one material thing here may be observed by the Reader that this moral Infallibility where mentioned by N.O. is always applied to the said Tradition viz. the Testimony of so great a multicude of learned and pious men but never to Church Infallibility as a Body assisted with the Holy Ghost which Church is always believed not non-morally only but non-possibly fallible as also other Articles of the Christian Faith are as being all Divine Revelations but these certainly known or proved by a rational evidence to be Divine Revelations only from Tradition And Lastly that N.O. in his applying Moral Infallibility to Tradition leaving every one to express it otherwise adds or whatever certainty that may be called which Tradition affords ‖ Consi p. 56. Pag. 91. l. 6. This were well enough If in the precedent page he had not said c. An infallible assent in the former page and a morally-Infallible assent whereby in the latter it is explained do not contradict Ib. l. 7. Had not said That a particular person may be infallible in his assent That is sufficiently infallible as N.O. explains himself afterward and the Dr confesseth it Ib. l. 14. I would fain understand if the Evidence be only sufficiently or morally infallible How the assent which is built upon it comes to be more than so Any assent that is built only upon a sufficiently or morally infallible evidence never comes to be more than so Assensus cognoscitious non excedit Certitudinem Principii quo nititur See Note on p. 84. l. ult n. 2. Ib. l. 17. Late Writers of their Church are perplexed about this word Infallibility Our Author frames to himself strange Chimera's of Infallibility notwithstanding the pains taken by Catholicks to undeceive him and others therein whenas the Infallibility maintained by Catholicks is only that of the Church Catholick in a General Council in the defining of necessaries For the proving of which Infallibility they urge the Practice of former General Councils approved by the whole Catholick Church defining such points and putting them into the Creeds and anathematizing any Dissenters Behold now this terrible monster of Infallibility which this Author saith Mr Cr. and other late Roman Writers retain like a wolf by the ears cannot tell how to hold it and are affraid to let it go and N.O. at last quitting the thing contents himself with the sound of it And yet a few pages hence p. 95. the Dr tells you that the first Principle N.O. sets up in opposition to his is this Infallibility viz. That God hath given an infallible assistance to the Guides of the Church in all ages of it for the direction of those who live in it Ib. l. 10. Loth to part with the sound of Infallibility See Note on p. 90. l. 5 Ib. l. 6. He yields that moral certainty is a sufficient foundation for Faith Such terms neither occur in the Dr's 27th Proposition here referred to as conceded by N.O. nor in any words of N.O. nor any thing equivalent to them without some qualifications annexed The proper Foundation of a Christian's Faith or that on which it mainly relies is Gods word or Divine Revelation But if it be asked concerning the rational Certainty that Christians have or may have that such as they believe to be truly are Divine Revelations this is affirmed to be the Certainty which the Tradition so often forementioned affords call this Certainty by what name any one will This Tradition as the Reader may find in the Dr's next page is said by N.O. for which citation N.O. is obliged to the Dr that his Reader may sometimes at least find N. O.'s tenents in his own words to be the first rational introductive of our Faith And is so acknowledged not only by N.O. but generally I think by the whole Christian world at least by all Catholick Controvertists And yet our Author gazeth upon it as a new coined Position and frequently also calls it yielding the cause It is necessary to mistake or misrepresent the Catholicks Tenents thus to have somthing to say against them Pag. 93. l. 11. By which he fairly gives up the cause of Infallibility as to the necessity of it in order to faith I ask of what Infallibility Church-Infallibility N. O.'s next words following those quoted here by the Dr out of p. 67. are these But notwithstanding this Christians may be deficient in a right belief of several necessary Articles of this Christian Faith if destitute of that External Infallible Guide therein And the perpetual Divine Assistance and so Infallibility in necessaries of this Guide being declared in the Scriptures a Catholick having once learnt this point of Faith from its definitions and expositions becomes secure and settled in the belief of all those controverted Articles of his faith wherein others steered only by themselves do fluctuate totter and vary one from another whilst the Scriptures in such points at least to persons unlearned or of weaker judgments which are the greatest part of Christians are ambiguous in their sense and drawn with much art to several Interests See before Note on p. 84. l. ult n 4. And I ask Will it follow from Dr St's holding a moral certainty of Tradition to be a sufficient introductive to believing the Canon or Infallibility of Scriptures that he therefore gives up the Canon or the Infallibility of Scripture as to any necessity of it in order to matters of faith If not neither doth N.O. give up Church-Infallibility Or means he gives up the cause of an absolute Infallibility its being necessary ex parte subjecti to the having a right faith N.O. doth so yields it up as not being the Catholicks cause and stands to it but so doth he also yield up this of a moral infallibility ex parte subjecti its being necessary to every one for having a right faith Pag. 94. l. 12. I desire N.O. and E.W. to agree better c. Perhaps what is said before in Note on p. 84. n. 3. may satisfy our Author in this matter If not the Reverend Person E.W. if it be though fit is able to give a much better account of himself than N. O to whom therefore with all respect he leaves it But this I say and let the Reader judge that if this Author gives no fairer account of E. W's propositions than he doth of N. O's his Reader hath little reason to credit other mens Positions upon his Relation who by his first changing N. O's notions and then confuting them puts him to the trouble of these reflections Ib. l. 6. N.O. here makes moral certainty a sufficient ground for Divine Faith See Note on p. 91. l. 6. Pag. 95. l. 11. By these Concessions it appears that the Cause of Infallibility is clearly given up c. No. See Note on p. 93. l. 11. Annotations on his §. 4. Touching N. O's Principles PAg. 95. l. 4. The Doctor represents N. O.'s Principles thus 1. That God hath given an
Judge leave his Seat Pag. 196. l. 18. I say the places of Scripture which are alledged for such an infallible Judge are the most doubtful and controverted of any 1. What then If I may be certain of the Infallibility of this Interpreter another way than by these Scriptures that are urged for it viz. by Tradition Is it any news to our Author that Catholicks say this 2ly I may be certain of the Infallibility of this interpreter from those Scriptures not as expounded by this Interpreter but by Tradition I say Tradition both hath declared such Judge Infallible in necessaries and hath also declared the true Sense of these Scriptures to affirm this Which Tradition hath not so clearly delivered the sense of all other doubtful Scriptures Nor if it had is the sense of Tradition in all other Scriptures so easily to be known at least to the meaner sort of Christians as this concerning the Infallibility of the Supreme Church-Guides in necessaries by reason of the Church's more evident practice herein See Note on p. 113. l. 15. Pag. 197. l. 7. I come therefore to the 2d enquiry which is about the means of attaining the certain sense of Scripture in doubtful places without the supposition of an infallible Guide N. 1 The Dr here from this p. 197. to p. 250. makes a long Digression about the means used in the Primitive times of attaining the certain sense of Scripture in doubtful places without the supposing of an Infallible Guide Of these Means he names two One means he saith ‖ See his p. 249. was by examining and comparing places of Scripture with all the care and judgment that may be Where he gathers out of the Ancients such Rules as these That the Scope and designe of Scripture chiefly be regarded and the Connexion well considered that nothing be interpreted contrary to the Coherents that the sense of no plâ—ce is to be so interpreted that it hath repugnancy with others that plain places be not interpreted by obscure nor a many by a few bat the contrary that figurative expressions are not to be understood literally nor thâ—se intended in a plain sense figuratively that examples are to be drawn from plain places to illustrate difficult and from those which are certain to clear the doubtful that in matters of doubt recourse is to be had to the Original Tongues that for understanding Scriptures we are to come with minds duly prepared to it by humility prayer purity of heart love of God and our Neighbour c. and many more N. 2 But if after all this comparing Scriptures the dispute about the sense of them still continues the other Means he saith the Ancients speak of was the examining the Tradition of the Apost lical Churches from the beginning concerning the sense of them delivered from the Apostles ‖ p. 213. For that any one's setting up other expositions of Scripture than the Christian Church hath received from the Apostles times this without any further proof discovers their imposture For as he gives us it out of Tertullian ‖ p. 212. it is unreasonable to suppose that the Apostles should not know the doctrine of Christ or that they did not deliver to the Churches planted by them the things which they knew or that the Churches misunderstood their doctrine because all the Churches were agreed in one common faith and in an exposition of Scriptures contrary to theirs and therefore there is all the reason to believe that so universal consent must arise from some common cause which can be supposed to be no other than the common delivery of it by all the Apostles Again p. 249. He speaks on this manner If after all this i.e. the examining and comparing Scriptures the dispute still continues then if it be against the ancient Rule of Faith universally received perhaps he means the Apostles Creed that is a sufficient prescription against any opinion if not against the rule of faith in express words but about the sense of it then if ancient General Councils have determined it which had greater opportunities of knowing the sense of the Apostolical Church than we it is reasonable we should yield to them but if there have been none such then the unanimous consent of Fathers is to be taken c. N. 3 For the first of these means the attaining the certain sense of Scripture by comparing Texts c. 1. First the Reader may observe that if this proves the non-necessity of an Infallible Guide so it doth the non-necessity of any Guide at all as to teaching us the meaning of the Scriptures For in this first means no repairing at all to our Spiritual Guides fallible or infallible for the sense is mentioned 2ly I grant that there is a means of attaining a sufficient certainty of the sense of some obscure places of Scripture from others more clear without the necessity of any other infallible Guide therein and that the Fathers also have laid down many excellent Rules concerning this and practised them in disputing against Hereticks 3ly The more and the more certain these means are for knowing the sense of Scripture the more they seem to inferr the Infallibility and non-erring of the Supreme Governours of the Church met in Council herein and the more security of their Subject's as to all necessary faith relying on their Judgment Nor do I see any thing that can be replied here but That these Governours well knowing the right sense of Scriptures yet by ambition interest and several other passions may be corrupted from teaching it and also may be induced to define as an Article of their Faith to all posterity the contrary falshoods and themselves also first take their Oath of their belief of the truth thereof which though a very strange charge yet might pass for a more tolerable exception if those who will judge of this swerving and erring of Councils were themselves exempt from any such passions or interests or could well know when they are biass'd with them but otherwise it seems a very poor subterfuge yet the only one they can alledge for disobedience to Councils 4ly It is here to be remembred that if this means by comparing Scriptures c. named before be not such as all men those of weaker judgments and secular emploiments void of literature can use and practise this Infallible Guide for the certain sense of Scripture will still remain necessary to such where useless to some others 5ly That If any others of more liberal education more leisure for study of better capacity after such means used shall remain still in doubt concerning any such Texts in matters necessary as suppose in the Trinity or Deity of our Lord Christ our Lords Satisfaction Justification here also will be need of an Infallible Guide or Judge to decide these things to him Or if all well capable by their parts or condition of life of using this means yet otherwise employed de facto do not use it
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