these Guides to learn from them the true sense of it which is only to the purpose that these are again to judge by the Rule doubted of whether the Guides have given the right sense what is this but that these are finally to determine the sense of the Rule for the determining of which they consult their Teachers As if the Consulters concerning the meaning of a Law when the Judge hath given them the sense of the Law should again by this Law examine the truth of the sense of the Judge and act finally according to their own not his sentence Ib. l. 13. Where the rule by which the Guides of the Church are to proceed hath determined nothing there we say the authority of the Guides is to be submitted unto For otherwise there would be nothing left wherein their authority could be shewn Doth not he say here the Church's Authority is to be submitted to in nothing but things left indifferent by the Scriptures Then it hath no authority in determining Controversies of faith but why then saith the 20th Article of the Church of England that the Church hath authority of expounding Scriptures in Controversies of faith and by what authority hath the Council of Nice determined Consubstantiation But so often as the sense of the Scriptures to any is doubtful may not the Scriptures here be said as to such persons to have deteâ—mined nothing and then are they not in these if in a Necessary point to repair to the determination of their Ecclesiastical Guides If so all will be well still and thus all come to submit to the sentence of the Judge but those who are certain before hand of the sense of their Rule Ib. l. 11 We plead for the Church is authority in indifferent Rites and Ceremonies But suppose the Question be whether such Rites and Ceremonies are indeed indifferent As they are taken by some not to be so because God will admit nothing into his worship but what himself hath first expresly commanded and prescribed What authority is to end this I say for such who hold some Ceremonie unlawful and repugnant to Scripture are they or the Church to judge of this unlawfulness and may the Church lawfully enjoin it and oblige them under excommunication to practise it Or will it not come at last according to these Principles that the Subjects not the Church are to decide the indifferency or non-indifferency of such Ceremonies Pag. 148. l. 7. Wee allow a very great authority to the Guides of the Catholick Church in the best times of Christianity And look upon the concurrent sense of Antiquity as an excellent means to understand the mind of Scripture in places otherwise doubtful and obscure In the best times of Christianity But do not you then in all times Or is not their authority the same in all times If various who is Judge of this their Subjects As an excellent means to understand c. This will not serve the turn it must be as an authorized Expositor of the true sense of Scriptures doubtful and obscure in Necessary matters to whose definitions all ought to submit not only to make use of their advice This Church-Tradition makes good this such Protestants as our Author oppose Ib. l. 13. We reject the ancient Heresies condemned in them But doth he acknowledge and reject all that as Heresy that hath been or shall be condemned by all lawful General Councils for such Ib. l. 11 We reject nothing that can be proved by an Vniversal Tradition from the Apostolical times downwards That can be proved But who shall judge of the proof where any thing is disputed whether it be Tradition Apostolick Our selves or the present Church-Governours Ib. l. 5 We see no reason to have those things forced upon us now which we offer to prove to be contrary to their the primitive times doctrine and practice Offer to prove To whom To any whose final judgment you will stand to Name them Shall it be to a General Council But this may err you say It erring shall it be to a Second But if one err so may all And who shall judge when It doth not err Demonstration shall decide it And who judge when it is a clear demonstration if any deny it to be so Pag. 149. l. 1. The Controversy is Whether the Guides of the Apostolical and Primitive times ought not to have greater authority over us than those of the present Church in things wherein they contradict each other Here again who shall judge this difference concerning their contradiction denied by Catholicks denied by the latter Councils of the Church that plead Tradition and their agreement with the former Ib. l. 8. But we profess to yield greater reverence and submission of mind to Christ and his Apostles than
find no command so plain in Scripture that we must believe the Guides of the Church in all they deliver as there is that we must not worship Images See the Scriptures declaring Church-Infallibility as to Necessaries and commanding obedience to it cited before in Note on p. 113. l. 14. The Scriptures that prohibit worshiping of Images do so of any Creature in heaven earth or under it but meane a Divine and Soveraign Worship of them not such a Worship as we say is lawfully given to Men or veneration as is given to Sacred Things Temples Altars Gospels c. He goes on Ib. l. 5. That we must pray with understanding Therefore are all publick Formes of Prayer that are thought necessary for the vulgar by Catholicks translated and published in the vulgar tongue and by those who can read communicated to others Ib. l. 6. That we must keep to our Saviours Institution of the Lords Supper Surely no Precept obligeth us to our Lords Institution or Practice in every thing not in communicating after Supper Sitting at table taking it into our hands washing of feet before it nor in communicating always in both kinds a thing sufficiently cleared by the practice of Antiquity and purest times which on several occasions and that where no absolute necessity gave it in one kind only believing our Lord's Body and Blood to be received in any one Species Now where a Divine Precept obligeth the contrary Practice in no time would be lawful The Eastern Churches also for the same reason as the West viz to prevent the many abuses and irreverences that have hapned since Christianity so exceedingly populous communicate the people not by their eating our Lord's Body and drinking his Blood apart but by giving them both these together taken out of the Chalice with a little Spoon and so putting it into their mouths and think herein they transgress no Precept So Jo. 6.53 is not understood as a precept extending to all for so it would to Infants Nor that Jo. 13.14 Or Jam. 5.14.15 Or Matt. 6.17 5.34 and such like Ib. l. 7. But if any Guides of a Church pretend to an authority to evacuate the force of these the Divine Laws c. Evacuate i.e. in the sense you take them in standing to no certain Judge concerning this sense Ib. l. 15. If they require things contrary to a direct command of God Contrary i.e. in your mistaken private judgment Ib. l. 18. If they the Guides can prove us mistaken we yield No surely Your own soberest Writers say you are to obey and submit your judgment to that of your Guides except you can prove and that demonstratively and that demonstration such as is allowed by all rational persons them to be mistaken Ib. l. 8 I would gladly know whether there be not some points of faith and some parts of our duty so plain that no Church authority determining the contrary ought to be obeyed And will not then those also be so plain as that no Church-Authority will determine the contrary This granted then that there are points of faith so plain yet it is contended that none wherein General Councils require our obedience are contradictory to any such plain point of faith How can that be maintained by any a plain truth to the common reason of mankind which a General Council and a major part of the Church accepting this Council denies as false And if it be said that passions and interests blind men we ought to imagine they do so private men or our selves sooner than General Councils In this 7th Proposition p. 149. what hath our Author said in defence of his Religion against Church-Authority that a Socinian or Arian may not say for his Pag. 152. l. 12. These Guides of the Church have declared each other to be fallible by condemning their opinions and practices Lawful General Councils have not condemned the opinions of one another And what former Councils have been held for lawfully General where any doubt is made it is fit private men should learne from their present supreme Ecclesiastical Guides Those Councils urged for this contradiction by Protestants are either Particular against General Councils or Councils stiled General that are not allowed to be so by the judgment of the present Church Catholick Or those definitions of them to contradict which do not in the foresaid judgment or opinions commonly-received only in some age urged for such defined Ib. l. 18. Suppose a man Living in the times of the prevalency of Arianisme when almost all the Guides of the Church declared in favour of it Arianisme at no time prevailed upon a greater part of the Church or its Governours That of S. Jerome Ingemuit totus orbis miratus est se esse Arianum only signifies that the whole Catholick world wondred that its Decree which passed in the great Council at Ariminum was interpreted by the Arian party which was favoured by the Emperour quite contrary to its meaning Doth the Dr as yet doubt of this He goes on Ib. l. ult Must he adhere to the Nicene Council but there were more numerous Councils which condemned it Yes he must Because those Arian Councils if any more numerous for the Bishops that were present in them Whereas there were but a very few of the Western Bishops present in the Council of Nice yet had not so general an acceptation especially in the Occidental Churches As for any illiterate vulgar that have not a sufficient means of distinguishing lawful General Councils from others not so that contradict them they are excused by their invincible ignorance till further light for any non-conformity to their Decrees And generally where any dispute concerning the authority of a Council is private men may so long suspend their obedience to their decrees till a sufficiently general acceptation or reprobation of such Councils by the Church-Governours and the Bishop of the Apostolick See of the same or the succeeding times have cleared such difficulty But such a general Acceptation and confirmation of this Council of Nice was manifest immediately after the sitting thereof And of this those who made any doubt ought to have informed themselves better But meanwhile by this Question doth not this Authour fairly free a Socinian from any obedience due to the decree of the Nicene Council concerning Consubstantiality Pag. 153. l. 4. Liberius went so far that Hilary denounced an Anathema against him N. 1 and all that joined with him The Relation in which this passage is found is none of S. Hilary's See thereasons given by Baronius A. D. 357. The Historians of those times differ in their Records concerning Liberius some speaking more favourable of him than others The Syrmian Confession subscribed by him may be taken in an orthodox sense and it is justified as such by S. Hilary ‖ De Synod And if he communicated only with such a party as those called Semi-Arians who joined with him in this profession though understood by them in a sense
not and so the Design of his Irenicum is evacuated Again in the next words Which hath been so universally received in all ages since the Apostles times if he means universally so received for places as well as times contrary to what he saith in his Irenicum p. 322. That it is probable that the Apostles did settle the Government in the Church in a Colledge of Presbyters and in a Bishop and Deacons too according to the diversity of places and variety of circumstances And Ibid. That the Succession of Rome i.e. by Bishops is as muddy as Tiber it self And That the line of Succession fails us here where we most need it Again If in his words following concerning the disputes there have been of the necessity of Episcopacy in order to the being of a Church he holds Episcopacy so necessary to the Church's being as that none have any power in any age or time to alter it and so if he will join in this matter with the belief of Catholicks in the Council of Trent ‖ Sess 23. c. 4. Sacrosancta Synodus declarat praeter caeteros Ecclesiasticos gradus Episcopos qui in Apostolorum locum successerunt ad hunc Hierarchicum Ordinem praecipuè pertinere positos sicut idem Apostolus ait a Spiritu Sancto regere Ecclesiam Dei eosque Presbyteris superiores esse things not controverted in the Roman Church And Ib. Can. 6. Siquis dixerit in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ non esse Hierarchiam Divinâ ordinationc institutam quae constat ex Episcopic Presbyteris Ministris Anathema sit I say if such be his meaning here I have no more to do but congratulate with him the correction of his former errour But in these expressions he may mean only what well consists with his Irenicum that as the Government by Bishops is most Ancient and Apostolical in some places so the Presbyterial was in some others And That no persons can have sufficient reason to cast off this Episcopal Government in such places where it hath been settled unless the Supreme Majestrate from some necessary circumstances think fit to alter it as the Apostles he saith in some places settled a Presbytery in stead of it I say he may have such a meaning And if his former opinion be changed herein perhaps he might have done well to have published his present contrary judgment more fully and clearly to make an amends for his formerly published mistakes Which else when a future opportunity may serve and power assist the inclinations of contrary Sects may minister arguments afresh for the Lawfulness of their Abrogating the Episoopal Government and introducing their own And he may see what use the Replyer to Durel ‖ Patronus bona fidei hath made of them already in Defence of Presbyterianism against Episcopacy Ib. l. 8 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 See before Note on p. 180. l. 12. Ib. l. 4 But those who separate from our Church will allow nâ—thing to be lawful in the worship of God but what hath an express command in Scripture See the former Disc § 88. These Separatists ground this their tenent upon Scriptures as they think clear some of whom at least are supposed to have used their best endeavour rightly to understand them the sense also they take these Scriptures in being very contrary to their interest and having brought great sufferings upon them The point seems very necessary to be clear to them in Scriptures both for the right service of God and for the peace of the Church Must not therefore our Author here either relinguish his 13th Principle or say the Texts are indeed clear on the Separatists side or that none knows when he useth his best endeavours and so neither knows when he mistakes plain Scriptures As for the modern Sectarists their appealing to the Primitive Church in the differences between them and that of England as the Church of England he saith doth in her differences with Rome See Patronus bonae fidei in Causa Puritanorum in his Prodromus p. 88. 89. where also he cites as on his side contra Hierarchicos abeuntes a primaevâ praxis Dr Stillingfleet's Irenicum p. 66. 67. 68. See also in fidei Patrono p. 4. 5. Pag. 182. l. 2. Which infallibility those of the Church of Rome do challenge They plead only the Infallibility of the Church Catholick whose Subjects they are in her General Councils Neither is there one word in the Principles Considered concerning the Infallibility of the Church of Rome with which yet the Dr so often relieves himself Ib. l. 16. To talk of Accommodation is folly and to design it madness Viz. against the Determinations of a lawful General Council or also a Patriarchal by any Ecclesiastical Body inferiour and subordinate to it What terms of Composition can an Arian expect after the Council of Nice Ib. l. 7 But there is no such thing in the least pretended by our Church that declares in her Articles That General Councils may err and that all the proof of things to be believed is to be taken from Holy Scripture And not from Church or Councils declaring to us the sense of Scripture because they fallible herein then no proof in any matter of faith is admitted from Primitive times or consent of Fathers which He but now appealed to See Note on p. 180. l. 12 Pag. 183. l. 2. And none of them charge our Church with any errour in doctrine nor plead that as the reason of their separation What then means the Presbyterian Ministers complaint ‖ See Reasons shewing the necessity of Reformation of the Publick Doctrine c. 1660. p. 5 6. for the Church of Englands imposing upon them things in the Common Prayer Book and 39. Articles repugnant to Scripture and requiring their assent to them citing the 4.5 and 36. Canon of the Synod 1603. and 13. Eliz. 12. And do they not hold this an erroneous doctrine but now named by Him p. 181. That somthing may be lawful to be used in the worship of God besides what he hath expresly commanded And see the forecited Author in Bon. Fid. Part. p. 4. requiring of Durell Vt purgaret Hierarchicos a Crimine corruptae doctrinae Anglicanae commutatae in Arminianismum Papismum in multis Ibid. l. 6. The Church of Rome not only requires the belief of her errours which is plaine by the often objected Creed of Pius c. But makes the belief of them necessary to salvation If in the Profession required by Pius no distinction is made between the Definitions of former Councils and other common Articles of the Creed so neither is there in the Athanasian Creed between the said Definitions and former Articles of the Apostle's Creed As for making the belief of them necessary to salvation N. O. hath already answered Consid p.
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
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
Methodius and others and of the other qui substaatiam Dogmatis of the Trinity tenentes in consectarius quibusdam non nihil a Regulâ deflectunt he numbers only three Justin Martyr Athenagoras and Theophylus Antiochenus Praefat. c. 3. he saith also Longè plures extiterunt quibus aut scripto comprehensa aut sine scripto praedicata fidei verit as permanavit ad postâ—ros All is represented here contrary what trust may his Reader repose upon this Author's Citations Or what great regard seems he to have of the Credit of the Fathers or of the security of Tradition on which the Ancient Writers cited before lay so great weight for conviction of Hereticks even in the Delivering the Doctrine of the Trinity Whilst he writes here on this manner to weaken both The usefulness of Tradition I am told is for explaining the sense of Scripture But there begins a great Controversy in the Church about the explication of the Doctrine of the Trinity I desire to know whether Vincentius his Rules will help us here It is pleaded by S. Hierome and others That the Writers of the Church might err in this matter or speak unwarily in it before the matter came to be throughly discussed if so how comes the Testimony of erroneous or unwary Writers to be the certain means of giving the sense of Scripture And in most of the Controversies of the Church this way hath been used to take off the testimony of persons who writ before the Controversy began and spake differently of the matter in debate I do not deny the truth of the allegation in behalf of those persons but to my understanding it plainly shews the incompetency of Tradition for giving a certain sense of Scripture when that Tradition is to be taken from the Writers of the foregoing Ages and if this had been the only way of confuting Arius it is a great Question how he could ever have been condemned if Petavius or S. Hierom say true Thus this Dr. Ib. l. 2. It is pleaded by S. Hierome and others that the Writers of the Church might err in this matter or speak unwarily c. The Writers Our Author deals much in indefinite i.e. doubtfu terms S. Ierome speaks only of those few Ancients quoted by Ruffinus Of which Ancients too Origen is cited by S. Athanasius †De Synod Nicaen Decret is for the orthodox opinion and apologized for that Quae disputandi certandique gratiâ scripsit ea non quasi ipsius sint verba aut quasi ipse it a sentiat sed corum qui cum eo contentiosiùs disputarunt accipienda sunt And also the most considerable of them Dionysius Alexandrinus is amply vindicated by him writing a Treatise of it And some of the rest possibly may be defended on the same account as Dionysius who then opposing Sabellianisme a contrary Heresy to Arianisme had occasion to speak in vindication of our Lord's Humanity and might have their sense mistaken But however the errour of some may well consist with the Notion of Vniversality as taken by Vincentius and whilst some ancient Writers happen to be either unwary in their expression or also faulty in their opinion the certain sense of the Scriptures may be learnt from others more numerous and not only from the Writers which in the three first Ages were but few but from the general Doctrine of the other Church-Prelates And so it was learnt by the Council of Nice which pleaded the constant Tradition of the former times for the doctrine they defined See Athanasius in his Epistle to the Africans for the very expressions used by the Council Neque saith he hâc in parte sibi ista vocabula finxerunt sed a Patribus qui ante fuerunt ea didicerunt quemadmodum diximus and a little before mentions Eusebius Nicomediensis the ring-leader of the Arians confessing it Again Ibid Sufficit Nicaena quae cum veteribus Episcopis consentit And Si post tot documenta postque testimonia veterum Episcoporum c. Again in his Tract de Synod Nic. Decretis Est ibi saith he ut Patres tradiderunt verae disciplinae magisteriâ— urgumentum ubi eadem confitentur nec a se invicem nec a majoribus dissentiunt Qui saith he shewing the constancy of Tradition tametsi diversis temporibus vixerint aequè tamen simul eodem tendunt ut unius Dei prophetae ejusdem sermonis interpretes Quae enim Moses docuit eadem ab Abrahamo observata sunt quae porrò Abraham observavit eadem Noe Enoch agnoverunt urging Gal. 1.8 Si quis vobis evangelizaverit praeter hoc quod accopistis anathema sit And afterward contends Patres qui Nicâ—ae convenerunt non a se haec vocabula finxisse sed ab aliis olim accepisse quoting there several of the Ancients and among the rest Origen and Dionysius Alexandrinus concluding thus Ecce nos demonstramus istiusmodi sententiam a Patribus ad Patres quasi per manus traditam esse But lastly in a Tradition any way less evident as to the universality thereof in former Writers yet we are secure of these Supreme Church-Gover nours assembled their not defining an errour in Faith necessary both from the light they may have from Scriptures always principally consulted by them as the chief of Traditions and where their learning and practice therein may discern that clear which is obscure to others and from our Lords promised assistance of them with his Holy Spirit of which we have a most clear and evident Tradition Meanwhile is not Vincentius his Rule by this Authors discourse here made unserviceable in one of the chief points wherein Vincentius against the Hereticks relied on the evidence of former Tradition i.e. in the Divinity of our Lord And is not the Dr for strengthening the Protestant cause in some manner become an Advocate for the Arian Let the Reader review it Pag 246. l. 17. And if this The Tradition of foregoing ages had been the only way of confuting Arius it is a great question how he could ever have been condemned if Petavius or S. Hierome say true I think the Reader hath seen what little countenance our Author hath had from these two whilst he would here insinuate to his Reader that the former written Church Tradition was either on Arius his side or not against him What stone will not a contrary interest turn to unfix or dishonour our Holy Mother the Church Pag. 247. l. 5. And in this regard we acknowledge a great reverence due to the decrees of such General Councils as that was Acknowledge a great Reverence due But Quaere Whether yield assent and Submission of Judgment to all that all such lawful General Councils do or shall define And if so upon what account can this be save on the evidence that Scripture and Tradition yields of their perpetual assistance from our Lord in necessaries not to mistake either the sense of Scripture or truth of Tradition so as to convey