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
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
in the Dr's Answers § 71 Lastly to the proof of the Church's Infallibility out of S. Austin mentioned before § 54. he returns an answer extended from p. 250. to p. 200. Where I find him p. 251. urging S. Austins words that In this matter we follow c. Sequimur sanè nos in hâc re i. e in Non-Rebaptization etiam Canonicarum authoritatem certissimam Scripturarum and there fore that men might attain a certainty of the sense of Scripture in this matter without the Church's Infallibility to decide it Thus the Dr. But this Father every where confessing the difference about Rebaptization to be a most difficult and obscure Question and not clearly resolved as to all apprehensions in the Scripture speaks this Sequimur sanê nos in hac re c. quite in another sense namely as he himself expounds it in the next words when the Donatists urged to him there was no proof or example thereof in Scripture Neque enim saith he parvi momenti habendum est quòd hoc per universam Catholicam ecclesiam quae toto orbe diffunditur observari placuit quod tenemus Explicating himself yet in the words following much more thus Quamvis hujus reicertè de Scripturis non proferatur exemplum â—arundem tamen Scripturarum in hâc re a nobis tenetur veritas cùm hoc facimus quod universae jam placuit Ecclesiae quam ipsarum Scripturarum commendat authorit as Commendat i.e. to be the true Church and then both S. Austin and the Donatâ—st were agreed that the true Church must or did in this matter hold and state the truth If this yet satisfy not see the same said again elswhere De vnitate Ecclesiae c. 22. where speaking of the non evidence concerning Rebaptization in Scripture Hoc apertè atque evidenter i.e. in the Scriptures saith he nec ego lego nec tu Nunc verò cùm in Scripturis non inveniamus c. putâ— si aliquis Sapiens extitisset cui Dominus Jesus Christus testimonium perhibet de hà c Quaestione consuleretur a nobis nullo modo deber mus dubitare id facere quod ille dixisset ne non tam ipsi quam Domino Jesu Christo cujus testimonio commendatur repugnare judicaremur Perhibet autem testimonium Christus ecclesiae suae Testimonium that we should follow its judgment facere quod dicit otherwise a testimony to it concerning somthing else would have been nothing to S. Austins puâ—pose Facere which is more than non-contradicere and which implyes also assentire verum esse quod dicit By all these passages we see the certissima authoritas Scripturarum is concerning the Church which is it i.e. the Catholick Church and then it discovered is concerning the matter in Question also as unerringly determined by it § 72 Again p. 253. he urgeth out of S. Austin That where the testimony of Scripture is very plain and clear we are not to regard what Donatus or Parmenianus or Pontius hath said for neither saith he are we to yield to Catholick Bishops themselves if they be at any time so much deceived as to hold what is contrary to Canonical Scriptures By which it is evident that he supposed no Infallibility in the Guides of the Church All which N.O. grants very true if understood as the Father speaks it of particular Doctors of the Catholick Church not of its General Councils Nor can one rationally plead the sense of Scriptures plain and clear on his tide where a General Council understands and expounds them contrary § 73 Ibid. He urgeth as S. Austins words That the true Church is to be proved and so the Dr would have it understood of other Controversies by nothing but plain Scriptures neither by the authority of Optatus or S. Ambrose or innumerable Bishops nor Councils nor Miracles c. But such words are not S. Austin's Nor doth he affirm that which is the true Church can be proved by nothing but Scriptures for himself saith elsewhere that he came to know the Scriptures from the Church first known to him and the Church by Miracles Nor speaks he here any thing derogatory to General Councils or the authority or infallibility of them of which see more in the Annotation on p. 251. l. 8. from the bâ— to But the Donatists with him allowing the Scriptures he urgeth the Church sufficiently demonstrable by their clear authority which if clear alone also sufficeth and therefore requires of them that he waving these other proofs viz of Councils Miracles c on his side wherein he had much the advantage of them by Episcopi innumerabiles and Miracula vera so they would wave the urging of their Councils far inferiour and their Miracles Visions c fallaciâ—us on their side which Arguments of theirs he calls morarum tendâ—â—ulâ— and that they should press Scriptures again 〈◊〉 Scriptures But if the Judgment of General Councils was denied by him to be any proof in Controversies why used he it as such in Rebaptization § 74 Again p. 254. he saith That all the proofs S. Austin brings for the Church relate to the Vniversality of it not to the Infallibility Where it is true that as to the Donatist the Vniversality of the Church was all the matter in controversy both sides bâ—â—â— fully agreed that that was the Truth in the Controversy of Râ—bâ—â—â—ization which the true Church which-soever it were held and taught Otherwise from the Church determining in its General Council this point of Rebaptization S. Austin could not have urged its determining a truth as he every where doth see the quotations in Note on p. 251. l. 8. from the bott and the Donatists would soon have replied that his General Council erred and that S. Cyprian's was in the right § 75 Again p. 255. he produceth that much-worn place of S. Austin Concilia plenaria sapè priora posterioribus emendari The Reader may view the place set down at large there by this Author which words of S. Austin p. 256. he afterward presseth cannot he understood of unlawful Councils of matters of fast or practice but do refer to the great Question then in debate about Rebaptizing Hereticks And that hereby S. Austin takes off the great Plea the Donatiâ—ts made from the authority of S. Cyprian and his Council which they continually urged for themselves But N.O. had already weighed this Common-place and replied to it ‖ Addit to p. 86. l. 11. That if such Plenary Councils as that which determined Non-Rebaptization were errable and amendable in these Dogmata fidei neither had S. Austin any reason to presume as he doth Ibid. c. 4. that S. Cyprian would have corrected his opinion concerning this Point or to charge the Donatists with Heresy for dissenting from it after the Determination of such a Council Nor had the 2d General Council any just ground to put it in the Creed Credo unum Baptisma in remissionem peccatorum No just cause I say
to do any such thing if Plenaria Concilia taken in their highest capacity are in their stating matters of faith errable and amendable by others following Thus N. O to which the Reader may search what answer he finds returned by this Respondent in so copious a Reply § 76 Whatever the sense therefore of this place be of which see more in the Annotations on p. 255. l. 10. from the bott it cannot be understood of lawful General Councils amending one another as to any matters of necessary faith that such Councils when defining any thing to be by all Christians believed and assented-to when declaring Hereticks all that dissent and perhaps inserting such their Definition into the Creed yet may be amended afterward in this by other latter Councils For this would overthrow the old foundations of the Nicene and Athanasian Creed and whatever can be discovered of one such Council thus erring may well be applyed to any other This also would overthrow particularly S. Austins Veritas eliquata declarata And plenarium Concilium confirmavit consolidavit for Non-Rebaptization the chief if not the only Argument he useth for convincing the Donatist in this point whilst they might here plead somthing was still latens and clausum till more experience in a latter Council should open and disclose it and so must all before cited out of S. Austin be also reversed and all the former Heresies revive again which when pretending Scriptures for their Tenents have been quelled by the judgment of such Councils § 77 Whether then that by emendari is meant not as to dogmata fidei but in some other matters wherein the Highest Councils by being ignorant of some circumstances c are liable to errour Or that by Plenaria which seems the most probable are meant such Councils as were of the Arians many before S. Austin's time but these in several manners irregular and uncanorical that were amended by others following as by the 2d General Council of Constantinople and by that of Sardica as also S. Austin elsewhere particularly instanceth in that of Ariminum called a Plenary Council but wherein the Arian Party unjustly prevailed with the Emperour and falsifyed the sense of its Decrees amended afterward by the Councils and the Church's Judgment in the times following See lib. Contra Maximinum 3. c. 14. There Homousion saith he mult is paucorum fraude deceptis haeretica impietas sub Haeretico Imperatore labefactare caepit sed post non longum tempus liberate fidei Catholicae praevalente Homousion illud Catholicae fidei sanitate i.e. in the Constan inopoluan and Sardinican Council longè lateque defensum est defensum not against the Decree of a former plenary Council but the misinterpretation and tyranny of a minor but then prevalent Party in it sub Haeretico Imperatore I say in whichsoever of the forenamed wayes this passage may be understood as probably it is to be so in the latter this is certain that it cannot be understood of Lawful General Councils amending one another as to any matters of necessary Faith for the reasons but now given Besides the proving of nothing less to them than that Non-rebaptization was a truth could satisfy the Donatist or invalidate the judgment of the Affrican Council under Cyprian as to its determining the Truth The Dr also saying here that S. Austin urgeth this Plenaria priora posterioribus emendâ—ri to take off the great plea the Donatists made from the authority of S Cyprian and his Council which Council of Cyprian was not Plenariam ex universo orbe Christiano shews that S. Austin needed not for confuting them to take Plenatium in any higher-sense than that of S Cyprian's Whereas taking Plenaria in the largest sense and without any limitations will make nothing at all for the Father in his present controversy with the Donatist about Rebaptization Nay more against him For there were no two such Councils that were both General whereof the latter had amended the former concerning Rebaptization at all and had there the same uncertainty of truth would have been in the Decree of the latter as of the former and in this case the Donatist would not have failed to have taken the advantage of the former Council These things I hope the equal Reader will consider though the Dr hath not and will not admit such a sense of this place as if true contradicts what S. Austin saith so often elsewhere and quite ruines this Father's Plea and Cause § 78 Pag. 256.257 I find several places produced wherein S. Austin preferrs clear Scriptures before humane though never so learned authority varying from them but find in him no comparison or opposition between these and the Judgment of a General Council as running counter to one another How could this be when in the Controversy for which he urgeth Scripture he requireth the Donatists to submit to the exposition of the Council § 79 Ibid. He saith The utmost by a careful consideration of S. Austin's mind in this matter that I can find is that in a Question of so doubtful and obscure a nature as that of Rebaptization was it was a reasonable thing to presume that what the whole Christian world did consent in was the truth not upon the account of Infallibility but the reasonable supposition that all the Churches of the Christian World would not consent in a thing repugnant to any Apostolical doctrine or Tradition Consid p. 86 But N.O. presseth that S. Austin's mind was clearly otherwise not that it was only a reasonable thing to presume but a thing most certain that what the whole Christian world did consent in was the Truth as appears in those places cited before § 55. and. 71. else it could not be true what he saith Earundem Scripturarum etiam in hâc re i.e. in Non-rebaptization tenetur veritas cùm id facimus quod universae placuit Ecclesia if the Church may possibly decide it amiss And S. Austin's Siquis falli metuit hujus obscuritate quaestionis Ecclesiam de illâ consulat would no way relieve his being deceived still if the Church consulted might also be mistaken in it Nor especially such Article only upon a reasonable supposition that they erred not in it be inserted in the Creed Before that the Dr therefore should have concluded such to have been S. Austin's mind he should in answering these things alledged by N.O. have shewed such his mind to have agreed with his words § 80 Lastly he concludes thus p. 259 In such a case as this I agree to what S. Augustine saith and think a man very much relieved by following so evident a consent of the Vniversal Church not by vertue of any Infallibility but the unreasonableness of believing so many so wise so disinteressed persons should be deceived Though N.O. hath shewed S. Austin requiring submission of the Donatists upon the General Council's determining a most certain truth Yet this were somewhat well if this
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
had commanded them Means he not this here of the Church of England in opposition to the Roman obliging mens consciences that it only teacheth such things but challengeth not any absolute obedience or belief from its Subjects that Christ hath commanded such things as it teacheth If so Doth not this still spur on the Sects to cast about for themselves since this Church may tell them Christ hath commanded them what indeed he hath not and since this Author tells them moreover that the Scriptures read by them with a sincere endeavour to understand them will be clear to them in necessaries § 92 5ly P. 185. He saith The reasons we plead for separation from the Church of Rome are in themselves far more considerable than those which are pleaded by such whâ— separate from our Church And That our Church's imposing of three Ceremonies declared to be indifferent by those who require them cannâ—t be thought by any men of common sense so great a burden to their consciences as all thâ— load of superstitious fopperies in the Roman Church To this I say Be it a less or a greater load that is laid upon us both oppress us where neither can be born Ceremonies he saith declared to be indifference by those who require them But what if not by the Dissenters believed to be indifferent as a fallible Church tells them May these be imposed upon them so as to require conformity in the practice which includes assent to the lawfulness thereof Or if the departure of the Church of England from Rome for many things imposed for the presâ—rving her Conscience otherwise perswaded is juâ—tified why not the departure of these Dissenters from the Church of England though for fewer things imposed justified here also And can this Author blame them therein And saith he not to this purpose in the beginning of this Answer ‖ p. 180. That the perswasion of conscience equally serves to all Parties From all these instances he would collect that the Sctarists have less reason to depart from the Church of England than she hath from Rome which is true as to these matters whilst the sects are of the same Judgment with her therein therefore also for none of these do they depart from her But yet for other matters they may and do wherein they think her faulty and defective and do this according to the Grounds of a lawful departure which they have learnt from her and the Example which she hath formerly given them in her separation from her Superiours Which matter having been shewed at large in the 4th Discourse Concerning the Guide in Controversies I may save this labour and referr the Reader to it Where for an Instance the Socinian draws up his Plea proceeding on the Protestants Principles and Concessions and particularly those of this Dr which there are frequently cited by him that in his Tenents concerning the Trinity he holds nothing either repugnant to the Holy Scripture i.e. rightly understood or to the unanimous sense of Antiquity or Definitions of lawful General Councils so far as these two are admitted by Protestants to oblige Nor that he stands guilty either of Heresy or of Schisme i.e. according as Protestants state them And also in all these Replies here of the Dr let the Reader consider Whether N. O's Objection is not rather more fortified by what he pretendeth to dissolve it § 93 Lastly to N O's urging †See before §. 83. That such Principles leave no just and sufficient means in such a Church as maintains them of suppressing Sects Schismes or Heresies He returns an answer from p. â—86 to the end of his Discourse to which he gives this Title â—nâ— is Contents The Roman Church's way of suppressing Sects compared with our's Where I find him 〈◊〉 â—87 c very bitterly inveighing against the Roman Inquisition and spending the most of his Reply upon it Which Inquisition as used in some Catholick Churches so is not admitted in others and which no way mentioned in the Dr's Principles or in N. O's Considerations I wondred how he brought it into his Answer or why he spent so many pages upon it but at last I considered it might be much to his purpose as a thing which to his Protestant Reader would seem odious though it be nothing to N. O's discourse who presseth not the Roman Inquisition but the Catholick Church in her Councils requiring Assent to her Definitions pronouncing the Dissenters Hereticks and expelling them from her Communion and so preserving among the Subjects of this Body the same Faith and Vnity at least proportionable to the extent of her laws and decrees of which means of suppressing Sects and Heresies or any other that can be effectual the Dr in dissallowing such practice and leaving every one to the liberty of their own judgment in the matters most necessary to their salvation seems destitute § 94 Again I find him p. 289. saying That setting the Inquisition aside the Church of England hath as many reasonable means and I think many more of convicting dissenters than they can pretend to in the Roman Church But expecting he should name these means he saith ‖ p. 290. We recommend to the people the vertues of Humility Obedience due submission to their Spiritual Pastors and Governours and that they ought not to usurp their â—ffice and become their own Guides Yet we do not exact of them a blinde obedience c. Thus he But if the Church of England doth only this and no more it is a means apparently unsufficient for suppressing Heresies or Sects For men are still left to the liberty of their former tenents or practices so long as the contraries are in his stile only recommended to them not required of them and Counsel is no Power of the Keys The Recommending of a due submission to our Spiritual Pastors will not serve the turn if this due be not stated and understood to extend to submission of judgment which the Dr will not admit and therefore in repeating N. O's words and professing the like endeavour against Sects performed by Protestants as is by Catholicks he changeth them here and instead of N. O's Submission of judgment puâ—s in due submission For some submission well consists with the liberty of enjoying our own opinions and corrupting by them the Common Faith As a submission to the Church's Rules and Canons in matters in their own nature indifferent in matters of Order and Dâ—cency in necessary Religious Ceremonies and ancient Rites of the Christian Church a submission of judgment conditional in matters of Faith viz. in what the Church shall determine according to the Scripture a submission of Silence or non-publick contradicting her Doctrines or Decrees but this not absolute but only where her errours herein are not manifest or intolerable For if Protestants would admit an absolute obedience of non-contradiction it is granted that this would preserve the Church's peace and her non-disturbance from Heresies and consequently
Baptism adn its men into the Church upon the profession of the true faith in the Father Son and Holy Ghost and whatever is sufficient to make a member of the Church that is in it self sufficient being embraced to make a Church Thus he From whence he collects that the Roman Church's teaching some kind of Idolatry that destroys no Article of the Creed professed in Baptism and so no essential of the true Church cannot therefore render it no true Church N. 10 But here 1. First may not the same be said of teaching any kind of Idolatry whatever that it is not against any Article of the Creed which speaks only of matters of Belief not Worship Yet he grants that some kind of Idolatry such as this teaching people to joine false Gods with the true in the same worship is a a fundamental errour ‖ p. 24. and destroying the being of a true Church Now If he saith this is by a clear consequence against the Creed must he not say the same of the Roman Idolatry in adoring the Eucharistical Bread of which he affirms p. 136. in the words forecited That the worshiping false Gods supposing them to be true is as venial a fault as worshiping that for the true God which is not so as he saith the Roman Church doth Again will not this also be an errour against the Creed if any acknowledging one Supreme God yet reserve no part of Divine Worship as peculiar to him which they do not teach may be lawfully given to a meer Creature which thing he chargeth also on the Roman Idolatry †Rom. Idol p. 161. in these words It is evident they of the Church of Rome in those Honours which they teach may be given to Saints and Angels have reserved no part of Divine Worship peculiar to God himself any more than the Heathen did Here is a true Church then without retaining any peculiar worship in it that is given to the true God N. 11 But 2ly Supposing the Idolatry taught in the Church of Rome to trespass against no Article of the Creed Can no Doctrine render a Society no true Church by no true Church I mean and so I suppose doth he no true part or member of the Church Catholick though it should be still a Church professing Christianity save only such The Creed speaks not of matters belonging to Gods Worship nor of the Ten Commandements the First and Second of which prohibite Idolatry Yet is the Worshiping of God as essential to a true Church as Believing in Him and the observance of the Tenn Commandements as necessary to Salvation as the belief of the matter contained in the Creed and Teaching the contrary to them by any Society as for example to teach it lawful to commit Murders or Adultery or Theft as destructive to the essence or being of a true Church and the Dr in his 30th Principle denies Errors in Opinion to be more dangerous to mens Souls than a Vicious life is Neither are any in Baptism admitted into the Church simply upon professing of the Creed pressed by the Dr ‖ Stillingfl against Stillingfl p. 33. as if nothing els were necessary but also on the promise of yielding obedience to God's Commandements No Heretical Church is any true member of the Catholick And would not such doctrines teaching contrary to the 10. Commandements be great Heresies as we know Denying the lawfulness of Marriage hath been anciently condemned as such And then will not the Idolatry taught in the Roman Church be such an Heresy which expressly opposeth as he will have it the Second Commandement Of which he saith Rom Idol p. 59. It cannot enter into my mind how God should have forbidden the worship of Images by more express and emphatical words than he hath done in it Which leaves the Roman Church void of any excuse of involuntary ignorance to free her herein from a mortal sin The Catholick Church and all the parts of it are believed in our Creed to be Holy as well as Orthodoxe and the one to be of its Essence distinguishing it from other Christian Societies as well as the other To be Holy at least so far as to teach the lawfulness of no Mortal Sin such as unrepented of destroyes Salvation And whether the Roman Idolatry as he hath described it before contrary to the express words and sense of the Second Commandement and no more excusable by any involuntary ignorance than the Heathens can be any thing less I leave to his better consideration And this for his recalling his Charge upon it of so great a Guilt since he cannot his Assertion of its being a true Church Whilst I conclude with Mr. Thorndike's Admonition ‖ Justweigh oh 2. p. 11. to those Protestants who charge the Pope to be Antichrist and the Papists Idolaters Let not them saith he lead the people by the nose to believe that they can prove their supposition when they cannot and then expect that it be maintained by them that owne the Church of Rome for a true Church and therefore that must contradict thomselves if they maintain it i.e. their supposition of Papists being Idolaters N. 12 As for our Author 's distinguishing ‖ p. 31. 23 between the Essentials of a Church and the Integrity or soundness of it and saying That a man is a true man though he have the plague upon him To this I answer 1st That if the plague be mortal the man must necessarily cease thereby to be a man And 2ly That whatever may be required to the integrity or soundness of a Church right Doctrines in Practicals are as necessary to its essence as in Speculatives if Mortal Sin exclude from salvation as well as an erroneous Faith This of N. O's charging him in his Preface For accusing the whole Catholick Church of God both Western and Eastern for the same practices as to several of his Idolatries are in both for so many Ages before Luther's time of Idolatry and this Idolatry as gross as that of Heathens and for his thus unchurching this great Body and quite divorcing this Adulteress from Christ From which charge that which he hath said in his Answer to I. W. seems no way to free him N. 13 The other Considerable in the same Preface †p. 6. which he hath passed by and said nothing to is this That Mr. Chilling-worth ‖ See ch 4. §. 18. and since him several Divines of the Church of England and among these Dr St. in their denying Superiour Councils to have the just Authority of obliging their Subjects to the yielding of Assent to their Declarations are constrained also to disclaim such a Submission of Assent to the Articles of Religion and Book of Common-Prayer passed in the National Synods of the Church of England Yet which Submission of Assent this Church hath formerly challenged in her Canons and severely even with Ecclesiastical Death punished the Refusers untill they should repent not
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
any Circle or Petitio principii or identical arguing that whatever be doth witness of himself is true And can the Doctor disprove this Pag. 123. l. 5. Not shewing at all how the infallibility of the Church can be proved from Scripture And the reason of this was to shew that Catholicks have no necessity for proving Church-Infallibility to return to the testimony of the Scriptures for it as the Dr and some other Protestants say they must Annotations on his 8. §. The Argument from Tradition for Infallibility PAg. l. 11. The method of his discourse is this c. Whoever learns the method of ones discourse from an Adversary is seldom rightly informed who will not be deceived must consult the Author As for example here in the Dr's giving an account of N. O's Method concerning Tradition he hath fairly left out that which N.O. most pressed viz. these Governours of the Church in their General Councils inserting from time to time as they thought fit their Decisions in the Church's Creeds which shews what opinion both General Councils and the whole Church have had of the Infallibility of their Decisions and which by N. O. was named in the first place and preceded their Anathematizing of Dissenters Pag. 124. l. 8. What thinks he of the Religion of the Patriarcht who received their Religion by Tradition without any such Infallibility 1. First he thinks it somewhat strange to see the Dr plead the certainty of Oral Tradition elsewhere by him so much decried to evade Church-Infallibility 2ly He thinks that in those first times for their Religion people were not left wholly to Tradition which as to many points of their Religion could not have afforded them especially such persons as had not much conversation abroad a sufficient Certainty therein but that then also they had Priests and Prophets endued with Gods Spirit and who as to the Office of Teaching were not only set over them for exhorting thein to a good life but for directing them also in all necessary Credends and Truths and that the traditive doctrine of these Priests so assisted must be granted much more not to be liable to errour in those points wherein the Tradition of the people is thought by the Dr sufficiently certain so that the mor◠the certainty of Tradition is established the more is confirmed their Infallibility also who were the principal Conservers of it 3ly He thinks also that the Church of God had even from the beginning many Positive Divine Laws besides that of Nature prescribing many things in the Worship of God So we find early in Genesis mention of several laws committed afterward to writing by Moses See before Note on p. 85. l. 14. Neither can he suppose Oral Tradition such a faithful and exact Guide in all these laws and to every one so well known and that so free from all controversy in necessary matters as to supersede the necessity of any Church-Infallibility in them But however it be in the Church under the Old Testament the Promises of an infallible guidance by Gods Holy Spirit to its Governours seem much more necessary in the New for the certainty and stability of Christian Religion in all its parts where is such an enlargement made of the Articles of Faith and especially if these should not have been committed to writing Ib. l. 12 No such necessity of infallibility for that purpose viz. for receiving the Scriptures or Churches infallibility by vertue of common and universal Tradition True there is no necessity of Church-Infallibility to prove or assure them of Church-Infallibility or other points of their faith such as are sufficiently evidenced to them by the forementioned Tradition But 1 there is a necessity of Church-Infallibility still that so there may be a stability and certainty in them even to the unlearned as to many other points of Necessary Faith not so clear in Tradition as Church Infallibility is nor so clear as to be thereby self-evident to all Christians As for example for this point of faith the Divinity and Consubstantiality of onr Saviour against the Arian Unless we may perhaps imagine that the same or greater Controversies in Religion that have risen notwithstanding the Scriptures would not so without them See before Note on p. 84. n. 4. a. Next Observe also That Church Infallibility as it is divinely assisted being a Divine Revelation is in its delivering to us the other Articles of our faith much more relied and rested upon in the same manner as all other Divine Revelations are than the Evidence of Tradition in its delivering to us the same Articles though the Ground and Reason that such Infallibility is believed to be a Divine Revelation be Tradition Pag. 125. l. 1. For if the Tradition may be a sufficient ground if faith how comes Infallibility to be necessary Thus Tradition may be a sufficient ground of Faith for some points clearly delivered by it and as to the persons clearly knowing such Tradition and yet Church Infallibility be necessary for many other points not cleared sufficiently to all men by Tradition For things of a sufficiently generall Tradition which Tradition is reposed presently in writings cannot be so well known to all Christians many neither having learning nor much conversation abroad as Definitions of a Council may Ib. l. 7. And that therein the will of God is contained c. Contained but not clearly And this is the reason of putting Church-Infallibility notwithstanding these Divine writings which reason holds also much more for it without them Ib. l. 17. That the Church would otherwise have failed if there had been neither Writings nor Infallibility Might have failed i.e. by erring in such Necessaries as are not as to all clearly delivered by Tradition Ib. l. 9 For we see God did furnish the Church with one the Scriptures and left no footsteps of the other Church-Infallibility Yes the Definitions of the Church contained in the Athanasian Creed are footsteps of it Ib. l. ult Not left in to the determinations of men liable to be corrupted by interest and ambition i.e. Of Lawful General Councils our pretended Infallible Church-Guides Pag. 126. l. 2. But hath appointed men inspired by himself to set down whatever is necessary for us to believe and practise Add and hath appointed others divinely-assisted also as to Necessaries to determine both in belief and practice what the former as to all capacities have not so clearly set down as that they may not be therein mistaken or also by some teachers misguided Witness Dr St.'s testimony hereof Rat. Account p. 58. pressed by N.O. p. 63. where he grants this here said and upon it allows as far as his line will let him go the sense that the Catholick Church in succeeding ages gives of the Scriptures to be a very useful way for them to embrace the true sense of the Scriptures even in Necessaries His own words are It seems reasonable that because art and subtilty may be used by such who
seek to pervert the Catholick doctrine and to wrest the plain places of Scripture which deliver it so far from their proper meaning that very few ordinary capacities may be able to clear themselves of such mists as are cast before their eyes the sense of the Catholick Church in succeeding ages may be a very useful way for us to embrace the true sense of Scriptures especially in the great Articles of the Christian Faith As for instance in the doctrine of the Deity of Christ or the Trinity After which N.O. adds there that the Dr instead of saying the sense of the Catholick Church in succeeding ages may be a very useful way for us might have said is very necessary for us if his cause would permit him and that the Socinian would thank him for this his mitigation Ib. l. 11. The fraud and imposture of the confident pretenders to infallibility Viz. Of lawful General Councils Ib. l. 12. Which is the reason c. They speak evil of Dignities Jude v. 8. Ib. l. 5 I confess I have seen nothing like the first evidence yet It is set down in the precedent page in these words ‖ Princ. Consid p. 38 We may learn first this supernatural divine assistance and Infallibility of these Governours which is made known by Divine Revelation to those first persons who communicate it to posterity from Tradition descending from age to age in such manner at the Protestant saith he learns his Canon of Scripture from Tradition To which Tradition also may be committed by our Lord or his Apostles whatever is to Scripture Perhaps His falling into a Fit of drollery here made him oversee it Pag. 127. l. 5. What are its weapons See before Note on p. 113. l. 14. n. 4. Pag. 128. l. 3. It is I suppose agreed on both sides that the Tradition on which we receive and believe the Scriptures to be the word of God was universal as to all ages and times No. Not so universal as to all parts of the Canon Ib. l. 14. Let any thing like this be produced for the infallibility of the Guides of their Church i.e. for the Infallibility of lawful General Councils for N.O. the Considerator treats of no other and often mentions this and we will yield up the cause to them See then what is produced concerning this before Note on p. 113. l. 14. N. 1 Ib.l. 7 The only argument c. That which our Author alledgeth here the Councils anathematizing dissenters and the Church's stiling them Hereticks upon it is only a piece divided from the rest of what N.O. pressed N. O's words are these urged by him with application to the Dr's 17. Principle and without designing any set Discourse on Church-Infallibility ‖ Prineip Consid p. 39 That the Governours of the Church who having an apparent succession from our Lord and his Commission known by Tradition their testimony must have been unquestionably believed by Christians in what they taught in case there had been no Scripture always reputed and held themselves divinely assisted and infallible for all necessaries and that this was the traditive faith of the Church grounded on our Lord's Promise in all ages sufficiently appears by their inserting from time to time as they thought fit their Decisions in the Creeds and by their anathematizing dissenters and the Church's stiling them Hereticks ever after upon it For that no authority if we believe the Dr but that which proves it self infallible and therefore which is infallible can justly require our internal assent or submission of judgment And that the Protestants their allowing only an external obedience or silence due to Councils fallible inferrs that Councils fallible can justly require no more and consequently that such Councils are infallible as do justly require more as did the four first Councils with the voluntary acknowledgment also and submission of their subjects to such an authority assumed by them N. 2 After which it follows to prevent this reply here of the Dr's We find indeed subordinate Councils also stating somtimes matteâ—s of Faith censuring Hereticks and requiring assent to their Decrees but still with relation to the same Infallibility residing in the General Body of Church-Governours and their concurrence therein They not passing such Acts without consulting the Tradition and Judgment of other Churches and especially of the Apostolick See and a general acceptation rendring such their Decisions authentick and valid To which may be added what N.O. said before Consid p. 32. where the words of the Dr mentioned here are quoted more at large We see saith N.O. what kind of Obedience it was that the first four General Councils exacted in the Athanasian Creed which contains the sum of their Decrees viz. no less than assent and belief and submission of judgment and all this upon penalty of damnation And this if justly required by them inferrs upon the Dr's arguing their Infallibility For saith he ‖ Rat. Account p. 506 where Councils challenge an internal assent by vertue of their Decrees or because their decrees are in themselves infallible there must be first proved an impossibility of errour in them before any can look on themselves as obliged to give it Here the Dr passeth by several things urged by N.O. of which see the former Disc § 69. and invades only this part General Councils their anathematizing dissenters and pronouncing them Hereticks as he expresseth it though N.O. spoke of the Church always afterwards stiling such Dissenters from the Councils Decrees Hereticks The Doctors words here are The only argument he insists upon is so weak that I wonder he had not considered how often it had been answered by their own Writers For it is certain that Provincial Councils as well as General have anathematized dissenters and pronounced them Hereticks which is his only argument to prove this Tradition of the Church's Infallibility and they the Catholicks had no way to answer it but by saying this doth not imply their Infallibility Where he quotes in the margin Bellarm de Coucil l. 2. c. 10. N. 3 To which I have replyed in the former Disc § 65. c. and I think fit here to repeat at least some part thereof to give the Reader the lesse trouble by making frequent References First in general that I do not understand what it is that our Authour would maintain here against N.O. Is it this that neither anathematizing Dissenters nor the Councils putting their Decrees in the Churches Creeds nor the Church Catholick's afterward esteeming those Hereticks that dissented from these Councils are a sufficient evidence or proof that these Councils at least and also the Church accounted themselves Infallible in these their Decrees What could the most Infallible Judge do or exact more Doth not he below †See p. 113. blame the Roman Church for assuming such an Infallibility to her self in requiring such a belief of her Additional Articles defined in Trent as of the most fundamental Articles
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
wicked doctrines Here what should I trouble my self or the Reader in debating this controversy concerning Honorius with the Dr whose cause the Reader may see pleaded very plausibly by Cardinal Bellarmine i. 4. de Romano Pontifice c. 12. as to this freedome from Heresy being condemned hereof after his death before any Council had defined this matter upon some words of his which compared with others are capable of a sound meaning as arguing not against two but two contrary or repugnant Wills of our Lord and whenas there is some matter of fact in which may be mistakes contained in the Council's thus declaring him an heretick which thing occurs not in the declaring of Heresy I say what need I review this debate wherein the Dr only contends that is which the common opinion among Catholicks grants may be See Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 30. § Resp Sunt Pighius contendit Papam non posse esse Haereticum proinde nec deponi in ullo casu qua sententia probabilis est facilè defendi potest tamen non est certa communis opinio est in contrarium Where he quotes also the Canon Si Papa Distinct 40. Papa a nemine judicandus nisi deprehendatur a fide devius Pag. 167. l. 4. Pope Agatho did himself consent to the condemnation of Honorius Suppose this be granted why may not a Pope and a General Council judge a Pope See for this again Bellarm. de Concil l. 2. c. 19. Potest Concilium discutere causam Pontificis si inveniat reverâ esse infidelem potest declarare eum esse extra Ecclesiam sic damnare And the same he saith If the Council should discover him an Heretick De Conc. l. 1. c. 9. Quarta causa celebrandi Generalis Concilii est suspicio Haresis in Romano Pontifice c. Pag. 168. l. 19. The greatest strength he adds to Baronius is only saying without doubt it is so Let the Reader view Bellarmin de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 11. whether this hath not more drollery in it than Truth Pag. 170. l. 18. I desire therefore again to know whether he was rightly condemned or not Suppose I answer rightly what then Then the Pope is not infallible And what then What is this to N. O or his Considerations Ib. l. 8 In either case there was no Infallibility in the Guides Yes in one case if Honorius rightly condemned there was Infallibility in the Pope and Council Pag. 171. l. 8. The ingenuous concession of Mr White A great friend to Popes But by this he sees there are that confess Popes liable to Heresy Ib. l. 6. Councils against Councils Not lawful General Councils one against another Ib. l. 4 Church again Church especially after the Breach between the Greek and the Roman Not one of these Churches against the other in most of those things for which the Reformation hath left the Roman But supposing in some points they be so the Infallibility we contend for here as requiring our Obedience is only that of a General Council joined with and confirmed by the Bishop of the See Apostolick In the intervals of which Councils to matters clearly determined formerly by them the present Church Governours if no way supposed infallible may exact from the Church's subjects such an assent as the Councils have required Or in new Controversies arising and not formerly determined by any such Councils yet may justly impose silence till such Controversy shal be so decided Ib. l. 2 But a man who is bound to rely only on the authority of his Guides must suppose them to be agreed and in case of difference among them he must first chuse his Religion and by that his Guide bound to rely only Who saith it He may rely on the Holy Scripture very safely in all points whereever it is clear but in his application to it when he meets with Scriptures the sense whereof is ambiguous to him as surely either it is or should be in case he sees a major part of the Church or of Christianity to differ from him in the sense of it he is to rely on his Guides And next in any difference among them he is not presently left to our Author's way to chuse his Religion or his opinion first and by that his Guides as they sit it for so in some places that our Author knows there is scarce any opinion so gross but some Guides may be found complying with it But in these Guide's differing and their just authority consisting in a most exact Subordination he is to rely on the Superiour as in England on a Provincial or National Synod rather than on the Rector of his Parish or a single Bishop and whereever its judgment can be had on the Supreme a lawful General Council confirmed by the Bishop of the See Apostolick Pag. 172. l. 8. Now the Question proposed is whether it be not fitter for me to submit to the Guides of the Catholick Church than to trust my own judgment I should make no scruple in all doubtful matters to resolve the affirmative supposing that all the Guides of the Catholick Church were agreed Will he submit his judgment then to lawful General Councils and the matters they have or shall agree in Since he hath great reason to doubt in all things where they judge contrary to his tenent He goes on Ib. l. ult For I should think it arrogance and presumptiâ—n in me to set up my own private opinion in opposition to the unanimous consent of all the Guides of the Catholick Church in such a case To the unanimous consent of all the Guides But will he submit to such a consent as hath been had in former lawful General Councils I mean such as in the four first for deciding Controversies viz. to that of a much major part For else if but one Bishop in the world shall oppose all the rest He is released from such his submission And 2ly Will he yield this for all matters whatever such Councils shall define For to repeat his words ought he not to think it arrogance and presumption in him to set up his own private opinion in opposition to such Councils in any thing for which they have the same evidence as himself And here observe also that in whatever times these Councils be held whether in the present or past ancient or latter times so as not contradicting one another in their definitions their Authority is exactly the same and so ought his Obedience to be and their Definitions also to be in all times after obliging those of Nice obliging now N. 1 Pag. 173. l. 5. We find the Christian world divided into very different Communions It is so But the forementioned ‖ Note on p. 172. l. 2. subordination of Church-Governours is still to be observed And our obedience in any clashing of these Church-Governours in several parts to be performed to the Superiours As for example The African Bishops and their Councils
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.
and Doctors met in Oecumenical Councils in all ages I would you could prove a truly Oecumenical Council in any age He proceeds Ib. l. 17. But we cannot endure to be abused by meer names of Titular Prtriarchs with Combinations of interested Parties instead of General Councils You do well in this But not so if you charge any such things on those former Councils whereof the more universal judgment of other Metropolitan Churches cleareth them in their accepting them for lawful and obliging and conforming in their belief and practice to their Decrees which general acknowledgment of them supplies also any defect that might have been in the management of them Ib. l. 3 If we then oppose so general a consent of the Christian Church let them charge us with not submitting to all the Authority extant of the world And what then when you are so charged Then you will say as you have said ‖ p. 241 242 That the Church in any one or more ages since the Apostles times may be deceived And That universality in any one age without the Consent of Antiquity which Consent you not It shall judge of is no sufficient Rule to interpret Scripture by nor consequently to decide the Controversies arising therein Pag. 285. l. 6. And every free Church c. See Note on p. 281. l. 1. It follows Ib. l. 9. Hath a sufficient power to reform all abuses within it self when a more general consent cannot be obtained But not to reform any thing contrary to such doctrines c to which a more general consent hath already been obtained in several Councils that before the Church was divided were generally received A Metropolitan Church may have a sufficient power to reform somthing without but nothing contrary to the Decisions or Canons of a Superiour Authority Ib. l. 14. How very pitiful an advantage can from hence be made by the dissenting parties among us For the advantages dissenting parties make hence see before Note on p. 180. l. 9. p. 263. l. 2. p. 271. l. 2 It follows Ib. l. 12 Who decry that Patriarchal and ancient Government as Antichristian which we allow as prudent and Christian But doth this Author allow it as of Divine Institution and necessary I mean the Government of the Church by Bishops Ib. l. 9 N. O. saith my Principles afford no effectual way or means in this Church of suppressing or convicting any Schisme Sect or Heresy or reducing them either to submission of judgment or silâ—nce Therefore my Principles are destructive to all Church-Authority Destructive to all authority N. O. makes no such Consequence But the immediate words following those cited by our Author are these ‖ Princip Consid p. 98. For where both sides contend Scripture clear for themselves the clearness of such Scripture how great soever on one side can be made no instrument of conviction to the other Here therefore things must be prosecuted further than Scripture to a Dic Ecclesiae And then for the convicting and suppressing such Heresies and Schismes this Church appealed and complained to must have authority and infallibility at least as to necessaries to decide truly such contests about the sense of Scripture which may happen to be in them and justly to punish with her censures as the useth to do those that are Hereticks i. e. dissenters from her definitions and so preserve the Church in the unity of the true Faith things denied to it by the Dr. Ib. l. 2 The design of my Principles was to lay down the Foundations of faith and not the means of suppressing heresies But his Principles laying down the foundations of Faith if good must be such as consist with the foundations of Peace also and with the means of suppressing Heresies And to his Instances I say Aristotle may be justly blamed for his Logick or Hippocrates for his Aphorismes if the one be found to contain any thing contrary to Civil Government or the other to the Colledge of Physicians Pag. 286. l. 2 We are sure the meer authority of their Church hath been no more effectual means of suppressing sects than that of ours hath been N. 1 I think He hath yielded the contrary before p. 136. where being pressed that the subjects of the Roman Church however their other private opinions may differ do all submit their judgments to the determinations of her Councils which takes away all Divisions in her as to such matters this being not so in the Church of England he hath these words I do not say that the Church of Rome hath no advantage at all in point of Vnity but that all the advantage it hath comes from force and fraud viz. such force as the Council of Niee used to its subjects viz. Anathemas to Dissenters And We do not envy them the effects of tyranny and deceit It is the Vnion of Christians we contend for not of Slaves or Fools And I freely yield that they have a juster pretence to Vnity without Truth than we Where this effect a greater Vnity is granted by him but that this is without Truth is denied by us But N. 2 setting this aside we contend that where it is affirmed 1. That Scriptures are so cleare in all necessaries that none of what condition soever using their right endeavour to understand them can mistake 2. And again that there is no other Infallible Judge to determine certainly any sense of Scripture in such necessaries where it is controverted nor which may require submission of judgment from their subjects to their sentence and so the people left to their own judgment one man upon using as he thinks a just endeavour being confident of one sense of Scripture plain to him another of the contrary which judgment of particulars the Church fallible hath no power to sway or correct Nor on the other hand the Scripture doth decide to them at all on which side it is clear Here we say is left no effectual way which yet always the Church must have one or other for clearing and purging itself of Heresies and Schisms by which the opinion of either of these and so of any Sect of them erring in some necessary points or by which any Heresy may be suppressed or the persons so perswaded severed from the Church's Communion and so the Principles must be unsound that inferr such Consequences N. 3 But there is such an effectual way in the Church which is maintained to have power as it is by Catholicks to determine in all Controversies about necessaries and in this amongst others concerning the Apostolicalness of a former Tradition or the legitimacy of a former Council what doctrine is true and Apostolical and to Anathematize all Dissenters whereby she either reduceth Sectarists if submitting to her judgment or separateth them from the Church if opposing it And such way accords very well with our Lords Sit tibi sicut Ethnicus Publicanus Mat. 18.17 2 Cor. 10.6 Tit. 3.10 and with S. Paul's In
Symptomes of a declining Church Hence also in such diversity of opinion happens an alienation of Affections and so very great Divisions and Factions As we see that those Sects departed from the Church of England no way agree amongst themselves and when any of them by their extraordinary increase gets any power and dominion ever the rest there presently follows a proportionable endeavour to advance and propagate it self and root out the other because they would have all men of the very best Relâ—gion that is their own § 14 And it seems a great Inadvertency in those who are now marshalling up all their Arguments and Forces against an unlimited Church-Authority and against the Vsurpurs of an unjust Ecclesiasticall Power and Exactours of an undue submission and Obedience to take so little notice of those other more dangerous enemies who are marching up in the reare of them under pretence of being their Auxiliaries in this warr Whenas they have great cause to fear so soon as any Opportunity may be offered their making use of those Armes I mean Arguments and Principles wherewith they now furnish them for attempting the demolishing also of that Church-Authority the first Reformation hath as yet left standing To which though hitherto by them unsuccesfully assaulted yet they no way appear reconciled § 15 Neither in this Division of Opinions naturally flowing from such a Principle and as Experience hath shewed very mischievous in its effect doth there appear any possibility of the reducing such a mixt and heterogeneous Body to a firm Union and Peace where is no Judge to end their differences but only that whose Language misunderstood causeth them I mean the Scriptures Which last Consideration was one of Mr. Chillingworth's Motives for reconciling himself to the Roman-Catholick Religion Because saith he ‖ Motive 10 Pref. §. 42. by denying all humane authority either of Pope or Councils or Church to determine Controversies of Faith they have abolished all possible means of suppressing Heresy or restoring Unity to the Church § 16 To Which at his return to Protestantisme for the satisfying himself and others if any have the curiosity to know it be devised this Answer 1st for the means of suppressing Heresy That all men should believe the Scripture i.e. it to be Gods Word and endeavour to believe it in the true sense for that so none such can possibly be an Heretick saith he But here first how shall any assure himself of having used a right endeavour Next of those who do not so endeavour some may be Hereticks and if Hereticks ought to be suppressed and cannot be suppressed without some Judge of their nonendeavours and of their Heresy besides themselves and such Judge is the thing this man would decline Lastly If God hath appointed some spiritual Guides for directing people in the belief of Scripture in its true sense a right endeavour cannot be used herein without repairing to and learning it from them the dependence on whom for not incurring Heresy this Author would avoid 2ly For preserving Unity in the Church That there be a Comprehension of all Sects and Opinions within the pale of one Communion ‖ Pref. §. 43. That saith he no more be required of any man to make him capable of the Church's Communion than this that every one endeavour to believe Scripture in its true sense So he Now this men may equally do in their believing it in a most contrary sense according to their different capacities and the agreement that thus can be among them will be only tolerating all disagreements Of which see more in the following Discourse § 96. § 17 I meet also with another English Divine who in his Satisfaction concerning True Religion conjecturing the causes of the late great increase of Popery in England pitcheth upon this very sanâ—e thing that induced Chilling worth to Popery Nothing saith he ‖ p. 178. among us except ignorance and wickedness increaseth Popery more than the scandal of our numerous and some of them abominable Sects when the people see many zealous Professours turne Quakers or Ramers or Seekers or Antinomians or Socinians or Familists and shall See the more tolerable parties Episcopal Presbyterian Independent Erastian Separatists and Anabaptists condemning backbiting reproching making odious if not persecuting one another and shunning many of them the Communion of one another as they do the Papists This makes them think that they must seek some surer soberer way than any of us have yet found This cause of the increase of Popery he truly discerned viz. the continual increase of Sects in all Partyes save Popery and for this Men that dread the hazards of the next world more than this flee apace into the Catholick Church there to find an unity of Faith and be at some certainty and rest But how shall the cause of the increase of Popery be removed Or how can such a Principle in a Church as the forementioned proceed to any cure of it Of one sort of these Sectarists divided from the Bishops he himself is How can he deny to others the liberty he takes Or must he not come at last only to Mr Chillingworths device where is no Judge 1 an universal Toleration of all good Endeavourers to understand Scripture and 2 an Internal Communion of Charity for an External the Rites of which may please or at least may continue to please all parties can never be invented nothing being more controverted than concerning the Celebration Ceremonies Vertue c of the Sacraments But it seems by him neither will those be attained where is such diversity of Opinions but to repeat his words There will be condemning backbiting reproching making odious if not persecuting one another and shunning many of them the Communion of one another as they do the Papists I add from Experience And suppressing and crushing one another as any of them gets power § 18 These then are the Ways that the Patrons of Christians Liberty usually take for its defence and these seem the Effects of it where allowed whilst the Contenders for Obedience and Submission of Judgment to our Spiritual Superiours and Guides take quite the contrary Course They endeavour to plant in all their Subjects the greatest reverence and esteem of the Lords Clergy and Ministers of their learning wisdome piety and the assistance of Gods Holy Spirit preserving them for ever at least in their highest Courts of Jndicature in all Necessary truth They maintain a strict Subordination in the Church's Hierarchy and an Vnity of Government in the Catholick Church though spread thorow never so many several temporal Dominions all subjected to one Supreme Court and President thereof and to the same Definitions and Laws as to matters purely spiritual and these no way alterable by Civil States They urge the great Heresies in the highest points of Faith that the sharpest Wits in former times have fallen into by departing from the sense of the Church The greater men's parts are they being
cannot judge of their Judgment whether right by the Rule concerning the sense whereof they consulted them i.e. they cannot learn the sense of the Rule from their Guides and then know the truth of their sentence from the Rule p. 140. How or by what Marks the true Church is to be discerned from Sects from which Church first known the Enquirer may learn the true Faith p. 106. 152. 155. 209. And that In any difference or contrariety of Church-Governours the Superiour Authority is to be obeyed That Christians both prudently may and in Duty ought to subject their Judgment in Divine matters to Church-Authority though supposed fallible whereever they are not certain of the contrary to its Decisions p. 99 223. That all other Magistrates and Superiours are deficient and come short as to one branch of Authority belonging to the Church viz. the Deciding of what is Truth and errour Lawful and Vnlawful in Divine Matters for which Infallibility is necessary to them when not so to the others p. 222. That Church-Infallibility is clearly enough evidenced to Christians both from the Scriptures and from Tradition p. 109. And that Catholicks place this Infallibility in a lawful General Council p. 96 Where Concerning the Decrees of General Councils their being put in the Creeds And an Vniversal Assent required to them under Anathema p. 127. Concerning the Anathemas passed by inferiour and fallible Councils p. 127 129. Some Quotations out of Dr Field and the Text Gal. 1.8 considered p. 130 131. That Dr Field clearly maintains some Visible Church or other consisting of Prelates and Subjects and giving Laws to be infallible as to Necessaries in all Ages which Church the unlearned at least are advised by him to search out and so to follow her Directions and rest in her Judgment p. 103. The Deficiencies in his Tenent p. 105. That Miracles are not necessary in all Ages to attest the Church's Infallibility p. 116. That true Miracles for many good ends advancing the Glory of God and the Catholick Faith have been continued in the Catholick Church but not so elsewhere ever since the Apostles times p. Ibid. How Miracles signify the Infallibility of those by whom God worketh them p. 118. The Latter Times of the Church doing Miracles in all the same kinds as the Former and both as our Lord and his Apostles did p. 119. Several Controversies in Religion necessary to be decided and those respecting Manners as well as Faith p. 175. c. By what Authority General Councils assemble and decide Controversies p. 174. In what manner General Councils and the Church-Guides are an Infallible standing Judge of Controversies p. 132 238. Lawful General Councils of any Age since the Apostles times of equal Authority and Obligation p. 151 160 205. That we want a Judge for the necessary Decision of many Controversies As for instance Whether Latter Times have altered what Christ or his Apostles delivered or Have imposed things contrary to the plain Commands of Scripture Or Latter lawful General Councils contradicted former or What former Councils are to be accounted General Legal and Obligatory Whether what is pretended to be the concordant sense of Antiquity or to be contrary to it really is so Whether some things repugnant to Gods Word are not commanded by our Superiours as things Indifferent c. I say that the Christian World is destitute of a Judge to end such differences unless the Present Church be It and is in such Contests to be appealed and stood to p. 140. 141. That the present unanimous Agreement of the Apostolical Churches and especially the consent of the Prime Apostolick See joined with them was by the Ancients esteemed and urged as Infallible and to which all owed Submission of Judgment p. 180 181. Held so by those Ancient Writers cited by Dr St. By S. Jrenaeus p. 182. By Tertullian p. 185. By Clemens Alexandrinus p. 188. By S. Athanasius p. 190. 203. By S. Austin p. 194 206 By Vincentius Lerinensis p. 197. The place * in S. Gregory Nazianzen Ep. 55. concerning Councils considered p. 194. * In S. Austin Contra Maximin l. 3. c. 14. p. 194. De Vnitate Eccl. c. 19. p. 212. De Baptismo l. 2. c. 3. p. 213. Arguments used by the Fathers against Hereticks both from infallible Church-Tradition and from the Scriptures and that those from the latter notwithstanding the evidence of the former are necessary against persons not submitting to the other p. 190 191. The Places out of Petavius and S. Hierome concerning the Tradition of the Doctrine of the Trinity before the Council of Nice considered p. 201. c. Vnanimous Consent of the Fathers Primitive Times Catholick-Church in her Councils in order to Our Obedience how to be understood 159 200. And Vincentius Lerinensis his Rule Quod ubique quod semper c. Ibid not necessarily comprehending all particular Persons or Churches Vniversality understood of the Catholick Church distinct from Heretical never as to Necssaries dissenting from Antiquity p. 199. How the believing of the Determinations of General Councils is necessary to salvation p. 164. That Heretical and Schismatical Churches are no Members of the Catholick p. 154. That a Church committing and teaching Idolatry is no true Member of the Catholick Church p. 80. c. The Nicene Council to be obeyed suppose the Arian Councils more numerous as to the Bishops present in them because the Nicene more universally accepted and the Arian how numerous soever formerly declared Hereticks p. 146. 193. Of Pope Liberius and Honorius accused of Heresy p. 146. 149. That no Certainty from Sense or Reason can rationally be pleaded for any Doctrine against a General Council or Major part of Christianity having all the same means of Certainty from Reason and Sense and they maintaining the contrary Doctrine certain p. 143 145. Where Concerning Veneration of Images Communicating in One Kind p. 144. That our Senses are not to be credited where is the certainty of a Divine Revelation contrary Nor doth the Disbelieving them in such things prejudice the Certainty of their Evidence as to all other matters where no Divine Revelation opposeth p. 142. c. No Reformation lawful against the Definitions of a Superiour Church-Authority p. 236. In a Controversy Whether a National Church hath departed from the truly Catholick Church of former Ages who is to be the Judge p. 237. That National Churches and Councils are subject to Patriarchal and Generall p. 152. 226. That any particular Church may require Assent from all her Subjects to her Doctrines of Religion so far as such Church accords therein with the Church Catholick Because in these she infallible if the Catholick be so p. 222. Whether a fallible Church may require assent to her doctrines or to some of them at least as to matter of Faith where she as fallible confesseth she may err in such matters Or she not requiring such submission to them as to matters of faith Whether her Subjects are not left
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
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
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
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
differing about Rebaptization from other Christian Churches were observing their subordination to submit to the judgment of a Council Oecumenical A private man then where are many different Churches and Communions ought to consider under what particular Governours he liveth and in what manner they are subordinate to others and accordingly in any differences happening about points which he is not at leisure to study or hath not capacity to understand or after study is not certain on any side to yield his obedience and submit his judgment to the Superiours As in England a division happening in the Clergy thereof I suppose our Author would advise one that thus doubts in a point controverted in case the Parson of his Parish opposeth the Bishop of the Diocese or this Bishop all the other Bishops of the Province or of the Nation to submit to the judgment of the Bishop or of the Provincial or National Synod rather than to his Parson And that He would not enjoin such private person or tell him he is obliged for the settling of his judgment to study the whole Controversy debated between such Parson and his Bishop to collate their arguments and then make himself Judge at least for himself which of them is in the right wherein also should it be done the incapacity of the man or also his passion or interest on one side may easily misguide him and he fare much worse by his liberty than his obedience And this thing seems also intended by the National Synod of England in their drawing up the 39. Articles they say for taking away Diversity of Opinion which thing they do not there pretend to effect * by their confuting with arguments satisfactory to their subjects all those opinions they there disallow for no such satisfaction is offered no such thing is done by them but * by the submitting of their subjects not skilled in such matters nor certain of the contrary to their Judgment as the Supreme of this National Church N. 2 The same then let any doubting person do in any higher division and opposition of Metropolitan Churches suppose in the Western Patriarchy wherein he lives Let him examine which is the most Vniversal Body of them which the most dignified Persons and submit to their Guidance which as it is more safely relyed on may be easilier examined than the Controversies and indeed is a case clear and obvious enough to the most of men And as for others their invincible ignorance it is hoped may excuse their errour Where also let such a person consider whether such Councils as are assembled of most of the National Churches in the West joined with the Patriarch of it and deciding the many points disputed in these Western parts are not to be submitted-to by all private persons not certain of the contrary to their Decisions as how should they be so before a National only of the English Bishops especially if these opposing them in those things wherein for the most part the Eastern Churches also agree with them And if any here for standing out against this major authority should plead Certainty on his side as Archbishop Lawd and others do then let him consider how few there are among Christians so well seen in all these Controversies themselves as to withdraw their obedience on this account whilst it seems agreed that all others ought leaving these Certainists by themselves to conform to the Decrees of the Superiour Courts Ib. l. 10 What then makes those Churches the Eastern to be left out in our enquiries after the Guides of the Catholick Church How orthodox and Catholick soever the Eastern Churches may be one living in the Western Church owes no Canonical subjection or obedience to them whose whole care it ought to be to pay it where it is due according to the forementioned subordination which done he cannot miscarry as to all necessary Faith But however I think Dr St. might have spared the Description and proposal of these to a Protestants choice by reason of their many tenents in the Points controverted and particularly in those of Transubstantiation and the Idolatry of Images and Invocation of Saints agreeing with or also some of them more disliked than the Roman Pag. 174. l. 9 Now of these five parts four of them Nestorians Eutychians Greeks and Protestant Churches are all agreed that there is no necessity of living in subjection to the Guides of the Roman Church As they are agreed so it is granted For Example that the Metropolitan Church of England owes no subjection to the Metropolitan Church of Rome nor to the Pope as the Metropolitan thereof And the other three owe him no subjection neither as he is Patriarch of the West but the fourth doth and yielded it together with other Occidental Churches till of late But meanwhile the Eastern Churches are agreed that they owe all subjection and submission of judgment to the Definitions of lawful General Councils and on this account render it to the 2d Nicene and that these Councils are infallible in them for which see what is cited in the precedent Discourse § 56. And from the determination of these Councils do the same Churches entertain several Opinions rejected by Protestants Ib. l. 3. Only those of the Church of Rome take upon themselves against all sense and reason to be the Catholick Church and so exclude four parts of five out of a capacity of salvation The Roman Church confesseth it self a particular Church and only a part of the Catholick Nor doth it exclude any other Churches from being true parts thereof save those which are Heretical or Schismatical both which Hereticks and Schismaticks I think learned Protestants exclude also from being members of the Catholick Church See Dr Field l. 4. c. 2. That the Visible Church he means Catholick never falleth into Heresy we most willingly grant And l. 1. c. 7. The name of Orthodox Church is applied to distinguish right-believing Christians from Hereticks the name of the Catholick Church men holding the Faith in unity from Schismaticks Nor doth the Roman Church deny in such Heretical or Schismatical Churches a capacity or possibility of salvation to all generally but only as I think Protestants also do to those among them that are formerly guilty of the crimes of Heresy or Schisme because indeed either of these is a mortal sin and so unrepented of excluding from salvation Lastly Heretical the Roman Church with all Antiquity takes those to be that maintain the contrary to any known Definition in a matter of faith of a lawful General Council and Schismatical those that upon any cause whatever do separate from the Communion of the present Church Catholick and their true Superiour Ecclesiastical Guides Pag. 175. l. 11. When he finds so many Churches and those not inferiour to the Roman Church in any thing save only in pomp pride and uncharitableness Eph. 4.31 And evil-speaking be put away from you Et blasphemia tollatur a vobis cum omni
this plea seems to imply more iucluded in the word Prescription than the Dr allows viz. includes not only a just exception against their pleadings but a just plea against their exeeptions But this shall make no contention between us Pag 215. l. ult And makes that sufficient evidence of the truth of a body that it is the object of three senses of sight and touch and hearing Which is the same way of arguing we make use of against Transubstantiation And it is granted a sufficient evidence where no Divine Revelation intervenes declaring such arguing mistaken Which in the matter of our Lord's Resurrection there doth not And in vain had Marcion made any such pretence herein against these senses where he could produce no Divine Revelation for it Pag. 216. l. 14. And the universal reception i.e. by the Churches of the true Gospels Vniversal Reception Which Tertullian urgeth as an infallible proof of the truth of these Gospels See his words Contra Marcion l. 4. before in Note on p. 210. l 2. As also Ibid. contrary to what the Dr saith below his calling in an infallible Guide the same Churches for giving a certain sense of Scripture Pag 218. l. 6. Hitherto we find nothing c. Concerning this let the former places ‖ Note on p. 201. produced out of them bear witness Though this hath the infirmity of a Negative argument Pag. 219. l. 1. I now proceed to Clemens of Alexandria And therefore so must I though methinks he hath led his Reader and me a great way from the Consideration of his Principles He that reads the 7th Book of his Stromata here cited as he will find much of studying the Scriptures and learning Demonstrations from thence against Hereticks so will he of the Vnity of the Church contradistinct to Heresies and of the verity of its Traditions Of which he saith there Num ergo si quis pacta conventa non obseâ—vaverit i.e. adhaerendo Regulae Ecclesiasticae transgressus fuerit eam quae fit apud nos confessionem propter eum qui non stetâ—t suae professioni abstinebimus nos quoque a veritate i.e. hujus confessionis And he cals this afterward via regia trita Non dubit averit quispiam viam ingreâ—i propter dissensionem of some others strayin sed utetur viâ regiâ tritâ sejuncta a periculo ita cùm alii alia dicant de veritate hujus Confessionis Regulae Ecclesiasticae non est discedendum sed est exactiùs diligentiùs inquirenda ejus exactissima accuratissima cognitio Ibid. he saith In solâ veritate antiquâ Ecclesiâ i.e. Ecclesiâ deriving its doctrine from Antiquity est perfectissima cognitio ea quae estreverâ optima haeresis id est electio And Homo Dei esse Domino fidelis esse perdidit qui adversus Ecclesiasticam recalcitravit traditionem in humanarum haeresum desiluit â—piniones There he saith Qui in ignoratione quidem versantur sunt gentes qui autem in scientiâ vera ecclesia qui verò in opinione ti qui sectantur haereses And afterward Exciso ostio muro Ecclesiae jam perfosso veritatem transgredientes efficiuntur principes ac duces mystâ—riorum animae impiorum and then shewing as also Irenaeus and Tertullian the Doctrine of the Church ancienter that of Hereticks later he goes on Exiis quae dicto sunt manifestum esse exâ—stimo unam esse veram Ecclesiam eam quae verè est antiqua quam conantur haereses in multas discindere Et substantiâ ergo cogitatione principio excellentiâ solam esse dicimus quam etiam dicimus antiquam Catholicam Ecclesiam in unitatem unius fidei quae est ex proprus testamentis i.e. contained in the Scriptures in quibus Dei voluntate per unum hominem congregat eos qui jam sunt ordinati ‖ Act. 13.48 quos praedestinavit Deus c. saith he Ecclesiae quoque eminentia sicut principium constructionis est ex unitate omnia alia superans nihil habens sibi simile vel aequale And that Fuit una omnium Apostolorum sicut doctrina ita etiam traditio Ex haere sibus autem aliae quidem appellantur ex nomine aliae ex loco aliae ex gente aliae ex propriis dogmatibus c. A parallel to which both in his description of the Church and Heresies may be observed in our present times These things then he hath of the Church there where he hath those things our Authour brings of the Scriptures And in all these things he seems to own and remit us to this Church antiqua sola una eminens omnia alia superans as a Guide that cannot sail us in necessary truth And as he presseth the studying of the Scriptures to the contemplative so he leaves the unity of the Church and the verity of its doctrine as a secure refuge for all the rest that cannot intend such studies Pag. 222. l. 10 Stephen was against rebaptizing any Hereticks and the others the Eastern and Affrican Bisho were for rebaptizing all Any Hereticks i.e. such whose former Baptisme was not for want of a right Forme nulled the baptizing of whom when returning to the Church was indeed no Rebaptization and thus S. Stephen and latter Councils well accord Of whose sanctity and orthodoxness thus Vincentius Lerinensis ‖ c. 9. after these Councils Quo quisque floreret religiosior eo promptiùs novellis adinventionibus coâ—trairet Exemplis talibus plena sunt omnia Sed ne longum siat unum aliquod hoc ab Apostolicâ potissimùm Sede sumemus ut omnes luce clariùs videant beatorum Apostolorum beata successi qu nâ—â vi semper quanto studio quantâ contentione defenderit susceptae semel relâ—gionis integritatem speaking of this Stephen Mâ—an wâ—â—le the affection Reverence this Author pretends to Antiquity and the Holy Fathers is not unliable to suspition when he upon every or rather no occasion given endeavours to uncover their nakedness and lay open their deficiencies and divisions Those that defend their departure from the novelties of the Roman Church by their retreat to Antiquity and the doctrine of the Fathers methinks should have a greater tenderness of Their Reputation But here meanwhile the more He aggravates the dissentings about this point the more he confirms the necessity of the Infallibility of General Councils for fetling such Truths and allaying such Contests to which Councils we owe the present peace that the Church in latter times enjoys in this matter once so much agitated Pag. 225 l. 13 What course was taken in this important Controversy with Samosatenus concerning the divinity of Christ to find out the certain sense of Scripture Do they appeale to any infallible Guides Nothing like it But in the Councils of Antioch c. The sense of Scripture may be cleared either by comparing Scriptures c. or by examining Church-Tradition for confuting
necessaries In the Declaration of both which they are always preserved from error by the super-intending of the Divine Providence and the assistance of the Holy Spirit And that supposing the sense of Scripture without recurrence to such Tradition be cleare enough to some yet that it is not so to all who therefore in their faith of such necessaries must depend on the authority direction infallibility of their Guides Unless our Author will say the Condition of all Christians is well capable of using all means possible Pag. 232. l. 5. The same course is taken by Epiphanius c. S. Hilary and S. Epiphanius it seems do endeavour to confute Hereticks out of the Seriptures What then Ib. l. 18. After the Guides of the Church had in the Council of Nice declared what was the Catholick faith yet still the controversy was managed about the sense of Scripture and no other ways made use of for finding it than such as we plead for at this day Was not the Decree of this Council after it held perpetually by the Catholicks urged against them And if not submitted to by them the more to blame the Hereticks of those days as now also the Proâ—estans after the 2d Nicene Laterane Florentine and Trent Councils who did not acquiesce in such a just authority as that of Nice and though I think Mr Chillingworth would not yet will not Dr St. as to the Nicene Council say the same with me These then though denying submission to Councils yet not to Holy Scriptures the Fathers did in those daies as Catholick Doctors do now out of Principles coneeded by them and common to both endeavour to convince them Ib. l. 4 That none of the Catholick Bishops should once suggest this admirable expedient of Infallibility Did not these Bishops continually press to them the consentient Tradition of the Churches and the Definition of the Council of Nice To what end this if it acknowledged by them fallible Might an Authority not infallible put their definitions in the Creed and so it remains to this day in the Dr's Creed upon that account Could it exact belief and anathematize all Dissenters and not profess itself Infallible Pag. 233. l. 7. When they so frequently in Councils contradicted each other See this great Friend of Councils Before ‖ p. 149. the charge was Ancient Church and Councils contradicting those of latter times but now it is grown higher to the Ancient contradicting Ancient without any qualification of Councils held by Hercticks contradicting Councils Catholick for then the sense had been lost But I hope our Adversary is not yet gone so far as to affirm any Council equal in authority with that of Nice contradicting it but if unequal that of Nice only will stand in force Ib. l. 13. If the sense of Scripture were in this time to be taken from the Guides of the Church what security could any man have against Arianism since the Councils which favoured it were more numerous than those which opposed and condemned it i.e. If the sense of the Scripture concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were to be taken from the Guides of the Church met in the Council of Nice what security from thence could we have against Arianisme since the Arian Councils were more numerous than that of Nice and therefore more obligatory than it Doth not our Author here a litle too sar unmask himself Doth he hold then Christians to owe no obedience to the Definition of the Council of Nice against Arianisme Time was when he said ‖ Rat. Account p. 375. We profess to be guided by the sense of Scripture as interpreted by the unanimotes consent of the Fathers and the four first General Councils will he say here If these Councils interpret the Scriptures in the right sense i.e. in his And That the Church of England looks on it as her duty to keep to the Decrees of the four General Councils and so of Nice the first of them Then either the Arian Councils must not be more numerous as here he affirms they were or the more numerous I mean as to the persons present in it not always the more valid which is true But if we are now to defend the authority of the Council of Nice againâ—t the Dr. we muâ—t know that if he there speaks of the plurality of the Arian Councils they many and that of Nice only one this number is no prejudice to any one Council that is of greater authority if he speaks of the plurality of Bishops in some one Arian Council then though there were present in the Nicene Council not above four or five Bishops from all the West Yet that the whole West and all its Bishops accepted it which they never did any of the Arian Councils Therefore Athanasius ‖ Epist ad Episcop Affrican after those Arian Councils held speaks thus of that of Nice Huic certè concilio universus orbis assensum praebuit And Verbum illud Domini per Occumenicam Niceae Synodum in aeternum manet Sive enim quis numerum cum numero comparet tanto major est Nicena Synodus particularibus Conciliâ—s quantum totum sui aliqua parte And 2ly That had the Arian Bishops throughout the whole world at some time outnumbred the Catholick yet these after once pronounced Heretical by the lawful General Council of Nice were invalidated hereby whilst such from having any lawful Vote in a future Council the Catholick Clergy and Bishops remaining a distinct Body from them to whom and not to them the Christian world owed its obedience Ib. l. 9 S. Gregory Nazianzen ‖ Epist 55. declares he had not seen a good issue of any one of them c. He spake this of the many Arian Councils of his time ful of faction and ambition the chief leaders being great Favorites to Constantius an Heretical Emperor Or perhaps of some Council also held at Constantinople wherein he by such contention amongst the Bishops there suffered much but this he said exclusively doubtless both to the first General Council that of Nice Of which he saith ‖ Orat. in laud. Hiero. that Paâ—res nostri pinsque ille hominum mundus qui Nicaeam perrexerunt certis finibus ac verbis Divinitatis doctrinam circumscripserunt And †Orat. in laud. Athanas Sanctum Concilium Niceae habitum at que illum lectissimorum virorum numerum Spiritum Sanctum in unum coegisse and exclusively again to the 2d General Council that of Constantinople which he was a member of and subscribed What need I now trouble my self or the Reader with vindicating Bellarmine on this matter Meanwhile would not the Dr here have his Reader believe that this Father had a mean esteem of the first and second General Councils Pag. 234. l. 7 S. Augustine ‖ Cont. Maximin l. 3. c. 14. in dealing with Maximin as the Arian expresly sets aside all authority of the Guides of the Church as to the sense of Scripture
to S. Austin he is far from calling his sense vox aperta against them or from not believing theirs and not his to be the true sense of this Voice of the Pastor Concerning whom united in such a Body he saith ‖ lib. de Haeres Sufficit Ecclesiam contra aliquid sentire ut illud non recipiamus in fidem But the Father evidently speaks of some Catholick Bishops holding something contrary to Scripture but also to the other Bishops as appears by the words following Sed qui custodito Vnitatis Charitatis Vinculo i.e. with the rest from whom they differ in opinion in hoc incidunt c. Nor have we any so sure Judge when some Catholick Bishops do so as this whole Body of them dissenting He proceeds Ib. l. 14. By which it is evident that he supposed no Infallibility in the Guides of the Church i.e. single or a few contradicted by the more and superiour Ib. l. 16. And in termes he asserts ‖ De Vnita Eccles c. 19. that the Church is to be proved by nothing but plain Scriptures neither by the authority of Optatus or S. Ambrose or innumcrable Bishops nor Councils nor Miracles Intermes he asserts No. These are not S. Austins words truly translated or quoted After S. Austin Ib. c. 18. had thus spoken to the Donatist Remotis omnibus talibus Ecclesiam suam demonstrent si possunt non in sermonibus rumâ—ribus Afrorum non in Conciliis Episcoporum suorum non in literis quorumlibet disputatorum non in signis prodigiis fallacibus c. sed in praescripto Legis c. And again ‖ Ecclesiam in Scripturis Canonicis debemus agnoscere non in vanis hominum rumoribus opinionibus factis dictis visis inquirere things the Donatists pleaded against him I say After this he proceeds in these words which are translated by the Dr Sed utrum ipsi Ecclesiam teneant non nisi de divinarum Scripturarum canonicis libris ostendant quia nec nos propterea dicimus nobis credi oportere quòd in Ecclesiâ Christi sumus quia ipsam quam tenemus commendavit Milevitanus Optatus vel Mediolanensis Ambrosius vel alii innumerabiles nostrae communionis Episcopi aut quia nostrorum collegarum Conciliis ipsa praedicata est aut quia per totum in locis sanctis quae frequentat nostra communio tanta mirabilia vel exauditionum vel sanitatum fiunt c. Where S. Austin saith not that the Church can be proved by nothing but plain Scripture Or denies that General Councils or true Miracles or Vniversal Tradition are no sufficient proof thereof Of which General Councils he speaks nothing here but of those of the two Parties Concilia Episcoporum suorum on one side and Concilia nostrorum Cellegarum on the other And we may see in the quotations before Note on p. 251. l. 12. S. Austin knowing the Scriptures from the Church and the Church from other marks amongst which true Miracles surely are the highest proof of any Truth and so were of the Apostles their being Gods true Church and Ministers But the Father to the Donatists allowing with him the Scriptures urgeth the Church as demonstrable by their clear testimony not as the only testimony but the chief and such as more than this needed not and exacts of them that he waving these other proofs on his side wherein he had much the advantage of them by his innumerabiles Episcopi which surely ought to carry it against theirs and vera Miracula so they would the urging of their Councils far inferior and their Miracles fallacious on their side and bring in their defence Anti-Scriptures to his Scriptures In these things I referr my self to the candid Examiner of the place Ib. l. 6. He endeavours to bring them to a resolution in the other point the Church for the clearing of this non-Rebaptization But how doth proving such a Society as defines Non-rebaptization to be the true Church clear Non-rebaptization to be the right practise which S. Austin inferrs from it if this Church proved yet may err in defining it so Pag. 255. l. 10 ‖ S. Austin de Baptisnâ— l. 2. c. 3. And of these General Councils the former are often anâ—â—nded by the latter As this place is often urged by Protestants so it is answered to by Catholicks that taking the Fathers words plenaria Concilia or General Councils as relating to the words immediatly preceding quae fiunt ex universo orbe Christiano which is not necessary N. 1 such General Councils may correct and amend one another the latter the former as to several things though never as to Dogmata Fidei For as Cardinal Bellarmine ‖ De Concil l. 2. c. 12. In Conciliis maxima pars actorum ad fidem non pertinet sed tantùm ipsa nuda decreta ea non omnia sed tantùm quae proponuntur tanquam de fide Interdum enim Concilia aliquid definiunt non ut certum sed ut probabile He grants Ibid. that Concilia in judiciis particularibus i.e. ubi non affirmatur aliquid generale toti ecclesiae commune errare possunt So he grants 2. l. 7. c. Quad aliqua praecepta morum Concilia plenaria priora emendari per posteriora upon S. Austin's reason quando experimento aliquo aperitur quod clausum erat c. If S. Austins words mean this so Catholicks grant it N. 2 But 2ly If S. Austins words must be understood of such plenary and absolutely General Councils without any remitting of the highest sense of the word whenas indeed these words Vniversale Generale Plenarium were applied to Councils of a smaller Collection of Bishops when this from several partss and a little after this quotation the Father saith concerning Rebapization that Diutiùs per orbis terrarum regiones multis hinc atque hinc disputationibuus collationibus Episcoporum pertractata est And several Synods were for it held in the East as well as in Affrick ‖ See Euseb l. 7. c. 4. thus what the Father saith here will make nothing for him as to his present Controversy with the Donatist about Rebaptization Nay more against him For there were no two such Councils that were both General whereof the latter had amended the former concerning Rebaptization at all and had there the same uncertainty of truth would have been in the decree of the latter as of the former and in this case the Donatist would not have failed to have taken the advantage of the Former General Councils N. 3 But 3ly applying S. Austins words Ipsa plenaria sapè priora posterioribus emendari as in reason we ought to the times preceding his as also considering those other words he adds sine ullo typho sacrilegae superbiae c. he seems to speak ‖ See contra Maximinum l. 3. c. 14. of the plenary but illegal Arian Councils that were not plenary in the largest
Heresies both ways are used but not necessary therefore that all writings against them use both Or that Councils condemning them register the reason of their condemnation But so it is that this Council of Antioch in their Epistle to Paulus Samosatenus do use both as they urge the Scriptures so also the Church's consentient Tradition in these words Decrevimus fidem scripto edere exponere quam a principio aceepimus habemus traditam servatam in Catholicâ Sanctâ Ecclesitâ usque in hodiernum diem And Qui Filium Dei non esse Deum praedicat hunc alienum esse ab Ecclesiastica regula arbitramur omnes Ecclesiae Catholicae nobiscum consentiunt Pag. 228. l. 1. I would advise them to be conversant in the Divine Oracles ‖ Athanas cont Arian S. Athanasius in all th gives very good advice for in the Father's confuting Heresies by Scriptures and by Councils Scriptures have the prime place with Athanasius's limitation there writing to Bishops and those quibus gratia data est ut discernant spiritualia whilst he saith there Contra Arian Orat. 1. simplex non firmiter institutus dum solummodo verba Scripturae considerat statim illorum astutiis seducitur Especially these Scripture-proofs are necessary to Bishops when dealing with Adversaries that contemn Councils as now also Scriptures are urged by Catholicks to Protestants declining Church-Authority Ib. l. 7. But did not the Arians plead Scripture as well as they how then could the Scripture end this Controversy which did arise about the sense of Scripture This Objection was never so much as thought of in those days What thinks He of Tertullian's Prescription against Hereticks quoting Scriptures from Church-authority declaring Apostolical Tradition concerning the sense of such Scriptures c. 15. Scripturas saith he obtendunt hac suâ audacià statim quosdam movent in ipso verò congressu firmos quidem fatigant infirmos capiunt medios cum scrupulo dimittunt And Quid promovebis exercitatissime Scripturarum cùm si quid defenderis negetur ex diverso si quid negaveris defendatur Hunc igitur potissimum gradum obstruimus non admittendi eos ad ullam de Scripturis disputationem i.e. by transferring the Controversy to be tried by the consentient Doctrine and Tradition of the Church Catholick Or what thinks he of the words of Athanasius in the same Oration that is here quoted advising those he writ to thus Zelum Domino zelate retentâ Patrum fide quam Fatres qui Nicaeae convenerant scripto professi sunt Ne sustinueritis eos qui contra eam novis rebus student etiamsi dictiones ex sacris literis scribant Ib. l. 9. They did not in the least desert the proofs of Scripture because their adversaries made use of it too No why should they the true sense of which was on their side and this also evident enough to some mens reason But to those not by this way convinced they pressed also the universal Tradition of the Church and the Definitions of its General Councils as infallible and to be submitted to by all private judgments For which to view this Author he speaks of Athanasius See the beginning of his Epistle to Epictetus Bishop of Corinth Ego arbitrabar saith he omnium quotquot unquam fucre haereticorum inanem garrulitatem Nicaeno Concilio sedatam esse Nam Fides quae inibi a Patribus secundum sacras Scripturas tradita confessionibus confirmata est sat is mihi idonea efficaxque videbatur ad omnem impictatem evertendam c. And therefore he saith the Bishops thereof afterward divesis Conciliis istos lucifugas quae Arii sunt sapientes communi calculo unius spiritus incitatu anaethemate percusserunt Quâ igitur audaciâ fit ut post tanti Concilii authoritatem disceptationes aut quaestiones instituantur And Quae ita manifestò prava pervâ—rsaque sunt ea euriosiùs tractare non oportet ne contentiosis hominibus ambigua videantur sed tantummodò ad ea respondendum est quod ipsum per se sufficit ea orthodoxae Ecclesiae non esse neque majores nostros ita senfisse And Si vultis filii Patrum esse non debetis sentire diversa ab iis quae Patres ipsi conscritserunt Again in the beginning of his Epistle to the Affrican Bishops Sufficiunt ea quae Niceae confessa fuere satisque per se virium habent quemadmodum superiùs diximus tum ad subversionem impii dogmatis tum ad tutelam utilitatemque Ecclesiasticae doctrinae And Neque Deum metuerunt ita dicentem Ne transmoveas terminos aeternos quos posuerunt Patres tuiâ— Qâ—â—accusat Patrem aut Matrem morte moriatur neque patres nostros quicquam reveriti sunt denunciantes anathema si quis contraria suae ipsorum confessioni sentiret Plusquam decem Synodos jam instituerant c. Verbum autem illud Domini per Occumenicam Niceae Synodum in aeternum manet And in the close of that Epstile after citing the Apostle 1 Cor. 11.2 Laudo vos quod quemadmodum tradidi vobis traditiones ita eas servatis he goes on Ipsa enim Nicaena Synodus reverâ trophaeum columnaque est ubi omnes haereses inscriptae ostentui sunt alluding to Col. 2. 15. then declaring how this Council established the Faith he saith Quam Patres statuissent de fide in Filium id statim adjectum voluere Credimus in Spiritum Sanctum And in his Epistle de Synodis he saith of these Fathers shewing their just authority in matters of faith that In negotio Paschatis placuit ut adderetur Visum est ut omnes obtemperarent De fide verò non scripserunt Visum est sed Ad istum modum credit Catholica Ecclesia statim confessio ipsa credendi adjuncta est ut ostenderent eam non novam esse sententiam sed Apostolicam quae ipsi scripsissent non esse sua inventaâ— sed Apostolorum documenta Pag 223. l. 11 So Athanasius saw no necessity at all of calling in the assistance of any infallible Guides to give the certain sense of Scripture in these doubtful places Of any infallible Guides or of any Guides at all he may say for here are none mentioned fallible or infallible No necessity then of the Council of Nice in Athanasius's judgment Review the places but now mentioned and see more in Note on p. 245. l. 1. This Author hath need of very credulous Readers Pag. 230. l. 15. Yet he no where saith that without the help of that Tradition it had been impossible to have known the certain sense of Scripture Nor do Catholicks say so They say only that the Church Governours met in a General Council are infallible in their decisions of necessary faith by reason of an evident Tradition of such an Apostolical Doctrine or sense of Scripture descending to them Or by some necessary Deduction of theirs made from such traditive doctrine in the same
quo velut gradu certo innitentes attollamur ad Deum And c. 17. Quid est aliud ingratum esse opi auxilicque Divino quam praedictae authoritati velle resistere In respect of which Authority he saith that In Catholica Ecclesia there is sincerissima sapientia which also he defines adhaesio veriâ—ati And Turbam non intelligendi vivacitas sed credendi simplicitas tutissimam facit Ibid. he saith he believes the Gospel from this Authority of the Catholick Church Quâ authoritate Catholicorum infirmatâ Contra Epist Manich c. 4. jam nec Evangelio credere potero quia per eos illi credideram Of which see more in his 11. l. Cont. Faustum c. 2. c. N. 6 And the Motives he saith that induced him to credit and follow such Authority are such as these urged by N. O. ‖ p. 87. Ibid. Besides the Wisdome he observed in the Church Tenet me saith he consensio populorum atque gentium tenet authoritas miraculis inchoâ—ta spe nutrita charitate aucta vetustate firmata tenet ab ipsà Sede Petri Apostoli cui pascendas oves suas post Resurrectionem Dâ—minus commendavit usque ad praesentem Episcopatum successio Sacerdoâ—um c. Where we may observe him as also Irenaus Terâ—ullian and Cyprian giving a special Principality amongst other Churches to that of Rome for which likewise he cites that Text Jo. 21.15 of our Lord 's giving a special charge to S. Peter of feeding his Sheep which special Commission of our Lord to Peter also S. Paul seems to relate-to Gal. 2.8 where he saith the Apostleship of the Circumcision was given not to all the Apostles but to Peter and so this Father in his 162. Epistle against the Donatists naming this See amongst others with whom Caecilianus was joined in communion he saith In quâ Ecclesiâ Romanâ semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit Principatus Again in his Book De Vtilit Credendi speaking of the same Church Authority Hâc autem saith he sepositâ ratione dupliciter nos movet partim miraculis partim sequentium multitudine And Hoc ergo credidi famae celebritate c. 14. consensione vetustate roboratae And Quae ab ipso Christo per Apostolos ad nos usque manavit abhinc ad posteros manatura est c. 17. And yet more fully Dubitamus nos ejus ecclesiae condere gremio quae usque ad confessionem generis humani ab Apostolica Sede per successiones Episcoporum frustra haereticis circumlatrantibus partim plebis ipsius judicio partim Conciliorum gravitate partim etiam miraculorum majestate i. e by Miracles done in this Church after the Apostles times of several of which S. Austin himself was an eye-witness and also of some an Instrume damnatis culmen authoritatis obtinuit Whereas he observes of the Donatists ‖ Epist 48. That in their discovery of which is the true Church they declined Vniversality and appealed as Protestants do to the Marks of its true observance of the Divine Precepts and right administration of the Sacraments marks according to their different perswasions some men find in one Church some in another Vos estis saith he qui non ex tetius orbis communione sed ex observatione praeceptorum omnium divinorum atque omnium Sacramentorum tenetis Catholicam fidem And Acutum aliquid videris dicere dum Catholicae nomen non ex totius orbis communione interpretaris sed ex observatione praeceptorum omnium divinorum c. And I have thus copiously cited him the more fully to satisfy the candid Reader in this matter of the greatest consequence and that the places in him that seem more clear may prevent the mistaking glosses that may be made on some other This of S. Augustine's being no stranger to the Church's Sovereign Authority and Infallibility in her Definitions and that the obeying Her was the obeying the command of our Lord and conforming to the verity of Scripture and the knowing of her easy by the forementioned marks Pag. 252. l. 14. S. Austin was willing to bring it to that issue that what the Catholick Church after so much discussing the point had agreed upon should be received as the truth As a Truth So may that which indeed is an errour But S. Austin every where contends as was but now shewed that it must be a most certain truth which a General Conncil of the Catholick Church agreed in and determined so and in this had the Donatists no way contradicting him So Cont. Crescon l. 1. c. 28. He saith to the Donatist Vnam fidem esse Vnam incorruptam i.e. not errin Catholicam ecclesiam Haec inter nos conveniunt And De Vnit Eccl. c. 24. Doce huic Communioni tuae apertum aliquod manifestum testimonium a Scripturis Canonicis perhiberi fateor ad te esse transeundum nec aliter esse suscipiendos Haereticos quà m sicut suscipit Ecclesia in quâ es quia tali testimonio Scripturarum declarata est i.e. to be the true Church and consequently that Truth to be maintained in it which all are to follow This then whether the Catholick Church always defines a certain Truth was no Question between them but Whether their's or his were this Church Catholick which Catholick Church these Churches being divided in Communion was but one of them This therefore the Father endeavoured to prove to the Donatist And if it be not a certain truth that such Councils determine for any thing I know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also for Scriptures concerning it are still eagerly disputed on both sides and this point of Non rebaptization found in the Creed as well as it may be brought in time only to be received as a truth but not certainly concluded a Truth And all this for avoiding Church-Infallibility and maintaining an ill-grounded Principle Which Church Infallibility once cashiered what would become of the Christian Faith in so many Sects daily rising up and after a new mode still interpreting the Scriptures Ibid. l. 9. S. Austin doth not hereby intend to make the Church's Authority to resolve all doubts concerning Scriptures No but to resolve all doubts in matters necessary Pag. 253. l. 11. For neither saith S. Austin ‖ De Vnita Eccles c. 11. are we to yield to Catholick Bishops themselves if they be at any time so much deceived as to hold what is contrary to Canonical Scriptures This is most certain Certain I say though understood of a General Council of these Catholick Bishops upon the supposition that these should hold what is contrary to Canonical Scriptures but S. Austin is farr from supposing here or in any other place that these may hold so especially In manifestissimâ Voce Pastoris in voce ejus clarâ apertâ in a matter wherein the Scriptures are very clear of which he there speaks Or if these General Councils should interpret any such Scriptures in a contrary sense