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.
their sentence to the right hand or to the left c Whether I say such an answer touching Obedience as is given here to the same words in Deuteronomy would any way satisfy him Therefore here Dr. St. at last thinks fit to deny such an absolute obedience due now under the Gospel to Ecclesiastical Governours as was under the Law His words are ‖ p. 116. We are ready to yield such an absolute Obedience when we see the like absolute Command for Ecclesiastical Judges of Controversies of Religion as there was among the Jews for their Supreme Judges in matters of Law Much-what like to which is that he saith in his Rat. Account †p. 241. If we had met with any thing so express viz. concerning such Judge in the Gospel nay that had any seeming tendency this way how readily should we submit our Controversies to his determination To which I answer 1st That by this he seems to retract his former answer given to the words in Deuteronomy ‖ Rat. Acc. p. 239. viz. that they inferr no more obedience than that which is required by and afforded to all Courts of Justice and that they include not any obligation to assent to what is determined as infallible truth 2ly I say since now under the Gospel we have a written Rule no more free from Controversies than that given by Moses and so since there is the same necessity of such Judges we may rationally conclude our Lord Christ under the Gospel hath left us no more destitute of such a remedy to end debates than he did those under the Law 3. lastly that the former Texts and others ‖ See 1. Disconcerning the Guide in Controversies §. 7. that establish the Church's Hierarchy do include the like command of absolute Obedience to such Judge only this upon the pain of a Spiritual not Temporal Death Sit tibi sicut Ethnicus § 24 As for that Text Lev. 4.13 15. If all the multitude of Israel be ignorant and through ignorance do that which is against the commandement c. which he urges ‖ Rat. Acc. p. 241. to prove the Law-Guides also liable to errours though this is not the matter here in dispute the like expression occurring Lev. 5.2 3 4. shews this to be spoken of an ignorance not of the Law but of the Fact as if one hath touched some unclean thing and be ignorant of what he hath done But then taken in the Dr's sense this Text seems still more to confirm an absolute obedience yielded by this people to this Grand Council else the Whole would not have been involved in their Errour § 25 To his other objections mentioned Ibid. The Priests all along the books of the Prophets charged by God with ignorance and forsaking his way and 2 Chron. 15.3 Israel having been for a long season without the true God teaching Priests and Law and lastly the High Priest and Sanedrim condemning our Blessed Saviour I answer * That under the Law God in all times had a Visible Church in the Nation of Israel consisting of Priests or Clergy and people not erring in Fundamentals and Necessaries and this Clergy instructing and guiding the people in such necessaries as which people had no Copies of the Law and therefore as the Dr. often inculcates God was not deficient in manifesting by some other means to them his will of whom he exacted to obey it That in the Apostasies of Israel such Church continued still in Judah and that in the two great Apostasies also that hapned in Juda under Ahaz and Manasses we find a Ministry or Clergy that was persecuted before concurring and acting in the Reformation together with the Kings Hezechiah and Josiah And * that such Church whose Priesthood in necessaries erred not continued according to the Promise Gen. 49.10 till the appearing of the Messias Lastly * that the Messias coming with Miracles manifested by the other two Persons of the Trinity by the Father with a Voice from Heaven commanding to Hear Him and by the Holy Ghost seen descending on Him as also by the Baptist was now from henceforth to be received as the supreme Legislator and nothing to be admitted from others or from the Sanedrim it self contradictory to what he taught which High Court therefore now for the accomplishment of his necessary Sufferings was permitted by God to be the greatest Enemy of Truth and guided therein not by God's but a Satanical Spirit Of whose Doctrines therefore our Lord warned the people often to beware and when he bids them all that the Pharisees who yet possessed Moses his Chair taught them that to observe and do it is necessarily to be limited and understood wherein their's contradicted not his Doctrines and Expositions of the Law The Texts therefore mentioning the Priests ignorance or falling away the Nation 's being without God Priest or Law c. are not to be understood universally but of some part of this Nation as in the time of the Judges or afterward of Israel when the true Church and Priesthood continued still in Judah or of some part of the Clergy and that perhaps a greater in Judah somtimes apostatizing from God's true Religion and the Law of Moses but then these by such Apostacy were clearly cut off from the Church and the whole Authority and Judicatory Power remained in the rest not so apostatized though supposed fewer by whom the true Religion when afterward meeting with a well-affected Prince from time to time received a restauration Hence therefore N. O. deduceth that Consid p. 57 God having directed us for learning our right way to the obedience of a Guide he doth take no prudent or safe course who p. 51. committing himself to Gods immediate assistance shall neglect it and break his commandement in hope of his favour and help § 26 And if Obedience be once thus granted due to our Spiritual Guides as to learning Necessaries Next That it is not hard to know in any division and disagreement of these whose judgment in such a case every Christian ought to follow and adhere to Consid p. 81 namely always to that of such Church-Authority as is the Superiour which in most cases is indisputable this Ecclesiastical Body being placed by the Divine Providence in an exact subordination As here in England it is not doubted whether we are to pay our obedience rather to a National Synod than to a Diocesan to the Arch-bishop or Primate than to an ordinary Bishop or Presbyter That so also in the Catholick Church the Subordinations among its Governours both as to single Persons and Synods are well known and our obedience in any contest or competition due sooner to our Bishop than to a Presbyter opposing him to the Primate than a Bishop the Patriarch than a Primate and amongst the Patriarchs to the Patriarch of the Prime Apostolick See the same Subordination being also to be observed for preserving the Catholick Church perpetually in one
Faith and one Communion from Heresy and Schisme in their several Councils Diocesan Provincial National Patriarchal Oecumenical and in any of these Courts which consist of many when any dissenting in its members here again our obedience due to the major part joined with the President thereof That therefore by the Church-authority to which Christians are to render their obedience is meant still that Superior and more comprehensive Body of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy which in any dissent and division of the Clergy according to the Church-Canons ought to be obeyed and which hath hitherto in her Supremest and most generally accepted Councils in all ages from the beginning required such submission and justly assumed to itself the title of the only authentical Interpreter of Scripture and authoritative Teacher of Divine Verities And then Consid p. 82 That obedience being setled here he who hâ—th any small experience in Church-affairs and is willing to observe his duty cannot but discern what way the major part of Christendom and its higher and more comprehensive Councils that have hitherto been do guide him this being a Body not invisible or latent in a Corner or a few divided from the whole but a City always set on an Hill in such an extended Unity of an External Communion and such a dignifyed Preeminency and universality of its Prelats as no other Christian Society can equal a Candle on a Candlestick a perpetual erected Visible Pillar and Monument of Traditionary Truth Consid p. 89 frustra Haereticis circumlatrantibus § 27 To N. O's thus subjecting our obedience as to the deciding of Controversies in matters Necessary in any division of Clergy to the Superior and more comprehensive Body of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy according to the well-known Subordinations thereof and so excluding the liberty either of private persons or also of Churches or Synods any way subordinate from dissenting from the Judgment and Determinations of such as are their Canonicall Superiors which if observed would preserve the Catholick Church for ever in peace and from all Rents and Schisms the Dr. returns several Replies in justification of the proceedings of the Church of England as N. O. thought much concerned in it and not to be vindicated herein from a Schism in her Reformation not without but against a Superior Church-authority This matter he disousseth from p. 280. to p. 285. where he seems to me somwhat unresolved what answer to stand to One while he saith †p. 180. That the Church of England in reforming herself did not oppose any just authority then extant in the world Now that Patriarchal or General Councils are a Superior Ecclesiastical Authority to which National Synods or Churches owe subjection is granted by learned Protestants As concerning Patriarchal Councils thus Dr. Field ‖ p. 518. These Patriarchs meaning those chief Bishops of the Christian world that contained under them the Metropolitans and Bishops of many Kingdoms and States every Church as he saith being subordinate to some one of the Patriarchal Churches †p. 513. and incorporate into the Rules of it ‖ might convocate the Metropolitans of their several divisions and hold a Patriarchal Council which was of greater authority than either those in the several Provinces or of a whole Nation because it consisted of more and more honourable Bishops Again p. 557. That the Decrees of Popes made with the consent and joint concurrence of the Western Bishops did bind the Western Provinces that were subject to him as Patriarch of the West And thus Bishop Bramhal †Vind. p. 257. What power the Metropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province the same had a Patriarch over the Metropolitans and Bishops of sundry Provinces within his own Patriarchate And afterward That Patriarchs had authority to convocate Patriarchal Synods and preside in them when Metropolitan Synods did not suffice to determine some emergent differences or difficulties So in Schisme Guarded p. 349. he saith That the Ecclesiastical Head of the Church is a General Council and under that each Patriarch in his Patriarchate and among the Patriarchs the Bishop of Rome by a Priority of Order § 28 It is clear also that most of the Councils all either General or Patriarchal for the West and consisting of the Metropolitans and Bishops of many Kingdomes or National Churches those of the Church of England being also a part since theÌ„ 6th or 7th Age have determined several points of Faith rejected and opposed by the Church of England in her Reformation the obligation of which Definitions and Decrees also doth extend not only to the times wherein they sate but to all Posterity till an equal authority shall repeal them else the Decrees of Nice or of the other first Councils would not oblige any after-times Manifest also that the Council of Trent called by the Western Patriarch upon this discession and consisting of all or the most of the Churches in Christendome except those under the Mahometan tyranny not only of the Roman but other Italick Churches subject to other Princes of the Gallican Spanish German and other Western Churches and its Definitions in matters of faith generally accepted by these Churches hath made definitions contrary to the Reformation of the Church of England which Decrees to use Dr. Fields words made with the consent and joint concurrence of the Western Bishops I add or of the most part of them for of all is not necessary no more than in the first Councils for so no Metropolitans or Bishops could be liable to the censures of Councils without their own consent do bind the Western Provinces subject to the Patriarch of the West And therefore these things considered I see not how the Dr. can make good these his words that the Church of England opposed no just Superiour Church-Authority Afterward as not trusting too much to this Answer he pleads the freedom of the Church of England from the Pope and Church of Rome § 29 and from this discourseth of it as absolutely free To which purpose he saith p. 281. When it was thus agreed i.e. by the Church and State of England that the Bishop of Rome had no such authority as he challenged what should hinder our Church from proceeding in the best way it could for the reformation of it self for the Pope's Supremacy being cast out as an usurpation our Church was thereby declared to be a free Church having the power of Government within it self For this also he saith p. 285. that it enjoyeth the rights of a Patriarchal See And whereas N. O. in that very place the Dr. answers to †Pref. p. 5. expresly names for this Superiour Authority the most Supreme and most generally accepted Councils that have been in aâ—l ages which words might put him out of doubt what N. O. meant by more Superiour and comprehensive Body and by more Vniversal Church this Replier ‖ See p. 280. very conveniently omitting this closeth together what immediatly
precedes and follows it in N. O. of which the Reader if he pleases may inform himself by viewing the place and then takes the liberty to descant upon him in this manner p. 281. That which N. O. calls refusing submission to all the Authority then extant in the world was all the authority then extant shut up in the Pope's breast And p. 283. That by the more universal Church N. O. fairly understands no more but the Church of Rome Whereas N. O. whether speaking of Superâ—our Authority or its Infallibility hath made no where in his Book any application of it to the Church of Rome or Pope at all but to Superiour Councils But hither it much concerned this Author to force N. O.'s discourse to be the better able to confute it So p. 282. he tels his Reader The plain English of all is the Church of Rome was against the Church of England i.e. in the Reformation But after all this excursion N. O. speaks of an obedience the Church of England owes to Superiour Councils Patriarchal or General and to those whether former or present and that shewing its Freedom from the Pope or Church of Rome as a Co-Metropolitan Church will not serve the turn nor yet its being a Patriarchal i.e. a Primatical Church or had it been yet in an higher sense Patriarchal for neither was Dioscorus excepted from such a Superiour Authority by being a Patriarch § 30 Another while p. 283. he conjectures N. O. by more universal Church may mean the greater number of persons or of Christians at the time of the Reformation and so he asks How he knows that the Eastern Armenian Abyssine and Greek Churches did agree with the Church of Rome against the Church of England But though this is a truth which the Reader may see proved at large in the Third Discourse concerning the Guide in Controversies Chap. 8. and that very considerable that the Church of England in many points of her Reformation opposed the general doctrines and practices of the Oriental as well as Occidental Churches and where a general consent is in the Church-Governours apart the same we may presume would be in a General Council yet N. O. letting this alone speaks not of a greater number of persons but of a Superiour Authority § 31 Another while he pleads p. 282. the Church of England's submission to or consent with the Church Primitive and Apostolical or the truly Catholick Church of all Ages which she hath always appealed to and offered to be tried by But the Catholick Church of all ages being taken here by Him not distributively for what the Authority of the Catholick Church in any age hath stated or determined For to this he often declines submission See in him p. 241.242 Where he saith That Vniversality in any one age of the Church taken without the consent of Antiquity is no sufficient Rule to us And That the Church in any one or more ages since the Apostles times may be deceived But only collectively for what it can be shewed to have held delivered and agreed-in in all ages Such a submission I say is not sufficient For as our obedience is due to the Decrees and Definitions of lawful General or other Superiour Councils of the Primitive Times so is it as well to those of any latter age the authority of them in any age being equal and the same and an equal necessity of it for deciding the Controversies in Necessaries that may arise in any age though these Points disputed do not appear save in the Traditional Principles from which they are deduced in any former Nor could the Arrians justly decline the Definitions of Nice because made in their times or in the same expressions not delivered in any more primitive age There also he saith that the Church of England rejected nothing but innovations and reformed nothing but abuses But none ought to be rejected or reformed by any particular Church as such which Superiour Councils in any times have declared to be otherwise especially where no contradiction of a Body of equal Authority can be shewed in times more ancient § 32 Another while ‖ p. 283. he urgeth that at the time of the Reformation there was no superiour authority to the Church of England extant upon this account because saith he This must either be the authority of the Pope and Councils of the Roman Church or a General Council of all the Catholick Church For the first we owe no obedience to them for the second there was no such thing thâ—n in the world therefore could not be opposed But here first if by the Councils of the Roman Church he means Councils assembled by the Western Patriarch and consisting of the Metropolitans and Bishops not only of the Roman but other Western Churches and Nations these must be confessed and so are by Protestant Divines Superiour to a National Synod of England And then as for these or for other General Councils in what former times soever held they are an Authority always extant and their decrees obliging so long as not by an equal authority repealed Otherwise the Obligation also to the Definitions of the first General Councils would be long since expired And also any particular Church is obliged to a submission to any superiour Council following such Reformation from the time of its Decrees passed and a due acceptation of them i.e. by a much major part § 33 After this he alledgeth That for the Canons of the Catholick Councils before the breaches of Christendome no Church hath been more guilty of a violation of them than the Church of Rome But first if this were granted another's faultiness excuseth not our's Next if he speaks of the Councils that have been in the Church till the breach made by Luther methinks this is enough to confute what he saith that the one Church the Roman owns and admits the Definitions and Canons of these Councils as true regular and obliging and so in its disobeying them condemns it self which the other the Reformed denies to be so § 34 Lastly p. 285. he pleads That every free Church enjoying the rights of a Patriarchal See hath according to the Canons of the Church a sufficient power to reform all abuses within itself when a more general consent cannot be obtained But not I hope when a more general dissent is already declared I mean that the things so called are no abuses By all this I think appears no Answer as yet returned by this Author to the things objected which affords any reasonable satisfaction N. O. then proceeds § 35 That in Point of Obedience though it is most true that a Christian is bound to reject whatsoever is offred to be imposed upon his Faith which is certainly known to such Christian to have no foundation in or to be contrary to Gods Word ‖ See Dr. Stillingst Princ. 29. Consid p. 73 Yet learned Protestants do also require from such Christian that where not
not err in such Decrees where they pronounce Anathema so he seems to give to these Provincial Councils also an infallibility more than which Catholicks do not desire to be allowed to General viz. the certainty that these Fathers met in a General Councils have whether by the evidence of Scripture or of Tradition or of a necessary Consequence from something Traditional or at least of our Lord 's promised Assistance that they do not err in those things they decree though in many other things they be fallible § 67 To the Answer he makes out of Dr. Field mentioned before ‖ §. â—4 and perplexed enough I say 1. That a Council cannot justly pronounce an Anathema on any of whom some are thought by them not to deserve it 2. That it is clear these Councils do not anathematize obstinate Resisters whose obstinacy may ly in contradicting but any Dissenters inserting also their Decrees sometimes into the Creeds 3. That no Council only perswaded i.e. so as to have no doubt of the truth of what they propose which full perswasion may well consist with erring and not certain and infallible therein can justly require from others the belief of it and anathematize dissenters Unless such Judge perhaps knows that none other can be certain of the contrary to his perswasion or that all others are commanded to follow his Judgment Which things cannot be applied to Provincial Councils and this Author maintains that the power exacting an internal assent requires infallibility This to Dr. Field That a full perswasion is no just Ground for an Anathema § 68 To that which follows out of S. Paul I answer That S. Paul or a Galatian must be not only perswaded but certain of his not erring in that for the meer dissent in which he can justly anathematize Angel or Man or esteem him as an Anathema Nor may any one do this for any particular point in the Gospel controverted of the truth of which point he is perswaded only nor yet in general for the truth of the Gospel it self but as he is certain thereof which all either are or may be from the certainty of Tradition or the Galatians to whom S. Paul writ further from Miracles § 69 This to his Replies But now the Reader may observe that that to which the Dr. hath replyed is only a piece divided from the rest of what N.O. presseth to a principal part of his Plea no answer is returned As this he omits to speak to urged by N.O. That General Councils have not only Anathematized Dissenters but sometimes inserted their Decisions in the Church's Creeds and so required an internal assent and belief of them as of matters of necessary Faith Again Omits to answer to N. O's urging against him ‖ See before §. 57 58. both Archbishop Lawd's and sometimes his own asserting not only the Church in its Being but Teaching and in its General Councils if these be universally accepted to be infallible in all Necessaries his asserting also †See before §. 50. That none can justly require an internal assent as I hope the sour first Councils did but an authority that first proves it self infallible where N.O. also objects That Councils fallible according to the tenents of Protestants can justly require no more than an external obedience or silence and non-contradiction From which it follows that such Councils are infallible as do justly require more as did the four first Councils with the voluntary acknowledgment also and submission of their Subjects to such an authority assumed by them To which I add that therefore Protestants say that the Church of England requires no more than this non-Contradiction to her 39. Articles for which Dr. St. ‖ Rat. Acc. p. 55. quotes these works of Bishop Bramhal Neither do we oblige any man to believe them but only not to contradict them By which saith Dr. St. we see what a vast difference there is between these things which are required by the Church of England in order to peace not belief and those which are imposed by the Church of Rome as part of that faith extra quam non est salus And Protestants on this account condemn the Council of Trent that being a Council fallible yet it required more and made as they call it a new Creed but so say I must they condemn the first four Councils if not infallible He omits this also urged That the whole Catholick Church hath admitted the Decrees of Councils made in this stile and held the Dissenters from them Hereticks where we have the judgment of the whole Church agreeing with that of General Councils concerning their Infallibility in such Decrees § 70 Now if neither Anathematizing Dissenters nor the Councils putting their Decrees in the Church's Creeds nor the Church Catholick's afterward esteeming those Hereticks that dissented from these Councils are a sufficient evidence or proof that these Councils the Church also in accepting them accounted them infallible in these their Decrees I ask what could the most infallible Judge do or exact more Doth not the Dr. below †See p. 182 183. blame the Roman Church for assuming such an Infallibility to herself such then it is in Her though not in General Councils in requiring such a belief of her additional Articles defined in Trent as of the most fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith And here in what hath been urged out of him but now doth not the Dr grant the just requiring of an internal assent to inferr Infallibility And so must he not either hold the first Councils infallible or that they injustly required such assent unjustly put their Definitions in the Creeds lastly erroneously the Church diffusive accepted of their Definitions as such and esteemed the contrary Tenents Heresies against the faith Must he not either hold that these Councils knew not this he saith that unless infallible they might not do such things nor else took themselves for infallible when they were not But whom shall we believe herein them or the Dr rather And if holding themselves fallible why used they such language In Spiritu Sancto congregati and Hac est Fides Catholica relating partly to their own Definition And after all if fallible they were what assurance hath any Christian that he hath not erred in his Creed Can any one prepare a better Plea for the Socinians than this man hath done Or here since I hope He will not with Mr. Chillingworth and against the judgment of the whole Catholick Church deny that the four first General Councils did these things justly will he deserting his former opinion justly the lawfulness of a Council that grants it self fallible in such its decrees notwithstanding to do all these things And then may not the Council of Trent rightly do so And lastly for what good reason then may the Church of England be said to forbear the using such authority I say a Solution of such difficulties urged by N.O. I finde not
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
in not erring or in believing aright in necessaries here granted to the Church Governours in like manner as to Mechanicks but only their Infallibility in Teaching to others the same necessary things which they themselves believe and by their Infallibility here is meant not passively their not being deceived but actively their not deceiving And that N. O in proving these Church-Governours their believing aright in necessaries hath lost his labour his discourse proceeding as the Dr saith from a very false way of reasoning from believing to teaching To which that I may not be here further tedious in repeating the same things I desire the Reader to review what hath been said to this in the former Discourse § 38. p. 26. Ib. l. 9. Urged as N. O's arguing If God will not be wanting to particular persons in matters necessary to their salvation much less will he be wanting to the Guides of the Church in all matters of faith N.O. inferrs or urgeth no such thing But this is justly inferred Not wanting to the Church Guides in all Necessary matters of faith See note on p. 104. l. 15. Meanwhile from what motive thinks this Author comes that profession of Dr Hammond concerning all matters of faith ‖ Of Heresy §. 14. n. 6. We do not believe that any General Council truly such ever did or shall err in any matter of faith he means in defining it And that of Bishop Bramhal †Vindic. e. 2. p. 9. We are most ready in all our differences to stand to the judgment of a free General Council Ib. l. 5 He goes on No certainly unless it be proved that their guidance is the only means whereby men can understand what is necessary to salvation The following words infer the guidance of Church Governors need to be no means of this at all God having as he saith in the following words provided otherwise for that by giving so clear a Rule in matters necessary that no man who sincerely endeavours to know such things shall fail therein Unless he means the Rule to be clear so as that it needs an Expositor But then should not he say so obscure rather i.e. as to some things and call for a sincere endeavour in private men to learn the sense of it from their Guides and that they may have the more confidence in their guidance should not he tell them with N.O. at least that Scriptures that are so clear to them rude and unlearned cannot but be so to their Guides more versed and studied in them Pag. 142. l. 13. Besides that no man that is acquainted with the proceedings of the Council of Trent will see reason to be over-confident of the sincerity of Councils so palpably influenced by the Court of Rome The sincerity and just proceedings of the Council of Trent are ill learnt from such persons of a contrary interest If all Bishops rightly have an influence on Councils much more ought the Prime Patriarch and other Bishops that assist him Annotations on §. 10. Of the Authority of the Guides of the Church PAg. 142. l. 4 God hath entrusted every man with a faculty of discerning truth and fashood supposing that there were no persons in the world to direct or guide him The Reader may be pleased to review the brief Replyes made to what the Dr urgeth here till his page 150 in the preceding Discourse from § 40. to 47. With a faculty of discerning truth and falshood Meaneth he so as every one to be able to discerne truth from falshood in every thing without any Guide or instructer This is denied In such indefinite terms lies great ambiguity and deceit Pag. 143. l. 13 I hope no one will deny this Nor N.O. doth not In some truths and falshoods more easy ones own judgment or reason may be sufficient in others harder not as put the case in his judging of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Articles of the Trinity Pag. 144. l. 9. All which were to no purpose at all if men were not to continue the exercise of their own judgments about these matters viz matters of Religion Exercise of private mens judgments in all things General Councils Church-Governours N. O allow For this also is an act of our judgment when by it rightly used we find it our duty to submit these our judgments or the particular reasons we have for or against such a point in Religion to the judgment of our Canonical Superiours in such matters as are defined by them and not clear to us Ib. l. 11. Accordingly we find the Apostles appealing to the judgments of private and fallible persons concerning what they said to them It is true All may search all things and welcome For all Truths among right searchers bear witness one to another And after such search if rightly made they may disobey or dissent from the contrary doctrine of an Apostle Yet this also is true that whenever they shall so dissenâ— such judgment is not rightly made which the more it is used rightly the more is one confirmed in the doctrine of our Lord and his Apostles and so of General Councils And in all matters not otherwise clear to them this judgment rightly used will still direct them to obedience of their right and Canonical Pastors But by this bidding the people search and try our Lord or his Apostles secured none if after 〈◊〉 used they either dissented from their doctrine or disobeyed 〈◊〉 commands because in a right judgment made of thâ—◠〈…〉 could not do so And therefore the Apostles commanded 〈…〉 persons as supposing these two things belief of their 〈…〉 and the Vse of ones Judgment well consisting together 〈…〉 fast and firm in the doctrines delivered to them by theâ—◠〈…〉 and not to be carried away with every doctrine becauâ—◠〈…〉 Pastors appointed to guide them and to observe those 〈…〉 sed any Divisions among them contrary to the Doctrâ—â—â—◠〈…〉 and to reject any person heretical c. See Rom. 16. 〈…〉 11.2 Phil. 4.9 Heb. 13.7 1 Tim. 6.10 2 Tim. 3.10.14 Tit. 1.9 3.10 Eph. 4.11 13. Pag. 145. l. 10 They are frequently charged to beware of seducers and false Guides I add and frequently charged to follow their true and Canonical Church-Governours that they may not be misled by those false Guides See the Texts now quoted to which may be added Jude 4. here quoted by our Author Ib. l. 7 They are told that there should come a falling away c. All this more makes for a most close adherence especially of the more simple and less able to examine Controversies to their Canonical Superiours and for their rejecting the doctrines of those Spirits whom upon trial they find to oppose them Being assured from our Lords Promises of lawful General Councils the supreme Church-authority their never erring in things necessary Pag. 146. l. 9. Both shall fall into the ditch We have heard the Dr's plea hitherto Now is it any wonder that Sects so multiply in a
find no command so plain in Scripture that we must believe the Guides of the Church in all they deliver as there is that we must not worship Images See the Scriptures declaring Church-Infallibility as to Necessaries and commanding obedience to it cited before in Note on p. 113. l. 14. The Scriptures that prohibit worshiping of Images do so of any Creature in heaven earth or under it but meane a Divine and Soveraign Worship of them not such a Worship as we say is lawfully given to Men or veneration as is given to Sacred Things Temples Altars Gospels c. He goes on Ib. l. 5. That we must pray with understanding Therefore are all publick Formes of Prayer that are thought necessary for the vulgar by Catholicks translated and published in the vulgar tongue and by those who can read communicated to others Ib. l. 6. That we must keep to our Saviours Institution of the Lords Supper Surely no Precept obligeth us to our Lords Institution or Practice in every thing not in communicating after Supper Sitting at table taking it into our hands washing of feet before it nor in communicating always in both kinds a thing sufficiently cleared by the practice of Antiquity and purest times which on several occasions and that where no absolute necessity gave it in one kind only believing our Lord's Body and Blood to be received in any one Species Now where a Divine Precept obligeth the contrary Practice in no time would be lawful The Eastern Churches also for the same reason as the West viz to prevent the many abuses and irreverences that have hapned since Christianity so exceedingly populous communicate the people not by their eating our Lord's Body and drinking his Blood apart but by giving them both these together taken out of the Chalice with a little Spoon and so putting it into their mouths and think herein they transgress no Precept So Jo. 6.53 is not understood as a precept extending to all for so it would to Infants Nor that Jo. 13.14 Or Jam. 5.14.15 Or Matt. 6.17 5.34 and such like Ib. l. 7. But if any Guides of a Church pretend to an authority to evacuate the force of these the Divine Laws c. Evacuate i.e. in the sense you take them in standing to no certain Judge concerning this sense Ib. l. 15. If they require things contrary to a direct command of God Contrary i.e. in your mistaken private judgment Ib. l. 18. If they the Guides can prove us mistaken we yield No surely Your own soberest Writers say you are to obey and submit your judgment to that of your Guides except you can prove and that demonstratively and that demonstration such as is allowed by all rational persons them to be mistaken Ib. l. 8 I would gladly know whether there be not some points of faith and some parts of our duty so plain that no Church authority determining the contrary ought to be obeyed And will not then those also be so plain as that no Church-Authority will determine the contrary This granted then that there are points of faith so plain yet it is contended that none wherein General Councils require our obedience are contradictory to any such plain point of faith How can that be maintained by any a plain truth to the common reason of mankind which a General Council and a major part of the Church accepting this Council denies as false And if it be said that passions and interests blind men we ought to imagine they do so private men or our selves sooner than General Councils In this 7th Proposition p. 149. what hath our Author said in defence of his Religion against Church-Authority that a Socinian or Arian may not say for his Pag. 152. l. 12. These Guides of the Church have declared each other to be fallible by condemning their opinions and practices Lawful General Councils have not condemned the opinions of one another And what former Councils have been held for lawfully General where any doubt is made it is fit private men should learne from their present supreme Ecclesiastical Guides Those Councils urged for this contradiction by Protestants are either Particular against General Councils or Councils stiled General that are not allowed to be so by the judgment of the present Church Catholick Or those definitions of them to contradict which do not in the foresaid judgment or opinions commonly-received only in some age urged for such defined Ib. l. 18. Suppose a man Living in the times of the prevalency of Arianisme when almost all the Guides of the Church declared in favour of it Arianisme at no time prevailed upon a greater part of the Church or its Governours That of S. Jerome Ingemuit totus orbis miratus est se esse Arianum only signifies that the whole Catholick world wondred that its Decree which passed in the great Council at Ariminum was interpreted by the Arian party which was favoured by the Emperour quite contrary to its meaning Doth the Dr as yet doubt of this He goes on Ib. l. ult Must he adhere to the Nicene Council but there were more numerous Councils which condemned it Yes he must Because those Arian Councils if any more numerous for the Bishops that were present in them Whereas there were but a very few of the Western Bishops present in the Council of Nice yet had not so general an acceptation especially in the Occidental Churches As for any illiterate vulgar that have not a sufficient means of distinguishing lawful General Councils from others not so that contradict them they are excused by their invincible ignorance till further light for any non-conformity to their Decrees And generally where any dispute concerning the authority of a Council is private men may so long suspend their obedience to their decrees till a sufficiently general acceptation or reprobation of such Councils by the Church-Governours and the Bishop of the Apostolick See of the same or the succeeding times have cleared such difficulty But such a general Acceptation and confirmation of this Council of Nice was manifest immediately after the sitting thereof And of this those who made any doubt ought to have informed themselves better But meanwhile by this Question doth not this Authour fairly free a Socinian from any obedience due to the decree of the Nicene Council concerning Consubstantiality Pag. 153. l. 4. Liberius went so far that Hilary denounced an Anathema against him N. 1 and all that joined with him The Relation in which this passage is found is none of S. Hilary's See thereasons given by Baronius A. D. 357. The Historians of those times differ in their Records concerning Liberius some speaking more favourable of him than others The Syrmian Confession subscribed by him may be taken in an orthodox sense and it is justified as such by S. Hilary ‖ De Synod And if he communicated only with such a party as those called Semi-Arians who joined with him in this profession though understood by them in a sense
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
differing about Rebaptization from other Christian Churches were observing their subordination to submit to the judgment of a Council Oecumenical A private man then where are many different Churches and Communions ought to consider under what particular Governours he liveth and in what manner they are subordinate to others and accordingly in any differences happening about points which he is not at leisure to study or hath not capacity to understand or after study is not certain on any side to yield his obedience and submit his judgment to the Superiours As in England a division happening in the Clergy thereof I suppose our Author would advise one that thus doubts in a point controverted in case the Parson of his Parish opposeth the Bishop of the Diocese or this Bishop all the other Bishops of the Province or of the Nation to submit to the judgment of the Bishop or of the Provincial or National Synod rather than to his Parson And that He would not enjoin such private person or tell him he is obliged for the settling of his judgment to study the whole Controversy debated between such Parson and his Bishop to collate their arguments and then make himself Judge at least for himself which of them is in the right wherein also should it be done the incapacity of the man or also his passion or interest on one side may easily misguide him and he fare much worse by his liberty than his obedience And this thing seems also intended by the National Synod of England in their drawing up the 39. Articles they say for taking away Diversity of Opinion which thing they do not there pretend to effect * by their confuting with arguments satisfactory to their subjects all those opinions they there disallow for no such satisfaction is offered no such thing is done by them but * by the submitting of their subjects not skilled in such matters nor certain of the contrary to their Judgment as the Supreme of this National Church N. 2 The same then let any doubting person do in any higher division and opposition of Metropolitan Churches suppose in the Western Patriarchy wherein he lives Let him examine which is the most Vniversal Body of them which the most dignified Persons and submit to their Guidance which as it is more safely relyed on may be easilier examined than the Controversies and indeed is a case clear and obvious enough to the most of men And as for others their invincible ignorance it is hoped may excuse their errour Where also let such a person consider whether such Councils as are assembled of most of the National Churches in the West joined with the Patriarch of it and deciding the many points disputed in these Western parts are not to be submitted-to by all private persons not certain of the contrary to their Decisions as how should they be so before a National only of the English Bishops especially if these opposing them in those things wherein for the most part the Eastern Churches also agree with them And if any here for standing out against this major authority should plead Certainty on his side as Archbishop Lawd and others do then let him consider how few there are among Christians so well seen in all these Controversies themselves as to withdraw their obedience on this account whilst it seems agreed that all others ought leaving these Certainists by themselves to conform to the Decrees of the Superiour Courts Ib. l. 10 What then makes those Churches the Eastern to be left out in our enquiries after the Guides of the Catholick Church How orthodox and Catholick soever the Eastern Churches may be one living in the Western Church owes no Canonical subjection or obedience to them whose whole care it ought to be to pay it where it is due according to the forementioned subordination which done he cannot miscarry as to all necessary Faith But however I think Dr St. might have spared the Description and proposal of these to a Protestants choice by reason of their many tenents in the Points controverted and particularly in those of Transubstantiation and the Idolatry of Images and Invocation of Saints agreeing with or also some of them more disliked than the Roman Pag. 174. l. 9 Now of these five parts four of them Nestorians Eutychians Greeks and Protestant Churches are all agreed that there is no necessity of living in subjection to the Guides of the Roman Church As they are agreed so it is granted For Example that the Metropolitan Church of England owes no subjection to the Metropolitan Church of Rome nor to the Pope as the Metropolitan thereof And the other three owe him no subjection neither as he is Patriarch of the West but the fourth doth and yielded it together with other Occidental Churches till of late But meanwhile the Eastern Churches are agreed that they owe all subjection and submission of judgment to the Definitions of lawful General Councils and on this account render it to the 2d Nicene and that these Councils are infallible in them for which see what is cited in the precedent Discourse § 56. And from the determination of these Councils do the same Churches entertain several Opinions rejected by Protestants Ib. l. 3. Only those of the Church of Rome take upon themselves against all sense and reason to be the Catholick Church and so exclude four parts of five out of a capacity of salvation The Roman Church confesseth it self a particular Church and only a part of the Catholick Nor doth it exclude any other Churches from being true parts thereof save those which are Heretical or Schismatical both which Hereticks and Schismaticks I think learned Protestants exclude also from being members of the Catholick Church See Dr Field l. 4. c. 2. That the Visible Church he means Catholick never falleth into Heresy we most willingly grant And l. 1. c. 7. The name of Orthodox Church is applied to distinguish right-believing Christians from Hereticks the name of the Catholick Church men holding the Faith in unity from Schismaticks Nor doth the Roman Church deny in such Heretical or Schismatical Churches a capacity or possibility of salvation to all generally but only as I think Protestants also do to those among them that are formerly guilty of the crimes of Heresy or Schisme because indeed either of these is a mortal sin and so unrepented of excluding from salvation Lastly Heretical the Roman Church with all Antiquity takes those to be that maintain the contrary to any known Definition in a matter of faith of a lawful General Council and Schismatical those that upon any cause whatever do separate from the Communion of the present Church Catholick and their true Superiour Ecclesiastical Guides Pag. 175. l. 11. When he finds so many Churches and those not inferiour to the Roman Church in any thing save only in pomp pride and uncharitableness Eph. 4.31 And evil-speaking be put away from you Et blasphemia tollatur a vobis cum omni
malitiâ Ib. l. 13. All saith He opposing Infallibility in it In the Church of Rome but not in the Church Catholick which or whereever it be He proceeds Ib. l. 15. What reason can he have supposing that he is to submit to any Guides that he must submit only to those of the Roman Church Why not as well to those of the Eastern Greek or Protestant-Churches Persons and Churches are to submit only to their lawful Canonical Superiours Persons or Councils And so are to avoid such Persons or Churches as these do declare Heretical or Schismatical whom they come to know or are to believe to be so from such Declaration without a necessity of studying the particular Controversies the Supreme Court of which Superiours a General Council of these Church-Guides cannot misguide them in any thing necessary to be known and the Decrees also of others inferiour though fallible yet in all prudence are to be obeyed and believed wherever themselves have no Certainty of the contrary It follows Ib. l. 11. If any one goes about to assign a reason by charging them with Heresy or Schisme He unavoidably makes him Judge of some of the greatest difficulties in Religion before he can submit to his infallible Guides No. For by other ways forementioned ‖ See Note on p. 173. l. 5 a private person comes to know his true Guides and Superiours and from them learns what is and what persons are guilty of Heresy and Schisme Else all men must turn Students in Divinity or know nothing of Heresy or Schisme He proceeds Ib. l. 7 He must know what Nestorianisme Eutychianisme Monothelisme mean This being supposed that all Heresies and Schisms are to be avoided by all good Christians I see not without dependence on our Guides for knowing these but that all Protestants are obliged by this Author to take the course he here sets down through two or three pages Let him consider better on it Unless he will make all Heresy and Schisme manifest to all men learned or unlearned upon the vertue of his 13th Principle Pag. 177. l. 6. All these things a man must fully be satisfied in before he can pronounce those Churches guilty of Heresy and so not to be followed See Note on p. 175. l. 10 Ib. l. 10. Why must the Greek Church which embraces all the Councils which determined those subtle controversies be rejected The Greeks embracing these Councils may lawfully be rejected for Heresy if opposing what other like Councils have defined and so may the Protestants or yet either of these if guilty of Schisme Ib. l. 12 Here a man must examine the notes of the Church c. i.e. Examine some Indications and marks of it sufficient to sway and determine his judgment Which examination is easy and obvious See before Note on p. 173. l. 5. without his studying that particular Note of its Consent with Primitive Church Of which thus N.O. had spoken before p. 89. after having recited S. Austins common Marks Where also saith he according to the disparity of several mens capacities I suppose nothing more to be necessary than that this evidence received either from all or only some of these Notes to those who have not ability to examine others be such as that it outweigh any arguments moving him to the contrary and such as the like evidence is thought sufficient to determine us in other Elections And then this Church thus being found he may be resolved by it concerning the sense of other Divine Revelations more dubious and generally touching all other difficulties to him in Religion to wit so far as this Church from time to time seeth a necessity of such Resolution and the Divine Revelation therein is to her sufficiently clear only if such person not spending so much of his own Judgment will afford in stead of it a little more of his Obedience And thus p. 81. In case these Guides Persons or Churches for both have a subordination shall disagree yet every Christian may easily know whose judgments among them he ought to follow namely always of that Church-authority that is the Superiour which in most cases is indisputable this Ecclesiastical Body being placed by the Divine Providence in an exact Subordination As here in England it is not doubted whether we are to pay our Obedience rather to a National Synod than to a Diocesan to the Arch-Bishop or Primate than to an ordinary Bishop or Presbyter And then he who hath some experience in Church-affairs if willing to take such a course cannot but discerne what way the major part of Christendome and its higher and more comprehensive Councils that have hitherto been do guide him And the more simple and ignorant who so can come know nothing better ought to follow the example of the more experienced See below Note on p. 251. l. 8 n. 6. Pag. 178. l. 10 He must think me a very easy man to yield a submission of my understanding till I be satisfied first that God hath appointed such to be may Guides and in the next place that he hath promised Infallibility to them If I am satisfied of the first that God hath appointed such to be my Guides I may safely commit my self to their guideship in all things where I want it i.e. in all my uncertainties without enquiring after the next their Infallibility Ib. l. 2 We desire to know whom they mean by these Guides and at last we understand them to be the Biship of Rome and his Clergy No. They are the universal Clergy Persons and Synods that are set over us by Christ ranked in a due subordination in Persons ascending here in these Occidental Churches to the Patriarch of the West in Synods to a Patriarchal or General Council And in any dissension among these the Superiour Persons or Synods are our true Guides Pag. 179. l. 2. Here we demurr and own no authority the Bishop of Rome hath over us Then we do not what we ought He being justly the Patriarch of the West and the Prime Patriarch of the Catholick Church and the President in General Councils Ib. l. 4. We have all the rights of a Patriarchal Church I suppose He means of a Primate and Metropolitan Church Primats having somtimes had the title of Patriarchs But these rights are such as are subordinate to other higher Persons and Councils and this of England is but one of the Western Provinces the Bishops whereof constitute a Patriarchal Council And what remedy would there be of suppressing the Heresies or Schisms that may and often have infected such Provincial or National Churches if there were no superiour Church-Authority above them Ib. l. 12. To these viz. the Bishops of our own Church who are our lawful Guides we promise a due obedience But neither are they our lawful Guides nor our obedience to them due should any or all of them be Heretical Schismatical or opposing their Superiours In such case those not they are our right Guides Ib. l. 15.
For the Bishop and Clergy of Rome we owe none to them Nor none is required save to the Roman Bishop as S. Peter's Successour and Supreme Pastor of the Church and Patriarch of the Weâ—â— more as to any submission of the Metropolitan English to the Metropolitan Roman Church these being co-ordinate 〈◊〉 not desired Ib. l. 7 We are not to submit to those who are lawful Guides in alâ— things they may require Yes To submit to all their Definitions if they Supreme Yes though they fallible yet to submit in all things where we not certain say learned Protestants Pag. 180. l. 9. So my adversary N. O. in his Preface saith that by the principles we hold we excuse and justify all Sects which have or shall separate from our Church By the Principles we hold i.e. by the Dr's and some other's Principles the followers of Chillingworth Excuse and justify Sects N. O. saith not that you excuse or justify them in every thing but in this one thing that every one of them may undertake to be his own Guide in Necessaries upon such a Principle as the Dr's 13th since the sense of Scripture in all these points is said to be so plain as none well endeavouring can mistake it and then for non-necessaries what need they seek for a Guide * Or that Since none owe submission of their judgment to * their Ecclesiastical Superiours every one may follow their own Or that if you may depart from your Superiours Persons or Councils upon just cause of which cause you say it is all reason that you not your Superiours judge then so may they from you upon any cause they also think just * Or that if there be no decisive Judge for differences between you and your Superiours to whom you can be obliged so neither is there for differences between them and you * and that as you appeale from your Ecclesiastical Superiours to Evidence of Scripture so seeming to you in your cause so may they from you in theirs Exemplified at large in the Socinian's Plea in the 4th Discourse concerning the Guide in Controversies Hence I say Sects take liberty in this Church I think contrary to the intention of the 4th and 5th Canon of the Synod 1603. to hold and believe what opinions they please though different from the Church of England's Articles since they think she cannot justly require an Assent from her Subjects which she denies to her Superiours In this thing it is that N. O. saith you seem to justify these Sects that daily fall from you upon such a mistaken Christian liberty from Obedience to their Guides who also observes ‖ p. 98. that Dr St's Principles that appear in the defence of the Religion established in the Church of England for any thing he sees make the same A pology also for all those other Protestant parties and Sects disclaimed by it But N. O. is far from saying that you excuse and justify these Sects in every thing they do or differ-in from you or that you do not dissent from them in many things very just on your side culpable on theirs which may be granted and the other thing still be true viz that Dr St's Principles make an equal Apology for all dividing Partyes as to several other their practices And therefore much of that He saith in the Consequents here to that purpose seems no way pertinent to N. O's Observation Ib. l. 12 We appeale to the doctrine and practice of the truly Catholick Church in the matters of difference between us and the Church of Rome Compare p. 182. l. 7. we are as ready as they to stand to the unanimous consent of Fathers and to Vincentius Lerinensis his Rules of Antiquity Vniversality and Consent we declare let the things in despute be proved to have been the practice of the Christian Church in all Ages we are ready to submit to them N. 1 1. First here by appealing and standing to the doctrine and practice of the Catholick Church doth He mean submission of his private judgment to the doctrines taught by it But what if the Catholick Church be fallible in such its doctrine as I think he saith it is see before § 7. p. 118. When I speak of Infallibility i.e. of the Catholick Church in fundamentals I there declare that I mean no more by it than that there shall be always a number of true Christians in the world And Protestants ordinarily affirm that in non-necessaries the whole Catholick Church of any age and consequently the unanimous consent of the Fatherâ— or Primitive times may err nor will they here allow the Church-Governours of any Age to be the Judges of the necessity or non-necessity of the doctrines they teach I say then what if the Catholick Church be fallible in such its Doctrine And next what if he should be Certain of the contrary as possibly he may How therefore he can rightly engage thus I see not Again in this truly Catholick Church to whose doctrine and practice he will submit doth he include all particular Christian at least Metropolitan Churches and so his own which there is no reason for if Heretical or Schismatical Churches be extra-Catholick And by the consent of these Churches doth he require an unanimous and universal consent of them all so that if any suppose his own do dissent he shall be disobliged But thus he makes sure work and may safely venture his submission upon these terms for if his own Church be but true to him or he to himself he shall not be cast And an Arian an Eutychian a Quaker and Heretick or Schismatick may safely make such an appeal Again by the doctrine of the true Catholick Church means he the Catholick Church of the present age which is the only now living Judge to be appealed-to and to decide any thing concerning former times if question be made about it Or means he not this but the Church of all ages past taken together and next means he the universal and unanimous consent of this Catholick Church also nemine contradicente As Bishop Tailour also elsewhere ‖ Dissuasive c. 1. p. 7. saith That it is impossible for the Roman Doctours to conclude from the sayings of Fathars their Doctrines to be the Catholick doctrin of the ancient Church Because saith he any number that is lesse than all doth not prove a Catholick Consent If the Dr then mean thus Here he is as safe or safer from being refuted than before and whereas he requires this consent also to be proved to him he that undertakes it would have a fine task For it is to be proved universally as to Persons Times Places none of any age left out well suting with Vincentius his Rule which therefore he saith he is content to follow and stand to Quod ab omnibus quod ubique qùod semper if it is to be so rigidly understood But as Dr Hammond notes upon this Rule ‖ Of Heresy §. 5. n. 8.
That for the universality of Time it must be centiously understood not so as to signify it a prejudice to any doctrine if in some one or more ages it had not been universally received for then there could be no heretick as any time in the would So must it be observed also for Universality of Place and of Consenters in that these also must be cautiously understood not so as to signify it a prâ—judice to any doctrine if in some one or more places or by some persons or also Churches dissenting it hath not been universally received for else there could be so also no Hereticks at any time in the world This of the just qualifying of Vincentius his Rule N. 2 But here on the other side will our Author submit to that which is but reasonably proposed submit his judgment to the Doctrine and Practice of the truly Catholick Church in present being since that of former ages after the Apostles is no more infallible than the present or that of any one age than of another and since as to not failing in Necessaries the promises of our Lord are made to all Ages alike and General Councils in all ages have equal power one as another of making Definitions in matters of faith and inserting them also in the Creeds if they see fit And again in any differences that may be in this present Catholick Church will he allow a much major part hereof to give the law to and conclude the whole so as it did in the first four General Councils and as it is used in all Courts consisting of many and which thing unless allowed no Heresy or Schisme in the Catholick Church can be suppressed by Its Judgment because all Heresy or Schisme hath a party and the chief and most dangerous Hereticks have been Bishops Primates and also Patriarchs so that the Dr's plea cannot exempt the Church of England from this trial by his calling it a Patriarchal Church ‖ p. 179. Or since it also is controverted what hath been the Common Doctrine of former ages or of the Fathers will he for the decision of this submit to the judgment herein of the much major part of the present Church Catholick or of Christianity or of his Canonical Superiours i.e. submit to the most common reason of the Church that reades the Fathers Writings If he will do this as in all reason he should then as to many of these points in difference between Protestants and the Church of Rome and particularly in these the so much now decried Transubstantiation and the necessary consequent of it Adoration and those other points exclaimed against Veneration of Images and Relicks Invocation of Saints as also in this point what was the judgment of Antiquity in these whose doctrine this major part of the Church declares themselves in these things to follow I say in all these and many others He will be cast even by the confession of Protestants who also acknowledge their discession at the Reformation to have been made a toto mundo and as well from the Greek as Latin Church Or to be short will he submit to the judgment of a lawful General Council if it hath determined any of these differences or of what Councils do appear to have had the acceptation both of the East and West excepting Protestants But such Concessions often used by him in general signify nothing and his true Plea seems contrary to it viz. his 13th Principle which is Clearness of Scripture to all persons in all Necessaries which if granted what needs herein the guidance of and submission to the Clergy either of the past or present age Ib. l. 5 Let the things in dispute be proved c. And who to judge of this proof your selves Or Superiour Councils rather Ib. l. 2 But those who separate from the Church of England make c. This is nothing to that particular wherein N. O. said the Dr justified Sects mentioned before in Note on p. 180. l. 9. Pag. 181. l. 12. We defend the Government of the Church by Bishops to be the most ancient and Apostolical Government and that no persons can have sufficient reason to cast that off which hath been so universally received in all Ages since the Apostles times if there have been disputes among us about the nature of the differences between the two Orders and the necessity of it in order to the Being of a Church such there have been in the Church of Rome too Here if by defending the Government of the Church by Bishops to be the most Ancient and Apostolical Government he means exclusively to a Government in other places by a Presbytery without Bishops its being as ancient and Apostolical as it Whenas contrary to this in his Irenicum he saith ‖ par 2. c. 6. That in all probability the Apostles did not observe any one fixed course of settling Church-Government but settled it according to the several circumstances of time places and persons And p. 344. That the Apostles did not establish Episcopacy from any unalterable Law of Christ or from any such indispensable reasons as will equally hold in all times places and persons and there ‖ c. 2. p. 395. 396. quotes that incomparable man as he stiles him Mr Hales in his Tract of Schism saying That Bishops by Christs institution I add or Apostolical Constitution for this also would oblige have no Superiority over men further than of Reverence And making all difference between Church-officers to arise from consent of Parties and to the same purpose cites Arch-bishop Cranmer ‖ p. 391. where perhaps he might have done well to have followed the discretion of the former times in not thus publishing and exposing the nakednes of this Father of the English Reformation From all which it follows that the Government by Bishops as understood contradistinct to not the same with that of Presbyters is no Constitution Apostolical and that if it arise only from consent of Parties by consent of Parties also it may be removed Again in what he saith next That no persons can have sufficient reason to cast that off which hath been so universally received in all Ages since the Apostles times if he means No Magistrate Ecclesiastical or Civil hath any lawful power to cast off or change the Church-Government by Bishops whereas he saith the contrary to this in his Irenicum and from Bishop Downham Mason and some others their allowing a Presbyterial Government only in case of necessity viz. where Bishops cannot be had argues thus ‖ part 2. c. 8. Conclusion It remains saith he that the determining of the form of Gorernment is a matter of liberty in the Church and what is so may be determined i.e. either way by lawful authority and what is so determined by that anthority doth bind men to obedience Thus he A matter of liberty in the Church What where Bishops may be had where is no case of necessity This follows
77. That none are obliged to such a necessary belief of them as that a person nescient of them cannot be saved or that the explicite knowledge of them is absolutely necessary though always in some manner beneficial it is to salvation but that this indeed is necessary to salvation that any subject of the Church when knowing them to be determined by her obey her definitions and not reject or dissent from them Such disobedience being conceived a mortall breach of Gods command Ib. l. 11 But nothing of this nature can be objected against our Church by dissenters But this is objected by them that Assent is required to the Common Prayer Book and 39. Articles as containing in them nothing erroneous or repugnant to Scripture upon Excommunication if any one affirm it till such person repents of such his wicked errour and without any qualification that such assent be yielded only as far as the same Articles are agreeable to Gods Word Here then I ask Whether such a wicked errour and herein such an obstinate disobedience to ones lawful Spiritual Superiours and continuance out of their communion unrepented-of is not held by the Church of England to exclude such person from being a member of Christs Body and from Salvation Which Church declares Art 33. concerning a just excommunication That the person which by open denunciation of the Church is rightly cut off from the unity of the Church and excommunicated ought to be tâ—ken of the whole multitude of the faithful as an heathen and a Publican until he be openly reconciled by Penance and received into the Church by a Judge that hath authority thereunto Of which matter thus also Calvin ‖ Instit 4. c. 12. §. 4. Nequis tale Ecclesiae judicium spernat aut parvi astimet se fidelium suffragiis damnatum testatus est Dominus istud ipsum nihil aliud esse quà m sententiae suae promulgationem ratumque haberi in coelis quod illi in terrâ egerint and § 10. Qui Ecclesiae censurâ speaking of a just Excommunication by a Church Reformed excommunicantur suae etiam ipsorum perpetuae damnationis nisi resipuerint certi fiunt Ib. l. 4 That it was necessary to salvation to be in subjection to the Bishop of Rome The words in the Lateran Council under Leo are these In Ecclesiâ esse non potest qui Romani Pontificis Cathedram deserit It is necessary to salvation that one be in the Church Catholick be nâ— Heretick or Schismatick but yield obedience to his lawful Ecclesiastical Superiours the Supreme amongst whom is the Bishop of Rome the Successour of S. Peter in the Prime Apostolick See who also presides in and confirms lawful General Councils So that Obedience to all lawful General Councils in this sense involveth also obedience to him their President Pag. 184. l. 1. The Guides of the Roman Church pretend to as immediate authority of obliging the consciences of men as Christ or his Apostles had Means he not here requiring Assent to their Decrees upon Anathema But let him then urge this against lawful General Councils which have practised it and declared such matters to oblige mens consciences to obedience as being Gods Word But if he means here that the Roman Church pretends such an immediate authority in obliging mens consciences as to her Injunctions or Conâ—titutions in matters indifferent and no way commanded by God i.e. as if she enjoined their obedience also to them as to things necessary and commanded by God this is utterly denied and makes the Church contradict her self for if they are commanded by God how are they enjoined as things indifferent But the Church affirms men are bound in conscience to obey these not because they are divine Commands but only because the Persons are obliged by the Divine Command which binds the Conscience to obey the Church's Command in all such matters Necessary such things are to be observed because the Church commands them and men also bound in conscience to observe them because they are commanded by God to obey such Commands of the Church And this obligation of Conscience I think the Dr admits as well as Catholicks See his Irenieum c. 2. p. 65. where he saith that What is left undetermined by the Divine Law if it be determined by lawful Authority in the Church of God doth bind the Consciences of those who are subject to such authority to obedience to those determinations and cites for it Rom. 13.5 that we are to be subject to these Governours for Conscience sake The Church may pretend to any authority our Lord or his Apostles have given it without dishonouring or degrading or equalling themselves to the Donor He goes on Ib. l. 6. But our Guides challenge no more than teaching men to do what Christ had commanded them and in other things not commanded or forbidden to give rules which on the account of the General Commands of Scripture they look on the members of our Church as obliged to observe Obliged to observe I hope he means as obeying here a just authority and not as he explains himself in his Irenicum ‖ cha 2. §. 7. â— 46 Thus far I acknowlege a binding power in Ecelesiastical Constitutions that though they neither bind by vertue of the matter nor of the authority commanding there being no legislative power lodged in the Church yet in respect of the circumstances and the end they should be obeyed unless I judge the thing unlawful that is commanded rather than manifest open contempt of the Pastors of the Church or bring a scandal to others And here when the Church of England thus obligeth her subjects to the practice of such things as she holds indifferent unless she makes this a condition of her obligation if they first hold them lawful she obligeth them also to hold such things lawful since none may practise any thing apprehended by his conscience to be unlawful Lastly as the Church of England hath authority to give Rules in things neither commanded nor forbidden by God so I ask Hath she no authority in Controversies of Faith for the deciding them See Art 29th of the Church of England Ib. l. 17. In the Church of Rome it is accounted as much a mortall sin to disobey their Guides in the most indifferent things as to disobey God in the plain commands of Scripture As much No. But as well for Mortal Sins admit degrees And Mandata Ecclesiastica non anteponi sed postponi debere dicimus Divinis Praceptis ‖ Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif l. 4. c. 17. saith the Cardinal Though all disobeying our Superiours in lawful things is also disobeying God when He in such commanding obedience to them Again As well a Mortal Sin in some disobedience of these Governours but not in all not in things of no great consequence in respect of the benefit or damage that is received by the doing or omitting them And lastly these things are extended as well to the Laws of
in the plainness of Scripture to all well endeavouring capacities and conditions he will make an amends for now in the restraining of Necessaries On whose Judgment I pray is it fit a particular person should rely in this Question which seems of great concernment What or how many points are to be called Necessary On Mr Chilling worth's or the Dr's Or on that of the Supreme Guides of the Church assembled in her General Councils who from time to time declare to Christians by their Decrees as the Apostles did in the first General Council Act. 15. what is Necessary for them to believe what to practise against all such erroneous Tenents as shall arise in the Church that may any way pervert their Faith or Manners Ib. l. 7 If a person then by reading and considering those things which are plain may do what Christ requires all that which Christ requires for his salvation what necessity hath such a one to trouble himself about an infallible Guide I add or Any Guide at all as to those For either he may go to heaven without him without having any such Guide fallible or infallible or not If he may let him the Dr shew the necessity such Guide is of to that end which may be attained without him if not then the things necessary to salvation cannot be known without him as the Dr saith before they may by ones reading and considering those things which are plain and doing all those things Christ requires for his salvation So easily may his arguing against an infallible serve as well against any Guide at all Meanwhile N.O. affirms some Persons cannot Know all Necessaries without a Judge Pag. 190. l. 12. But doth S. Peter say 2. Epist c. 3.16 that the Scriptures are so hard to be understood that sober and devout minds cannot learn therein what is necessary to their salvation Yes if the sober and devout be unlearned as they may be Cannot learn therein all that is necessary for surely where the erring therein works their destruction the right sense is necessary for their salvation Ib. l. 11 Which men that wanted-judgment were ready to pervert to their own mischief c. As some may want that are sober devout and diligent and which want of Judgment as to some no care or diligence can remove Ib. l. 9 But if there be such difficulties in S. Paul's Epistles is there nothing plain and easy Yes many things But if many things plain and easy are there no such difficulties Ib. l. 7 If bad men may pervert them may not good men make a good use of them And if learned men make good use of them may not yet the unlearned mistake them Or must all these get learning that they may not Pag. 191. l. 15. If on so fair and just an occasion offered S. Peter himself whom they believe to have been Head of the Church at that time and at Rome at the writing of this Epistle doth wholly omit referring men in the sense of obscure places to infallible Guides what can we else inferr but that S. Peter thought no such thing of necessity for his Church A Negative argument is often invalid Every thing is not every where said If we find not in S. Peter 't is sufficient if in S. Paul Whose Faith follow ‖ Heb. 13.7 1 Tim. 3.15 And The Church i.e. in its Governours is the Pillar and Ground of Truth But we read in S. Peter such things as these That they should submit it themselves to their Presbyters such Presbyters as he was that fed the flâ—ck of God i.e. with their doctrine and so that they should submit to It. 1. Pet. 5.5 compared with 1 2. We read in him 2.10 15. That God will surely punish those that are self-willed and despise Government and speak evil of Dignities which I apply in the first place to Spiritual Gevernours and Ecclesiastical Dignities And chap. 3.2 that he writ his second Epistle to them that they might be mindful of the Commandements of the or the. Apostles of our Lord and Saviour and so of their Suecessours And here in the next verse after these unstable wresters we find S. Peter advising them to take heed of being led away with the errour of these wicked ones and of falling from their stedfastness i.e. in their adhering constantly to the doctrine learnt from their Spiritual Superiours N. 2 Here then the Reader hath an account from the Dr how right let him judge of the place in S. Peter urged by N. O but what answer returns he to Eph. 4.11 13 14. and to the rest mentioned before in Note on p. 189. l. 1. that are cited by N.O. and what to his own words to make himself at least agree with himself I find none I find him often delivering the state of the Question between him and his adversary in indefinite and so ambiguous propositions and then dividing of his discourse upon it into several heads each copiously prosecuted But mean while N. O's Considerations unconsidered slip through his fingers and out of the memory also of any save a very watchful Reader thus amused with other things Annotations on his §. 12. Of the Necessity of a Judge in Controversies PAg. 192. l. 2. Is it that without this an infallible determination of doubtful places in necessaries the Church's peace cannot be preserved Add nor an Vnity of Faith which is requisite in Necessaries Eph. 4.5 11 13. One Lord one Faith one Baptism into this Faith Ib. l. 6. Vnless there be an infallible Judge to determine which is the true sense of Scripture He should say in Necessaries But then his following Answer would not sute with the Question Ib. l. 16. The strength of this argument depends upon the supposition of the necessity of determining controversies Add necessary to be determined because in Necessaries Ib. l. 8 The weakness of humane understanding the power of interest and passion and the ambiguity of words are as apt to beget disputes in Religion as in any other thing More need still of deciding some of these disputes since so many things even in the most necessary Credends beget them Pag. 193. l. 8. This Question is plainly about a matter of fact i. e whether Christ hath appointed such judges in all ages who are to determine all emergent controversies about the difficult places of his Law Here doth not He question Whether the sitting and authority of lawful General Councils is held from Christ or by his appointment By what authority these Supreme Ecclesiastical Courts make their Definitions and Decrees Upon what ground Christianity appeals to them This is the influence and fruit of his 13th Principle But if he allows here these Supreme Judges to hold their Authority and Commission from Christ for determining all emergent Controversies about the difficult places of his Law But denies their infallibility as to all necessaries to which N.O. confines it then I would know whether they are constituted such Judges as
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
of Supremacy which Supremacy is therein given to the Civil Magistrate without any exception of these the Church's fundamental Rights unless the Dr with Bishop Bramhal holds the sense of this Oath to maintain only an external coactive power in such spiritual matters belonging to the Civil Magistrate which I suppose no Catholick will deny to him Or unless he will say that the Oath excludes a forreign Church-Supremacy distinct from that of the State but not so a domestick one as to some fundamental Church-Rights But then how can the Ecclesiastical Supremacy of a General Council though forreign be excluded where the Supremacy of an inferiour and subordinate Church-authority is admitted 2 Or 2ly means he that the Church hath such fundamental Rights given her by our Lord but so that she may not actually exercise them in these things whenever the Civil Power if Christian doth oppose and prohibite them But then what if such Civil Power should happen to be as possibly it may Heretical Here may the Church in such a State neither declare still such Truths nor inflict any Censures I mean of Excommunication on such as are reall Delinquents And to use the Dr's words ‖ Irenicum p. 422. Can we imagine our Blessed Saviour should institute a Society and leave it destitute of means to uphold it self unless it be sustained by the Civil Power Whenas saith he before the Church flourished in its greatest purity not only when not upheld but when most violently opposed by the Civil Power Ib. l. ult Of which Rights this is one of the chief to receive into and exclude out of the Church such persons which according to the laws of a Christian Society are fit to be taken in or shut out Then I hope that this Society may also keep Assemblies as a fundamental Right though these prohibited by the Commonwealth and that the highest Courts thereof may exercise the foresaid Jurisdiction over its members into whatever Commonwealth though opposing this Church these members be incorporated Pag. 268. l. 12. And in establishing those ancient Rites of the Christian Church which are in themselves of an indifferent nature But what if this Authority being fallible judge somthing indifferent that is not May any be forced to obedience and the practice thereof which he calls below over-ruling the practice and consequently first to assenting to the lawfulness of a thing wherein this Authority is fallible And if such Authority execute its Censures on such persons disobeying it is not this Tyranny Or if not why is that of the Roman Church so Ib. l. 5 The Church hath an authority of proposing matters of faith and directing men in Religion But so may any one more learned than others propose and direct them But what thinks he of the Church s defining or imposing any such matter of faith to be believed Surely either the Church hath by Right such an Authority or the first four General Councils usurped it And doth not such an Authority if justifiable inferr an Infallibility But then this directing and proposing is as to Necessaries needless where all is clear and plainly proposed in Scripture for every ones capacity without repairing to this Authority But if he means so plain in Scripture that men following these their Guides cannot mistake in it the plainness lies not in the Text but in their Exposition Pag. 269. l. 15. Authority to declare what the mind and will of God is contained in Scripture c. And are the people to receive what they declare as such Or have they authority to declare what they think the mind of God is and their Auditors to judge whether it be contained in Scripture every one for themselves But this latter must multiply Sects and the former includes Infallibility in Necessaries Ib. l. 6 Especially having all the ancient rights of a Patriarchal Church I suppose He here by the word Patriarchal claims no other rights or priviledges for the Church of England than those of a Primatical Church such as those of the Churches of France Spain or Affrick and that the Primate of Canterbury is no higher elevated by him than the Primate of Carthage or Toledo and that notwithstanding any such Primateship the Church of England and the Prelates thereof are subject as also those of Spain France or Africk to any Reformation of errours made by Superiour Councils whether Patriarchal of the West or General of the whole Church Catholick both which Councils also are acknowledged Superiour to National or Provincial by learned Protestants Ib. l. ult To do as much as in them lyes to reform them viz. by requiring a consent to such Propositions as are agreed upon for that end of those who are to enjoy the publick offices of teaching and instructing others N. 1 Here he allows a just authority in Anglican National Synods to agree upon declare and publish any propositions for reforming or correcting of errours in the Doctrine of Religion i.e. as I understand him only or chiefly in matters of faith though he doth not name it the care of the preservation of which faith in their several precincts is committed to the Bishops of the Church To publish and declare he saith what those errours are and to reform them it is said also in the 20th Article of the Church of England that the Church hath authority in Controversies of faith but not so as to ordain any thing contrary to God's written Word i.e. as I imagine hath authority in deciding of such Controversies For what authority else can be shewed in matters of Controversy since teaching must follow the deciding what is to be taught and the Article requiring that they do not ordain or decree any thing contrary to Gods written word or enforce the same to be believed for necessity of salvation seems to imply they may decree what they think is his Word This Author also saith such Synod may require consent to which I suppose is the same as assent or belief of the truth of such propositions as such Synod hath agreed on from those who are to enjoy the publick offices of teaching and iustructing others i.e. from all the Clergy Now to this I have these things to reply N. 2 1st In this his stating of the Church's Authority to do as much as in them lyes to reform errours in Religion or Faith here is no restraint of any who live in its Communion save only of the Clergy from erring their former errours No consent to its Decrees required of the rest but that they may be Arian Socinian Nestorian and what not yet enjoy her Communion may be partly compounded of Orthodox partly Hereticks as to the Laicks in whom all opinions are tolerated This I say follows according to his stating this Authority here for the Canons of this Church seem contrary and to require assent from all and according to what this Dr hath said also elsewhere Ration Account p. 133. where he describes the Church a Society of
17. if no infallible then no Ecclesiastical Judge Pag. 273. l. 3. I no where in the least exclude the use of all means and due helps of Guides and others for the understanding the sense of Scripture Yes for the understanding the sense of Scripture in all necessary Faith For you both in your Principles and in this Book ground the sober Enquirer's not erring in necessaries upon the plainness of the delivery of not some or many for this will be granted to you at least for persons of a good capacity but all such points in Scripture which plainness in Scripture where it is renders an Expositor of such Scripture needless upon such diligence used Or if you mean a plainness by using the help of the Clergy the plainness now is had not in the Text but from the Clergy the mentioning therefore of which by you would have prejudiced such plainness in the Text. Ib. l. 14. To what purpose in an account of the Principles of Faith should I mention those things which we do not build our faith upon I mean the Authority of our Guides I hope in your Principles or Foundations of Faith that you intended to set down all things necessâ—ry to a Christian's having a true Faith as in your 13th Principle that you intended to set down all things that were necessary that a sober requirer might not err in necessary Faith without leaving any of them out Now a most exact and perfect Rule of our Faith if it be not also clear to us requires somthing besides for our belief of its true sense namely an Expositor where this Rule is obscure and then that we may not err in this our belief an Infallible One. For the Scripture or Principle here when obscure abstracted from this Expositor is of it self indifferent between the sense which we receive and which we reject In obscure Scripture we resolve our faith into God's Word indeed but as this is related or expounded to us by the Church And this Church therefore is necessary to be mentioned where we speak of the Resolution of any such part of our Faith Pag. 274. l. 2 Doth this make the whole Profession of Physick useless No. But If Hippocrates his Aphorismes are set down so plainly as that every one that will take the pains to read and compare them may understand them I may safely say an Expositor of these is useless to so many as will take this pains The same is said of Expositors as to plain Scriptures What followes here in him is very true but nothing to our business Pag. 276. l. 11. How comes it now to pass c. Mr. S. C. pitcheth here that as to the knowledge of all necessary faith the guidance of Church-Governours is by Dr St. rendred useless For other matters how great soever Dr St. may make or prove the authority of these Church-Governours to be he troubles not himself Pag. 277. l. 7. S. Austin in his books of Christian Doctrine already mentioned See before Note on p. 236. l. 1. Ib. l. 9. And S. Chrysostom in as plain words as may be c. ‖ Hom. 3. in 2 Thess S. Chrysostome's words in that place reprehending the peoples neglect in the hearing the Scriptures read if there were no Sermon a great fault which the present times are still subject-to are these Cur inquit ingredior si non audio aliquem verba facientem saith he that stayes from Church Hoc saith the Father omnia perdidit corrupit Quid enim opus est aliquo qui verba faciat sermonem habeat Ex nostrâ socordiâ hoc usu venit Quid enim opus est sermone Omnia sunt dilucida recta quae sunt in divinis Scripturis manifesta sunt quaecunque sunt necessaria Sed quoniam estis auditores delectationis propterea haec etiam quaeritis i.e. Sermons Which words taken in a rigid sense prove more than Dr St. doth pretend to make good out of them making such a plainness in the Scriptures as that there is no need of any Sermons But the Eather seems here as Sixtus Senensis on this place hath observed not to speak so much of Dogmata fidei wherein it were strange if in all the things that are controverted and Scriptures urged on both sides nothing should be a necessary or that any simple person needed therein no teacher as of praecepta Morum historiae sacrae formandis moribus utiles his Sermons chiefly aiming at the forming of Manners not stating points of Faith And so in another place where the Father speaks much what the same things he seems to explain himself in Concio 3. de Lazaro Luc. 16. Cui enim saith he there non sunt manifesta quaecunque in Evangelio scripta sunt Quis autem audiens beatos esse mites beatos misericordes beatos mundicordes caeteraque hujusmodi desiderabit praeceptorem ut aliquid eorum discat quae dicuntur Quinetiam signa miracula historiae nonne cuivis nota manifestaque sunt Praetextus iste est causatio pigritiaeque velamentum Yet there he supposeth they may meet with difficulties such wherein it is necessary they should be instructed also and so adviseth them to repair to a Doctor Quod si non peteris saith he assiduitato lectiâ—nis invenire quod dicitur accede ad sapientiorem vade ad doctorâ—â— coâ—â—unica cum his ea quae scripta sunt giving them the example of the Ethiopian Eunuch Nay in this very place cited by the Dr the Father seems to explain himself chiefly of the clearness of Scripture-Stories from whence they might learn instruction of manners in the words following where replying to those who pretended obscurity in the Scriptures read to them Quaenam ea obscuâ—itus saith he Dic quaeso annon sunt historiae Nostine i.e. have you already sufficiently learnt those things quae sunt clara dilucida i.e. that you cannot deny to be so ut de iis quae sunt obscura perconteris i.e. afterward Historiae innumerabiles sunt in Scripturis i.e. very plain Dic mihi unam ex illis c. Ib. l. ult And for the finding out the sense of Scripture without the help of Infallibility I have produced more out of Antiquity in this Discourse He might also as truly say or without the help of Church-Authority He proceeds Pag. 278. l. 2. Than he or his whole party will be able to answer Of this let the Reader judge Mean while let us remember the Apostle's advice Phil. 2.3 Nihil per inanem gloriam Pag. 279. l. 10. I dare appeale to any person whether the Bishops deriving their authority from Christ or from the Pope be the better way of defending their power These two do well consist as also doth an English Bishop's deriving his authority from Christ and from the Metropolitan and his Synod Pag. 280. l. 1. If there be any other Power beside the Pope's in the Church the denying the Pope's Authority cannot in the least diminish
the just authority of Bishops To this nothing to N. O's Considerations I say Let him perform his duty to Superiour Councils and to the Pope so far as he is obliged by the Church-Canons and concerning any Controversy of other usurped Authority let him acquiesce as a regular Son of the Church in the Council's Decisions those as well of any of its latter Councils so lawful as of the former and all is well Ib. l. 14. N. O's words Which more Comprehensive Body in any dissent and division of the Clergy according to the Church Canons ought to be obeyed It follows in N. O. and which hath hitherto in her supremest and most generally accepted Councils in all ages from the beginning required such submission under penalty of Anathema Which words expressing more plainly what N. O. means by the more comprehensive or universal Body of the Church's Hierarchy the Dr omits here And it seems was willing to mistake his meaning by what he saith below p. 283. That by the more universal Church N. O. fairly understands no more but the Church of Rome Ib. l. 8 I answer that the Church of England in reforming herself did not oppose any just authority then extant in the world Yes The Church of England then reformed and changed several matters of Doctrine against the Definitions of many former Superiour Councils which were accepted and unanimously obeyed by the whole Body of the other Churches viz. by all those that were free from the Mahometan yoke and among those by the Church of England also till Luthers appearance to which Definition and unanimous consent of these Churches in them she stood obliged as a part to the judgment of the Whole But many of which Doctrines also reformed by her were and are still to this day believed and practised by the Eastern Churches also under the Mahometan servitude which he who is curious to inform himself may see sufficiently cleared in the 3d Discourse Concerning the Guide in Controversies ch 8. This then the departing in their doctrine of the two Metropolitan Churches of England from the greater Body of these many Co-Metropolitan Churches all accepting and submittingto the Decisions and Determinations of many former superiour Councils even all those from the 2d Nicene called the 7th General Council to that of Trent to which Councils the Church of England was and still is obliged as well as the rest and did also submit till the times of Luther is the Discession from the more Comprehensive and universal Authority and from the Holy Catholick Apostolick Church if any then extant which Catholicks charge upon them And perhaps it is the consciousness of the truth of this discession that makes this Author in several places before maintain ‖ p. 242. That the Church he means Catholick in any one or more ages since the Apostles times may be deceived and †p. 241. that Vniversality in any one age of the Church being taken without the consent of Antiquity is no sufficient Rule to interpret Scripture by and that when he speaks of standing to the judgment of the Church he declines that of the present Catholick Church unless joined with the judgment of the Catholick Church of all ages past till that of the Apostles to the constant doctrine of all which first proved to him he is content to yield See for this what he saith by and by ‖ p. 282. But the Church thought otherwise of them What Church I pray The Primitive and Apostolical that we have always appealed to and offered to be tried by The truly Catholick Church of all ages that we utterly deny to have agreed in any one thing against the Church of England And before p. 244. Let saith he the Popes Supremacy c be proved by as universal consent of Antiquity as the Articles of the Creed are and then let them charge us with Heresy if we reject them And p. 259. Let the same evidences be produced for the consent of the Vniversul Church from the Apostolicat times in the matters in dispute between our Church and that of Rome and that controversy of Infallibility may be laid aside Where still a proof not of the decision of the Catholick Church in some latter age but of the Consent of the Vniversal Church from the Apostolical times is demanded for his yielding a submission to it Nor will the Judgment of the present Church be current with him for deciding what was the Consent of the former the judgment of this he reserves to himself Pag. 281. l. 1. The dispute was then concerning the Pope's Supremacy over our Church The reforming Articles of the Church of England not only opposed this but many other Definitions of the former Church But neither could they justly reject this Supremacy so far as it was by the Canons of former superiour Councils established That only could be ejected that was unjustly usurped Ib. l. 11. Which is sufficiently known to have been the beginning of the breach between the two Churches The breach of the Church of England in the Reformation was not only from the Communion of the Roman concerning the Popes supremacy but of the Gallican Spanish and all the other Occidental or Oriental Churches in matters wherein they were united in the Resolutions and Decrees of several former Councils Where or at what point the Breach began matters not so much as where it ended Or the full charge that the whole breach contains Ib. l. 15. What should hinder our Church from proceeding in the best way it could for the Reformation of it self The Canons and Definitions of former Superiour Councils should hinder the Church from reforming any thing contrary to them as this Church did It follows Ib. l. 17. For the Pope's Supremacy being cast out as an usurpation our Church was thereby declared to be a free Church The Pope's Supremacy established by the Canons of the Church in Superiour Councils cast off by whom It can by none lawfully unless by Church-Councils of equal authority to those that allowed it The Church of England was thereby declared to be free Free what from the authority of superiour Councils and the Bishop of the Prime Apostolick See presiding in them By whom so freed 1 By Itself or by the Governours of this particular Church i.e. by one member declaring against the whole or 2 by the Secular Magistrate abrogating Church-Canons and Constitutions and Decisions made in Ecclesiastical and spiritual affairs Neither valid Ib. l. 6 Authority to publish Rules and Articles But not contrary to the Rules and Articles of Superiour Councils Pag. 282. l. 3. His unjust power was cast off and that first by Bishops who in other things adhered to the Roman Church Their adhering in other things justifyes not the Catholick Bishops for their breach in this This Author well knows the first casting off the Pope's power began not at the Bishops and he hath heard I suppose of their great Reluctance and Cromwel's negociations with
them terrifyed upon the charge of having generally incurred a Premunire and of their clause to have saved themselves Quartum per legem Christi licet Ib. l. 17. We reject nothing but innovations and reformed nothing but abuses By Innovations he means innovations established by the consent of the Vniversal Church from which he raifed his objection And the same appears by these his words following But the Church i.e. the Universal Church then extant at the Reformation thought otherwise of them those called Innovations for if they did not why did the Reformers depart from the former Communion To which he answers thus What Church I pray The Primitive and Apostolical that we have always appealed to and offered to be aried by The truly Catholick Church of all ages That we utterly deny to have agreed in any one thing against the Church of England Here then we see his Appeal and retreat is from the present Church Vniversal or its Councils to the Primitive and Apostolical and to the truly Catholick Church of all ages Well If we ask now the Question Who shall judge Whether the points which the Church of England reformed were Innovatitions and Abuses as these Reformers say or Tradition Apostolical and of the Primitive times as the present Vniversal Church saith must not the present Vniversal Church judge of it As who should judge between S. Austin and the Donatists whether Rebaptization or Non-rebaptization was Tradition Apostolical for Tradition Apostolicall both willingly admitted but the then present Universal Church and that to be held for liquidum eliquatum which it concurred in and It held to have just authority to conclude all its members and those to be Heretical that dissented from it Might the Donatist say still after this Council as he here What Church thought otherwise or thought Rebaptitization unnecessary The Primitive and Apostolical c That we deny to have agreed against us in Non-Rebaptization Meanwhile this Author must either say the Church of England in her Reformation opposing the then present Vniversal Church opposed a just authority then extant contrary to what he said but now ‖ p. 232. or that the Authority of this present universal Church over England is not just Ib. l. 6 The plain English of all is the Church of Rome was against the Church of England If the Doctrine of the Church of England in the Reformation was only opposed by the Roman Church and between these two is all the quarrel why declines He as the Reader may see he doth ‖ See Note on p. 280. l. 8 the then present universal Church viz. the other Metropolitan Churches not only Western but Eastern distinct from the Roman Namely the Metropolitan Churches of France Spain Germany c and those of Italy also that are under other States than the Pope's all these as well as the Roman being against the Tenents of the Reformation and so the English Church too till the time If a much major part of such Metropolitan Churches consenting in some doctrines cannot conclude herein one or two dissenting from them How could the Donatist-Churches in Africk be concluded by the rest Or Dioscorus the Patriarch of Alexandria and the Egyptian Churches by the Council of Chalcedon Had not the Donatists as fair a pretence to call all those that opposed them the Roman Church as this Author hath For all these that agreed against them were united under the Presidency of the Bishop of Rome and with Stephen Bishop of Rome at first was their main contest Pag. 283. l. 5. But doth he undertake to make this good c. See Note on p. 280. l. 8 to avoid so frequent Repetitions Ib. l. 12. By the more universal Church he fairly understands no more but the Church of Rome This he will say Whereas the words he leaves out in his quotation of N.O. name expresly the Church's most supreme and most generally accepted Councils and the Church of Rome is not there mentioned at all Ib. l. 4 For the first the Pope and the Councils of the Roman Church we owe no obedience to them See Note on p. 281. l. 17. and l. 6 I hope if the Church of England owes no obedience to a Council of the Roman Church yet it doth to a Patriarchal Council of the Occidental Churches Ib. l. 3 For the second a General Council there was no such thing then in the world at the coming of Luther and therefore could not be opposed No more was that of Nice or the other Three first Councils then extant in the world and yet I hope the Church of England then owed obedience to them But their Definitions were then extant contrary to the Doctrine of the Reformation But the unanimous consent of all the other Churches conforming in their belief and practice to the decisions of former Councils was then extant Which Consent of other Western Churches was also testified in those very times in the Council of Trent without the least pretended force used upon those Churches as to the most of the Protestant Tenents condemned there as may appear to any one in Soave's History of that Council for indeed these Bishops voted in it what things were their common practice before it and the Definitions thereof as to these points are Generally accepted and held in these Churches Pag. 284. l. 2. No Church hath been more guilty of a violation of them than the Church of Rome Were it so How doth this excuse you that another is faulty besides you Ib. l. 6. We are no enemies to the ancient Patriarchal Government of the Christian Church No enemies is not enough where we ought to be Subjects Ib. l. 12. And all Christendom would consent to a truly free and General Council If such Council were called will you submit your judgment to its definitions I trow not Let your obedience be shewed to former lawful Superiour Councils and it may be hoped to the future He goes on Ib. l. 14. Which we look on as the best expedient on earth for composing the differences of the Christian world if it might be had You look upon it as the best expedient but take care to clog it with such unpracticable conditions to be a right and current General one as you will be sure never to meet with any such expedient to compose your differences or to have your approbation for such And from the complaints you make such as these which follow here concerning those Councils that have been held we may expect for these hereafter defects abundant in those that are not for your turn Titular Patriarchs or Popes Pensioners or at the least Combinations of interested Parties i. e. of an interest in Controversies of Religion contrary to yours as these judging when met in Council what they believed and practised before them And would not one think that the first four Councils do hardly pass through your Sieve when you speak thus to your Adversary Rational Account p. 253. Have Pastors
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