Civil as Ecclesiastical Governours So that if the Catholicks seem to apply some Consciential obedience to the Ecclesiastical Judge disliked and denyed to him by Protestants so do they also to the Civil Ib. l. 10 They challenge likewise to themselves a power to dispense with the laws of God as in matter of Mariages The Church only dispenseth where antecedently no Divine Law but only a Church-law obligeth those about Marriages being many of them Levitical Judicial Laws obligatory only to the ancient Commonwealth of the Jews and not now to Christians But in impedimentis jure Divino naturali conjugium dirimentibus the Church pretends no dispensative power Ib. l. 8 And with the Institution of Christ as in Communion in one kind See this spoken to before in Note on p. 151. l. 6. Ib. l. 5 As in the five Sacraments they have added to the two of Christ As the Roman Church reckons Seven Sacraments so the Greek Sacramenta verò ritusque in hâc ipsâ Catholicâ rectè sentientium Christianorum Ecclesiâ sunt Septem saith Jeremias Patriarch of Constantinople against the Lutherans ‖ Resp. 1. c. 7. and so the Catholick Church before Luther appeared And this Author cannot be ignorant that Protestants also since that time as the Word Sacrament is taken in a more general sense have willingly admitted more than two and acknowledged this conformable to the language of Antiquity And in the short English Catechisme the Answer to the Question How many Sacraments Two only is made as Bishop Mountague observes ‖ Appeal c. 33. with this Limitation as generally necessary to salvation And on the other side the Council of Trent †Sess 7. c. 3. pronounces Anathema to those who shall make them all of an equal dignity And Baptisme and the Eucharist shall have the preeminency that Protestants desire Ib. l. 2 Setting aside these considerations we dare appeal c. For the extravagancy of the next page I referr the Reader to the Note on p. 180. l. 9. Pag. 185. l. 6. Whether our Church's Imposing of three Ceremonies declared to be indifferent by those who required them But denied to be so by those they are imposed-on who therefore complain of tyranny and of forcing the Conscience the enjoining the practice of them involving an assent also that they are lawful which they that cannot yield must sin if they practise them And in such a case who must decide this matter between these two I find him in his Irenicum c. 2. p. 63. nominating for this Judge the sense of the Primitive Church in the first four Centuries and the judgment of the other Reformed Churches There he proposeth That nothing be required nor determined by Church-Governours but what is sufficiently known to be indifferent in its own nature The only difficulty saith he is hâ—w a thing may be sufficiently known to be indifferent because one man looks upon that as indifferent which another doth not The most equal way to decide this Controversy is to make choice of such Judges as are not interested in the quarrel and those are the sense of the Primitive Church in the first four Centuries who were best able to judge whether they looked upon themselves as bound by any Command of Scripture or no and withal the judgment of the Reformed Churches So that what shal be made appear to be lefâ— indifferent by both the sense of the Primitive Church and the Churches of the Reformation may be a matter determinable by Law and which all may be required to conform in Obedience to But here 1st What if when this Judge the sense of the Primitive Church is admitted by both parties yet there happen dispute What or on which side this sense is Is it not so disputed and will not the deciding of this need another Judge 2ly For the Judgment of the Reformed Churches I suppose he means those abroad concerning the Controversies about Indifferents here in England they no way seem such as he here supposeth i.e. persons not interested in the quarrel some of them as to these things intertaining the opinion of the Prclaticks others of the Presbyterian party But were it not so their judgment being fallible It is contrary I think to this Author's Principles for others to be enjoined or constrained to conform to them either in their practice where their judgment relucts or in their judgment where their 's also may err 3ly The Judge in Ecclesiastical matters is not left to any ones arbitrary nomination but is alwaies the Superiour Prelates or Councils in respect of all others subordinate to them He goes on Can be thought so great a Burden to their Consciences as all the Load of superstitious fopperies in the Roman Church Supposing here not granting the Roman Ceremonies such yet some of which at least I hope this Author will protect because borrowed from her by the Reformed Church of England to the great grief of these Sects I ask to what end is it here to compare the Degrees of Burdens imposed where the Least if imposed against conscience is unsupportable Ib. l. 17. Whether Transubstantiation Image-worship c. be not somwhat harder things to swallow Some of these at least how hard soever they seem to you are the Definitions either of the Supreme Councils or those Superiour to a Provincial or National one of England And to these Councils therefore you owe obedience either of assent or silence and cannot separate from their Communion without Schisme Ib. l. 11 Be not somwhat harder things to swallow than the Church's power to appoint matters of Order and decency Is then the appointing matters of Order and Decency all the power the Church of England doth or may assume I mean hath this Church no power in Matters and Controversies of Faith Pag. 186. l. 1. Not for any difficulty objected by N.O. Which whatever it is is omitted here by the Dr. See Note on p. 180. l. 9. Annotations on §. 11. Of the means to attaine the sense of Scripture without an infallible Guide PAg. 186. l. 11. That is the second main Principle in N.O. that without this infallible assistance of the Guides of the Church there can be no certainty of the sense of Scripture There are no such words in N.O. N.O. denies a sufficient certainty of the sense of Scripture in several points of necessary saith ‖ See the former Discourse §. 2. but not in all especially as to some persons and capacities without the Church's exposition of them Ib. l. 17. He yields that the Church's infallibility is not necessary to the foundation of faith for mens faith he saith may begin at the infallible authority of Scriptures No such words are in N. O neither doth he call that a Foundation of Faith where Faith begins Which Faith begins at that particular Article thereof which is first taught to any by their Inâ—tructer Parents or Pastor and this happens to be somtimes one Article somtimes another N. O's
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
justified all the Sects which have or shall separate from their Church Prefa p. 7. which N.O. speaks not of their justifying these Sects universally in whatever they hold or do or what being practised in the Church of England they take offence at but only of justifying the liberty they take in disceding in their Opinions as they see fit from the Doctrines and Principles of this Church so limited by N.O. both in the precedent and following words whilst these Late men also tell them that they may safely follow their own judgment at least as to all necessaries for their salvation wherein they cannot erre if using a sincere endeavour to understand the Holy Scripture which is in all such points clear In answer to this this Author from p. 180. c. to p. 186. undertakes to shew That there is a different case of the separation of Dissenters from the Church of England and of Her separation from the Church of Rome shewing several Reasons or Motives of the Church of Englands departing from the Roman Church which the sects being of the same opinion in them have not of departing from her But this thing is willingly granted him before-hand that differences herein he may shew many that no way concern N. O's discourse who chargeth him and others only with this that from their teaching that none do owe a submission of judgment to that of their Ecclesiastical Superiors every one may rightly collect that he may follow his own Or that if You may depart from your Superiours Persons or Councils upon a just cause of which cause you say it is all reason that you not your Superiours judge then so may They from you upon any cause also they think just Or that if there be no decisive Judge for differences between you and your Superiours to whose sentence you can be obliged so neither is there for differences between them and you and that as you appeal from your Ecclesiastical Superiours to Evidence of Scripture so seeming to you in your cause so may they from you in their's For I suppose here the Dr will both acknowledge 1 Some Councils to be superiour to a National one and some Ecclesiastical Persons to a Primate And 2 that these Ecclesiastical Superiours fallible when proceeding against Evidence of Scriptures may be therein relinquished And This is the thing wherein N.O. affirms you to countenance and warrant the proceedings of all these Sects § 88 1. Frist then to shew these Differences he saith p. 181. Here lies a very considerable difference that we appeal and are ready to stand to the judgment of the Primitive Church for interpreting the letter of Scripture in any difference between us and the Church of Rome but those who separate from our Church will allow nothing to be lawful but what hath an express command in Scripture To which I say That this difference supposed or granted here of which see more in the Annotations ‖ On p. 181. notwithstanding he will be found still to justify the Sectarists in their departure from the present Church of England as she did the present Church that was before Luther which as the Dr maintains she might do upon a just cause that is appearing so to Her from the evidence of the Scripture so say the Sectarists they may and do from her upon a just cause but I need not say the same Cause And as he holdeth that this Church owed no submission of judgment to the definitions of that Church's former Councils being fallible so neither say the Sects do they to the National Synods of this But if the judgment of such matters be removed from these latter to the Primitive times to Antiquity This as taken ad libitum in a several latitude is a Precedent all Parties pretend to and is a Judge the sense of whose sentence all parties may cispute as they do that of Scripture without matters coming hereby to any strict Decision Neither will the Presbyterians I believe abandon this Hold to the Dr and his Irenicum perhaps will help them to maintain it And for some such reason it may be that he here in comparing the Church of England and the Sects declines the direct Antithesis of their deserting or renouncing contrary to Her Owning or adhering to these Primitive Times As the ingenuous Reader may observe § 89 2ly P. 182. He saith The Guides of our Church never challenged any infallibility to themselves which those of the Church of Rome do He should have said Which the Catholick Church in her lawful General Councils doth Now from this may well be gathered that the Dissenters from the Church of England depart in their judgment from a pretended not infallible but fallible Church And I ask What advantage hence for confuting what is said by N. O Doth not this fallibility of the Church of England in her Doctrines confessed secure any to depart from them and her as they shall think fit without being justly for this called to an account by her And are not all Sects hereby justified in following the perswasion of their own judgment against hers as she also following hers against her Superiours because fallible He saith also there That the Church of England declares in her Articles that all the proof of things to be believed is to be taken from Holy Scripture She may declare so yet the Sectarists not therefore admit that all that Holy Scriptures are alledged-for by the Church of England is to be believed since these differ in the sense of several places of Scripture from this Church and so as to these may depart from her Judgment § 90 3ly He saith P. 183. That the Church of Rome makes the belief of her doctrines necessary to salvation But nothing of this nature can be objected against the Church of England by dissenters that excludes none from a possibility of salvation meerly because not in her Communion To this I say as I did to the last The lesson cessary the Church of England makes the belief of her Doctrines the more liberty still the Sects will think they have of dissenting from them But changing here the Dr's Roman of which N. O. said nothing into the Catholick Church headed by her General Councils she freely tells those who dare depart from her that there is no Salvation to those out of her Communion and that their Conscience mis-perswaded doth oblige indeed but not therefore excuse them And this causeth those who are careful of their salvation and believe her in this to secure themselves in her Communion § 91 4ly P. 184. He saith The Guides of the Roman Church pretend to an immediate authority of obliging the consciences of men i. e as I understand him affirm that their Subjects are obliged in conscience to yield an assent and submission of judgment to their definitions and decrees which is true changing Roman into Catholick But saith he ours challenge no more than Teaching men to do what Christ
I find p. 267. mentioned An authority of inflicting censures upon offenders or of receiving into and excluding out of the Communion of the Church And That a Christian Society cannot be preserved in its purity and peace without it But looking further whether this Authority was extended to excluding from her Communion persons dissenting in their opinions from the received doctrines of such Church in matters of Faith which only serves the turn for curing Heresies and Sects of this I sind nothing but only this Power couched in these general terms To receive into and exclude out of the Church such-persons which according to the Law of a Christian Society are fit to be taken in or shut out § 101 I find him 2ly p. 268 allowing an Authority in the Church Of making Rules and Canons about matters of order and decency in the Church Not meerly in the necessary circumstances of time and place and such things the contrary to which inply a natural indecency but in continuing establishing those ancient Rites of the Christian Church which were practised in the early times of Christianity and are in themselves of an indifferent nature But when these Sects deny those things to be of an indifferent nature which this Church declares such as he knows the Sects in England ordinarily do may the Church here lawfully require their assent acknowledgment that they are of an indifferent nature and so their practice of them upon penalty if non-conforming of ejecting them out of her Communion Nothing less than which can purge her communion of such Sects and preserve her in purity Vniformity and peace I do not find him adventuring thus far as to tell us whether the Church may require assent or submission of judgment which must necessarily precede that of practice from those perswaded that the matter by the Church declared indifferent is not so and may upon the disobedient inflict her censures when perhaps she as fallible not they is mistaken in it and it seems contrary to his Principles But here he seems to tread suspensopede and manage the Church's Authority somwhat timorously as we may see by those words of his that follow that in such matters required by a lawful authority there is an advantage on the side of authority I understand him that authority hath the advantage for challenging obedience against a conscience scrupulous or doubting but what for a conscience not doubting but fully perswaded otherwise As men may be free from doubting in a thing whereof they are not certain which authority ought to overrule the practice of such who are the members of that Church over-rule the Practice but what saith he of such Authority its over-ruling the Judgment Which standing contrary it is certain none may practise though that which is right against their judgment This wary Conclusion in the 2d Proposition concerning Church Authority is somwhat like to those general words in the first A power of excluding out of the Church such persons as are fit to be shut out according to the laws of a Christian Society I suppose he means such laws as are or else ought to be in a Christian Society Of which ought to be who must judge § 102 Again he affirms p. 261. an Authority in the Church of proposing matters of faith and directing men in Religion directing several ways by particular instruction of doubtful persons to whom the help of their Guides he saith is the most ready and useful by a publick way of instructing viz. in Sermons by the representative Clergy meeting together to reform any abuses in practice or errours in doctrine and when a more General consent cannot be obtained to publish and declare what those errours are and to do as much as in them lies to reform them viz. by requiring a consent to such propositions as are agreed upon for that end of thâ—se who are to enjoy the publick offices of teaching and instructing others Not to the end that all those propositions should be believed as Articles of Faith but because no Reformation can be effected if persons may be allowed to preach and officiate in the Church in a way contrary to the designe of such a Reformation Here then we have an Authority allowed to propose matters of faith which proposal any Heresy or Sect can well comply with to instruct doubtful persons but in points necessary wherein Scriptures are clear according to him no such doubâ— needs to be in which doubting the help of their Guides is said to be the most ready and useful but for some reason or other this Author declines to say Necessary an Authority of Synods to declare what errours there are in doctrine or abuses in practice and in general he saith to do as much as in them lies to reform them by requiring a consent of its Clergy to such propositions as the Synod agrees upon § But meanwhile here occurrs nothing that such as said hold the errours in dâ—ctrine against which this Church declareth may not yet peaâ—â—ably enjoy her Communion He saith these â—ynods as much as in them lies may reform such errours but he saith 〈◊〉 this lies in their power to require any one to assent to the contrary truths upon penalty of being expelled from this Church's communion By which means only this Church can be purged and cured of the mixture of Sects and Heresies and be preserved in its purity and peace and consent of judgment in matters of Religion which the Title prefixed saith is the design of the Church of England's 39. Articles I say Whereas the Church hath no way for her preservation in unity of saith and worship but that of our Lord's and his Apostle's post unam aut alteram correptionem to shut such out of her Communion the Read er may observe here is no word of this I do not say of shutting any at all out of the Church's Communion this he allows in his first Proposition but not shutting any out on this account viz. their dissent and non-conformity to the Church's Articles of Faith and Religion § 104 For as for consent said to be required from the Clergy to such propositions as such Synods shall agree upon supposing here he means by this Consent a profession of the belief of the truth of them 1. This consent is required of the Clergy only hypothetically if they desire to officiate in the Ministry not absolutely that they may enjoy her Communion Nor will this remedy any Sect or Heresy as to such who for this cause decline the Ministry 2ly By the Church's requiring their consent he seems not to mean an assent to the truth of such Articles but either with Mr Chillingworth ‖ Pref. § 39. a consent to them or to the doctrine of this Church that who believes and lives according to them undoubtedly shall be saved and that there is no errour in them which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturb the peace or renounce the communion of this
judgement of an expert Lawyer though not infallible Ibid. l. 6 A man convinced that the Church of England is a sound and good Church ought to rest in her judgment so as not to forsake her communion for any cavils that are raised about particular controversies of which he is not a capable Judge Vpon being convinced that the Church of England is a sound or orthodox Church to rest in her judgment is only to rest in her judgment where such person first knows it right or true but how then rests he thus in Controversies wherein he is no capable Judge and so doth not foreknow her soundness in them The same may be said to that he mentions afterward concerning a man's foreknowing the Church's integrity honesty skill all which sincere and good in one matter may fail in another Again where the Dr mentions resting in this Church's judgment for people who have not either leisure or capacity to understand particular controversies means he in Necessaries Then how will his 13. and 15th Principles stand good that from the clear delivery of such points in the Scriptures the diligent cannot mistake nor need for their guidance therein any infallible society of men and much less then need they a fallible But if he makes this Society Dr Field speaks of only useful for private men to submit their judgment to in non-necessaries it is clear Dr Field intends it otherwise who saith such a Society in non-necessaries may err but in Necessaries doth not and therefore in these not the other may safely be relied upon But lastly if thus private men unseen in Controversies may and ought to rest in the judgment of a particular Church so qualified why are not such much more obliged to rest in the judgment of N. O's Church contended to be infallible in all Necessaries viz. in the Definitions of a lawful General Council Or in matters not so defined to rest in the judgment of the supremest Courts of the Church Catholick that can be had which Church Catholick is but One and subordinate in its members see-before § 26 In stead therefore of some particular Church Orthodox let this be sought out and perpetually adhered to when found Pag. 109. l. 7. Do make all men impeccable if they will So far as God gives any man grace not to sin every one may be impeccable or may not sin if he will i. e if he uses his best endeavours That all are sinners I speak as to Actual Sin is from all failing in their will and endeavours Ibid. l. 14. Who can believe the Goodness of God and yet think that he will suffer those who sincerely endeavour to know what is necessary to their salvation not to understand it They are not to be supposed sincerely to endeavour to know things Necessary as they ought who do not repair to the Church to learn of her Gods Truth where this is obscure to them in the letter of Scripture Ib. l. 17. How often doth the Scripture promise a greater degree of knowledg to the meek and humble and diligent God teacheth the humble and diligent as well by his Church as by his Scriptures and one and a great duty of such persons is their seeking instructions from and the submission of their judgment to those Spiritual Guides and Pastors whom God hath set over them on purpose that they may not be carried away with every wind of doctrines Eph. 4.11 13. in matters that are otherwise to them obscure Pag. 110. l. 2. His word so clear in necessary things that no one who sincerely endeavours to know them shall ever miss of salvation Here notwithstanding what was said before by our Author p. 96 97. and 107 108. of using others directions resting in the judgment of a Church trusting the learned so and so qualifyed we are relapsed again into the 13th and 15th Principles and all the weight laid on the Clearness of Scripture as to all persons in all Necessaries for in some none deny it Annotations on his §. 6. N. O's Proofs of Infallibility examined PAg. 112. l. 12 I come to his particular Arguments which ly scattered up and down but to give them the greater strength I shall bring them nearer together N.O. writing no set Discourse on a chosen or single subject but Considerations on 30 several Principles of the Dr's and some Consequences also drawn from them his Considerations varying so as the Principles expected the Dr should in the same order have vindicated his 30 Principles as he laid them down and have discovered the Considerer's mistakes Instead of this as if loth to come to such a trial close and perspicuous to the Reader he finds the Dr adorning a new Discourse as an Answer to a former Treatise that had pitched on the same subject casting new Methods gathering together here and there his Adversary's Concessions extracting his Principles and with what fidelity the Reflections on them have shewn contracting and giving the summ and sense of what N. O. thought he had writ most compendiously and not after the manner of an Harangue or Sermon that needed to be epitomized and telling his Reader here p. 112. that he will bring nearer together N. O's arguments which ly in him scattered up and down that is are there fitted to the particular Principle that is discoursed of to give them the greater strength a kindness Controvertists use to do to one another for their own advantage and so after much pains taken in altering and transforming and transplacing N. O's Conceptions and drawing them off from the Principles they were fixed and applied to and omitting them also where he thinks fit and where they will not come within his Methods and so leaving his Principles also together with them abandoned and unguarded for of the Thirty Six the Reader will find in all this Book a very few re-confidered he in fine confutes a thing of his own making not N. O's Pag. 113. l. 14. Is it then to be imagined that if Christ had intended such an infallibility as the foundation of the faith and peace of his Church he would not have delivered his minde more plainly and clearly in this matter N. 1 Our Lord hath delivered his mind by his Apostles plainly and clearly enough concerning this matter in the Scriptures and to his Apostles before them The knowledg of which Promise of our Lord concerning such an infallible Assistance to be for ever continued to his Church and its Guides should alwaies have descended to Posterity by Tradition had there been no Scriptures Delivered this so plainly as that upon all Controversies concerning the dubious sense of Scriptures thought necessary to be decided the Church's subjects de facto have repaired to these Guides as believed infallible in all Necessaries upon the account * of our Lords assisting them with his Holy Spirit promised in and before these Scriptures * of their being left by our Lord behind him for this end amongst others to keep the
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.
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
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
Symptomes of a declining Church Hence also in such diversity of opinion happens an alienation of Affections and so very great Divisions and Factions As we see that those Sects departed from the Church of England no way agree amongst themselves and when any of them by their extraordinary increase gets any power and dominion ever the rest there presently follows a proportionable endeavour to advance and propagate it self and root out the other because they would have all men of the very best Relâ—gion that is their own § 14 And it seems a great Inadvertency in those who are now marshalling up all their Arguments and Forces against an unlimited Church-Authority and against the Vsurpurs of an unjust Ecclesiasticall Power and Exactours of an undue submission and Obedience to take so little notice of those other more dangerous enemies who are marching up in the reare of them under pretence of being their Auxiliaries in this warr Whenas they have great cause to fear so soon as any Opportunity may be offered their making use of those Armes I mean Arguments and Principles wherewith they now furnish them for attempting the demolishing also of that Church-Authority the first Reformation hath as yet left standing To which though hitherto by them unsuccesfully assaulted yet they no way appear reconciled § 15 Neither in this Division of Opinions naturally flowing from such a Principle and as Experience hath shewed very mischievous in its effect doth there appear any possibility of the reducing such a mixt and heterogeneous Body to a firm Union and Peace where is no Judge to end their differences but only that whose Language misunderstood causeth them I mean the Scriptures Which last Consideration was one of Mr. Chillingworth's Motives for reconciling himself to the Roman-Catholick Religion Because saith he ‖ Motive 10 Pref. §. 42. by denying all humane authority either of Pope or Councils or Church to determine Controversies of Faith they have abolished all possible means of suppressing Heresy or restoring Unity to the Church § 16 To Which at his return to Protestantisme for the satisfying himself and others if any have the curiosity to know it be devised this Answer 1st for the means of suppressing Heresy That all men should believe the Scripture i.e. it to be Gods Word and endeavour to believe it in the true sense for that so none such can possibly be an Heretick saith he But here first how shall any assure himself of having used a right endeavour Next of those who do not so endeavour some may be Hereticks and if Hereticks ought to be suppressed and cannot be suppressed without some Judge of their nonendeavours and of their Heresy besides themselves and such Judge is the thing this man would decline Lastly If God hath appointed some spiritual Guides for directing people in the belief of Scripture in its true sense a right endeavour cannot be used herein without repairing to and learning it from them the dependence on whom for not incurring Heresy this Author would avoid 2ly For preserving Unity in the Church That there be a Comprehension of all Sects and Opinions within the pale of one Communion ‖ Pref. §. 43. That saith he no more be required of any man to make him capable of the Church's Communion than this that every one endeavour to believe Scripture in its true sense So he Now this men may equally do in their believing it in a most contrary sense according to their different capacities and the agreement that thus can be among them will be only tolerating all disagreements Of which see more in the following Discourse § 96. § 17 I meet also with another English Divine who in his Satisfaction concerning True Religion conjecturing the causes of the late great increase of Popery in England pitcheth upon this very sanâ—e thing that induced Chilling worth to Popery Nothing saith he ‖ p. 178. among us except ignorance and wickedness increaseth Popery more than the scandal of our numerous and some of them abominable Sects when the people see many zealous Professours turne Quakers or Ramers or Seekers or Antinomians or Socinians or Familists and shall See the more tolerable parties Episcopal Presbyterian Independent Erastian Separatists and Anabaptists condemning backbiting reproching making odious if not persecuting one another and shunning many of them the Communion of one another as they do the Papists This makes them think that they must seek some surer soberer way than any of us have yet found This cause of the increase of Popery he truly discerned viz. the continual increase of Sects in all Partyes save Popery and for this Men that dread the hazards of the next world more than this flee apace into the Catholick Church there to find an unity of Faith and be at some certainty and rest But how shall the cause of the increase of Popery be removed Or how can such a Principle in a Church as the forementioned proceed to any cure of it Of one sort of these Sectarists divided from the Bishops he himself is How can he deny to others the liberty he takes Or must he not come at last only to Mr Chillingworths device where is no Judge 1 an universal Toleration of all good Endeavourers to understand Scripture and 2 an Internal Communion of Charity for an External the Rites of which may please or at least may continue to please all parties can never be invented nothing being more controverted than concerning the Celebration Ceremonies Vertue c of the Sacraments But it seems by him neither will those be attained where is such diversity of Opinions but to repeat his words There will be condemning backbiting reproching making odious if not persecuting one another and shunning many of them the Communion of one another as they do the Papists I add from Experience And suppressing and crushing one another as any of them gets power § 18 These then are the Ways that the Patrons of Christians Liberty usually take for its defence and these seem the Effects of it where allowed whilst the Contenders for Obedience and Submission of Judgment to our Spiritual Superiours and Guides take quite the contrary Course They endeavour to plant in all their Subjects the greatest reverence and esteem of the Lords Clergy and Ministers of their learning wisdome piety and the assistance of Gods Holy Spirit preserving them for ever at least in their highest Courts of Jndicature in all Necessary truth They maintain a strict Subordination in the Church's Hierarchy and an Vnity of Government in the Catholick Church though spread thorow never so many several temporal Dominions all subjected to one Supreme Court and President thereof and to the same Definitions and Laws as to matters purely spiritual and these no way alterable by Civil States They urge the great Heresies in the highest points of Faith that the sharpest Wits in former times have fallen into by departing from the sense of the Church The greater men's parts are they being
discussed in the ancient so may and have some others in latter times and since there is Controversy also not unfrequently concerning what hath been the unanimous Consent of Fathers in particular points or the results of lawful ancient Councils there will yet be wanting a present Judge for determining these and since the Church of all times former or latter hath equal authority any present modern Determinations seem as authentick and obliging as the Ancient § 9. 4. That since the Scriptures are affirmed clear in Necessaries only upon the condition of a sincere endeavour one not assured first of this sincere endeavour yet of which there seems no certain means cannot be secure of his not erring in Necessaries For exampple the Socinian And this especially when a major part of Christianity understands the sense of such Scriptures against him And the same uncertainty holds of one's having sufficiently used other helps if these also be required § 11. Or if here such a lower degree of endeavour be affirmed only necessary and required as sutes with Christians of the meanest emploiments and capacities that such endeavour seems not sufficient for understanding all necessary points Or if it be that by such an Endeavour the Church-Governours may as well be presumed not to err in points necessary and so the other people way safely acquiesce in their Judgment § 12. CHAP. II. Concerning a Necessity of Church-Guides for instructing of Christians in Points Necessary THat the Clearness of Scripture in all necessaries upon a right endeavour to understand them if meant without the help of the Church-Guides renders their instructing of the people as to these points not necessary But if understood with the use of their help implies the Scriptures in such points not clear without their Exposition and inferrs a necessity of the not erring of such Guides in these points that the people by them may be rightly directed § 13. Where That such Answers as these in this matter seem not pertinent * That a manifold necessity of Church-Authority is still maintained i.e. as to other arts of it not this * That these Church-Guides are of great use also for instructing unskilful persons in Scripture doubtful and obscure but not said to be obscure and doubtful in necessaries which would overthrow the Supposition that they are herein clear § 14. CHAP. III. Concerning Obedience and Submission of Judgment due from the Church's Subjects to their Governours in Divine matters and in these the more the more they are necessary 1. THat the Church's Subjects have an obligation of Obedience and Submission of Judgment to their Ecclesiastical Superiours and this as to points necessary § 19. Proved by Scriptures Where the Texts Deut. 17.8 and 2. Chron. 19.6 are vindicated form Dr St's Exceptions § 22. And his other Objections of the erring of the Highest Ecclesiastical Courts under Moses's Law in Ration Account p. 241. answered § 25. 2. That such Obedience and Submission of Judgment if granted due to these Governours is in any Division of them to be yielded to the Superiour Persons or Councils § 26. Where Dr St's Pleas in behalf of the Church of England in order to this are considered Viz. * That there was no obliging authority extant at the Reformation Superiour to that of this Church § 27.32 * That It was then free from the Authority of the Pope and Church of Rome § 29. * That It submitteth to or consenteth with the Church Primitive and Apostolical or the truly Catholick Church of all Ages § 31. * That It hath not been so guilty of violating the Church-Canons as that of Rome § 33. * That Particular Churches may reform abuses and errours within themselves when a more General Consent cannot be obtained But not therefore when a more general Dissent is formerly declared § 34. 3. That Learned Protestants grant a Submission of Judgment due to Church-Authority from all such Persons as have no demonstrable Certainty that It commands them any thing contrary to God's Word § 35. 4. That setting aside any duty of Obedience the plebeian and unlearned ought for the understanding of Scriptures to acquiesce in the judgment of those more skilful and studied in them without distinguishing those Necessaries wherein is supposed any difference in mens Judgments § 37. And that what is to them using a due industry clear in Scriptures may be presumed will be so to their Guides Ibid. Where The Answer That Christians cannot be secure that their Guides though they do not mistake in necessary matters of Faith yet do not mis-teach others in them and the transferring Infallibility thus from the Vsual Notion of these Guides their not erring or being deceived in these matters to an Infallibility of their not deceiving others seems very unsatisfactory § 38. 5. That to whatever liability to mistakes and errours the Church-Guides are subject yet there is less hazard to the Vulgar in adhering to their's than to their own opinions Where Such Exceptions and Answers as these that follow against the former Obedience asserted in this Chapter seem not solid and pertinent Viz * That God hath entrusted every man with a Faculty of Discerning Truth and Falshood But this rightly used will discerne this truth that submission of judgment is due to our Spiritual Superiours § 40. * That Guides transgressing their Ride are not to be followed True when these Guides are certainly and demonstrably known to any to do so but who shall judge of such certainty and were any so certain or rather conceited that they are so yet all the rest will remain still obliged to Obedience * That the concurrent Sense of Antiquity is an excellent Means to understand the minde of Scripture in places otherwise doubtful and obscure But here not a Means which may be beneficially used but a Superiour that must be obeyed and submitted-to is demanded for ending Controversies § 44. * That no absolute submission can be due to two Church-Authorities contradicting one another But it is denied that the Supreme have done so and in those Subordinate contradicting submission is due to the Superiours § 46. * That in the present divided state of the Church a man must make use of his judgment in the choice of his Church But this judgment rightly used shews obedience and subjection due in any division to the Superiour Persons or Councils as the Communion we ought to live in and make choice of § 47. * That we may not submit to all those who challenge the authority of Guides nor to lawful Guides in all things they may require Which as thus spoken in general so will be willingly granted CHAP. IV. Concerning the Infallibility of these Governours in Necessaries THat the Church is infallible as to Necessaries in her Lawfull General Councils § 49. Proved * by the Practice of such Councils accepted and submitted to by the Church Catholick diffusive § 50. * From the Necessity thereof for the preserving the stability and certainty of the Christian Faith
§ 51. * From the Promises in Scripture § 52. Where That Dr St. holds the Roman Church hitherto never to have erred in Necessaries § 53. * From the Testimony of S. Austin in his proceedings against the Donatists § 54. And of the Greek Church § 56. * From Archbishop Lawd's and sometimes Dr St's holding the Catholick Church not only in its Being but as to its Teaching and Determinations Infallible § 57. Dr St's Replies considered * Concerning the Practice of Councils § 64. c. * Concerning the Certainty of the Christian Faith without Infallible Church-Governours § 63. * Concerning S. Austin § 71. * That the Argument from the Evidence of our Senses urged by Dr St. and others disproves not the Infallibility of the Roman-Catholick Church CHAP. V. No Supressing of Sects and Heresies without admitting an Ecclesiastical Judge THat all Sects for their Tenents equally appeal to the Clearness of the Scripture § 81. That the leaving all men for knowing Necessaries to the clearness of Scripture therein without requiring their submission to the Judgment of the Church can afford no effectual remedy of Heresies and Schismes § 83. That the Constitutions of the Church of England seem contrary to this and to require Submission of Judgment § 84. Dr St's Replies contending that his Principles no way justify Sects considered § 86. viz * That there is a great difference between the Church of England's separation from Rome and that of the Sects from Her § 87. * That no Infallibility is challenged by her in respect of her Subjects as is by Rome § 89. * That her Doctrines are not made necessary to salvation nor any excluded from it meerly because not being in her Communion § 90. Nor any immediate authâ—rity challenged by her of obliging the Consciâ—nces of Men. § 91. Where That though none of these things could be charged on her by the Sects that have left her as they are by Her on the Church of Rome left by Her yet still by her example as also by these Tenents of hers the Sects though agreeing with her in these may think themselves at liberty to depart from her for other things wherein to them she seems faulty or defective as She for this cause did depart from her Superiours His Replies contending that his Principles afford a just and sufficient Means of remedying Sects considered § 93. Where That the Recommending of Humility Obedience and a due Submission to our Spiritual Pastors and the not usurping of their Office c understood exclusively to submission of private mens judgment to them and to restraint of Liberty of Opinion or of contradiction as to any of the Church's Definitions and Doctrines in matters of Faith are no sufficient means of suppressing Heresies and Sects Yet That if Protestants would only admit this latter of not contradicting there could have been or can be no Reformations at any time against any such Doctrines of the former Church § 94. And That the Church's Authority of making Rules and Canons of Reforming any abuses in Practice or errours in Doctrine of inflicting Censures upon Offenders of Receiving into and Excluding out of the Church such persons which according to the laws of a Christian Society are to be taken in or shut out c. if not extending to Excluding Dissenters from her Doctrines and Definitions in matters of Faith is still deficient as to the same purpose § 100. c. Concerning the Consent said to be required from all her Clergy by the Church of England to her Articles of Religion § 104. Mr Chillingworths Proposal in this matter for procuring a general Vnity in Communion and Peace in the Church considered § 96. The vanity and uneffectiveness of it as to the End aimed at § 97. A Table of the Principall CONTENTS of the ANNOTATIONS THat Tradition qualified with the other Motives is a sufficiently certain Evidence Of the Infallibility of the Church as Divinely assisted Or Of the Canon of Scripture Or Of any other Divine Revelations testified by it to be such p. 85 94 97. That either Infallibility of the Church or of Scriptures may be the first thing believed from Tradition And either of these proved from the other as either is first known p. 123 133 169. The expression of a Moral Infallibility vindicated p. 94. And that as Moral Infallibility is applied to Tradition so not to Church-Infallibility as Divinely assisted Ib. That an Assent built only on a morally-infallible Evidence never comes to be more than morally infallible Or that an Assent never riseth higher than the Evidence p. 96. The several ways How in a Divine Faith an Infallible Assent is said to be yielded to Divine Revelation p. 87. On what account Church-Infallibility necessary notwithstanding the Certainty and self-evidence of Tradition And that Christians without this Church-Infallibility are no way certain or secure as to several necessary points of their Faith because not so clearly delivered or manifested as to all persons by Tradition p. 89 93 97 98 125. That all Necessary Points of Faith are not clear in Scripture to all capacities without the assistance of their Guides p. 98. 170. The Text 2 Pet. 3.16 considered p. 173. The Testimony * of S. Austin De Doctrina Christiana l. 2. c. 9. p. 195. And * of S. Chrysostome in 2 Thess Hom. 3. concerning Clearness of Scripture considered p. 233. That several other Means of understanding Scripture void not the Directions and Decisions herein of Church-Guides where either the other means cannot be used by Secular Persons of manual emploiments or used leave the sense of Scripture still ambiguous to meaner Capacities And that the more certain such other means are the more they assure us of the Church-Guides their not erring herein p. 179. That the Canons of Councils do clearlier decide some necessary points controverted than the Text of Scripture and so effect a greater union of Doctrine in a Society submitting to them than is among those submitting only to Scripture p. 133. That Positive Laws besides the Law of Nature were from the Beginning in Gods Church and the Church-Guides then as to necessaries infallible p. 91 124. That under Moses's Law the people were enjoined Submission of Judgment to the Decisions of an Ecclesiastical Judge p. 113. That from Private Men's when using a right endeavour the Argument holds to the Church-Guides if using the like their not erring or being deceived in Necessaries but is not extended so far as that therefore they are infallible in another sense also viz so as that they cannot deceive others in mis-teaching them in Necessaries p. 136. That the Exercise of private men's judgments in all things is allowed but its erring or the non-submittance of it to another where due not therefore excused And that the charging Christians to beware of false Prophets seducers false Guides c. still fixeth them more closely to the true p. 138. That Persons consulting their Guides concerning the Sense of the Rule
to their liberty to believe in such matters what seems to them truest p. 228 230. Whether a Church fallible can justly require of all her Clergy the assenting to and maintaining of all her Articles of Religion And then How Errours can be rectified in such a Church where all the Clergy stand obliged to teach nothing contrary to the publick doctrines thereof And 2ly Whether if this be justly done by the Church of England it be not so by the Roman and by Councils as to the Clergy subject to them p. 228. Whether the Church of England doth not require Assent from all her Subjects to her Articles of Religion Or leaves all men at least saving the Clergy to their liberty of opinion p. 82. 227. Whether a Superiour Authority was not opposed by the Church of England in the Reformation p. 235. 238. How she Principles of some later English Divines are said to justify Sects p. 157. That private Men's relying on their own judgment in the Sense of Scripture believed clear to any sober Reader in all Necessaries against that of their Ecclesiastical Governours occasions a multiplication of Sects p. 221. 241. That the only effectual means in the Catholick Church for preserving her Communion from Heresies and Sects is requiring Submission of Judgment from her Subjects to her Definitions in matters of Faith and removing Dissenters from her Communion p. 241. Justified by the Apostolical Practice p. 242. And in any particular Church is its Adhering to and Vnion in Faith with the Catholick Of the Inquisition used in some parts of the Roman Church not used in others p. 242. Errata PAg. 29. line 26. reade assert p. 39. l. 6. after us so adde where also we are to believe our senses that it tells us so p. 53. l. 23. r. to Scripture p. 59. l. 10. r. did from p. 73. l. 4 r. to beare p. 87. l. 6 r. faith is Ib. l. 5 r. nor without p. 96. l. 20. r. n. 3. p. 105. l. 8. r. sorry p. 163. l. 8 r. praxi p. 164. l. 24. r. Patron p. 183. l. 6 r. thither from p. 207. l. 6 Salvator p. 258. l. 12. r. till that Contents p. 3. l. 13. r. parts of CHURCH-GUIDES Necessary for Directing Christians in Necessary Faith CHAP. I. Câ—ncerning Points necessary and a right understanding of the Scriptures in them AFter N.O. In his Considerations hath conceded to Dr. Stilling fleet 1. That the Holy Scriptures do contain all points of faith that are necessary to be of all persons believed for attaining Salvation § 1 2. And again See Consid p. 22. That in several necessaries the Scriptures also are so clear that a very mean understanding in his reading them needs no further Instructer therin Yet He there denies such an universal clearness of them in all necessary matters of faith as that they may be understood by all persons who sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their salvation And whereas the Dr. saith ‖ Princip 13 That it is repugnant to the nature of the design the wisdom goodness of God to give an infallible assurance to persons in writing his will for the benefit of mankind if those writings may not be understood by all persons sincerely endeavouring to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their salvation N. O. there answers Consid p. 13 that this may as well consist with the Design and the Wisdom and Goodness of God if in those things wherin these Divine Writings are clear only to some persons more versed in the Scriptures and in the Church's Traditional Sense of them and more assisted from above according to their Mission and Employment he hath commissioned and appointed these persons continued in a perpetual Succession to guide and instruct the rest of Christians many of whom are of a mean Capacity and no learning and hath appointed these others also to learn of them the true sense of those places or points of Gods written Will wherin to these it happens to be obscure As also it would had he left no Writings at all but only Teachers to deliver his will perpetually to his Church Either way I say sutes well with Gods Wisdom Goodness the writing his Will in all parts of it so clear as none sincerely perusing this writing can have in any necessaries to his salvation any doubt For this Will if supposed so written would render any further Ecclesiasticall Guide I say not as to many other parts of the Pastorall Office but yet as to the expounding of such Scriptures to such a person useless 2 Or the leaving a Standing Ministry to explicate this his Written Will the course taken also in giving the Law of Moses in any necessary matters wherin the sense of it is to some disputable and ambiguous Which of these two God hath done is the Question N. O. denies the former as the Dr. asserts it and for his disallowing it gives many Reasons and Evidences dispersed here and there in the Considerationâ—â—â— as the Doctors Principles ministred occasion which I shall endeavour here to recollect in some better Order and shall consider where I find any his Replyes Reducing the Considerations as relating to those Principles forementioned to these chief Heads or Chapters 1. Concerning Points Necessary and a right understanding of the Scriptures in them 2. Concerning a Necessity of Church-Guides for instruction of the people in points Necessary 3. Touching Obedience and submission of Judgment due from the Church's subjects to the Definitions of these spirituall Governors in Divine matters and this more in those matters which are more necessary 4. Concerning the Infallibility of these Governors herein 5. And the Impossibility of suppressing Sects Heresies and Schisms without admitting such an Ecclesiastical Judge § 2 1. First then N.O. observes here that in the Dr's mentioning Necessaries for Salvation Necessaries cannot rationally be taken so strictly as to include only those doctrines delivered in Scripture wherin all persons that bear the name of Christians do agree for this would be to say that whatever is any way controverted is not necessary which would conclude all controversies heretofore defined in General Councils to be of non-necessaries even those definitions of theirs put into the common Creeds and so it would become not necessary if any thing now generally consented-to shall happen to be disputed hereafter But that by the same reason as we do not bound necessaries with the Apostles Creed so neither can we with the latter common Creeds I mean in such a sense as some of the Articles of those Creeds are accounted necessary For some Heresies may arise in latter times as pernicious as the ancient were and as the four first Councils lawfully thereupon enlarged the former Creeds so may other Councils in latter ages enlarge those of these first Councils to preserve the Church's subjects from any such new corruption of such
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
President thereof to have been hitherto so divinely assisted as never to have erred in necessaries neither in believing nor declaring them notwithstanding all the by-ends of interest and reputation of which he accuseth them the Force and Fraud he chargeth on them And this I gather from his words Rat. Account p. 54. That the Church of England makes no Articles of Faith but such as have the testimony and approbation of the whole Christian World of all ages and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self Therefore the Roman Church holds all those which the Church of England doth and so all necessaries unless that of England also be defective herein And all this the Dr. seems necessitated to maintain for else the Roman failing and the Oriental Churches being then no whit better than it there would have been no Catholick Church at least as to the Hierarchy thereof extant immediatly before Luther's time And hence though I grant it cogently follows not that the Governours of the Church-Catholick shall never erre in necessaries for the future Yet is there a strong presumption that by the same Divine Assistance as they have been hitherto preserved from it so they shall be ever and it is a rational Motive of private mens submitting their judgment to the Church that hitherto she never hath but private men by departing from this obedience as several Hereticks often have erred in necessaries This here for our Lord's promises revealed in Scripture Of which a further Account is given below in Annot. on p. 113. l. 15. for the experience the World hath had of their accomplishment hitherto § 54 For justifying the same Infallibility N.O. ‖ Consid p. 85. c. 1. further presseth that noted Plea of S. Austin against the Donatists 1st That whereas some Divine Revelations may be so obscurely expressed in Scriptures or involved only in their Principles as that some weak capacities cannot discern them Yet that in the same Scriptures such persons may alwaies discover the Church distinctly which is It amongst never so many pretenders by certain Notes marks belonging to it I mean not those named by this Author ‖ Rat. Acc. p. 7. and other Protestant's though these true Marks also viz. True Doctrine and a Right Administration of the Sacraments a Quest or Trial by such marks that can never be made an end of being a task to know all the truths in Christianity what they are first before we can know which is the Church whenas the Enquirer seeks after the Church that by it he may come to know these Truths but by these other Tests and marks following as in several places he gives account of them ‖ Contra Fundament c. 4. De utilit Credend c. 8.16 17. De Vnita Eccles c. 25. Successione Episcoporum ab Apostolicâ Sede Or as Contra Fundamentum ib ipsa Sede Petri Apostoli frustra Haereticâ—s circumlatrantibus Authoritate vetustate firmatâ Conciliorum gravitate Miraculorum majestate Sequentium multitudine i.e. as to the coherence in one Communion no other Society or Party being ever so great Populorum atque Gentium consensu famâ admodum celeberrimâ Ecclesia ubique diffusa non in aliqua parte terrarum sed ubique notissima Lastly Ipso nomine Catholicae quod non sine causâ inter tam multas Haereses sola obtinuit which being the Marks of the Catholick Church by the Scripture-description of it in S. Austins time must be so for ever for that Consid p. 88 if any should apply these Scriptures more to S. Austin's days as indeed several Protestants do than to any other or than to the present by the same reason the Donatists might here have counter applied them to some other and not to S. Austin's times Thus then S Austin affirms from the Scriptures such persons may easily discover the Church which it is § 55 And then 2ly may discover there that it is a Judge in other Controversies which are not so clearly delivered in Scriptures always to be consulted and stood to Of which thus this Father writes in his dispute with the Donatists concerning the obscure Point of Rebaptization Quoniam Sacra Scriptura fallere non potest Consid p. 85 quisquis falli metuit hujus obscuritate quaestionis eandem Ecclesiam de illâ consulat quam sine ullâ ambiguitate sacra Scriptura demonstrat And before Proinde quamvis hujus rei certè de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum earundem tamen Scripturarum etiam in hâc re i.e. in the point of Non-rebaptization a nobis tenetur veritas cùm hoc facimus quod universae placuit Ecclesiae i. e which hath been stated concerning that Point by the Church quam ipsarum Scripturarum commendat authoritas Vt quoniam c. Thus S. Austin After which N.O. goes on that all this said by this Father is false and said to no purpose if the Scripture be not clear in this That this Church can determine nothing in such important contests contrary to the verity of the Scriptures and so in this that we ought to give credit to what she decides for then it would not be true what he says Earundem Scripturarum in hâc re in Non-rebaptization tenetur veritas when we do in this point what the Church decides if the Church may possibly decide it amiss And again Quisquis falli metuit hujus obscuritate quaestionis Ecclesiam de illâ consulat would no way relieve his being deceived still if the Church consulted might also be mistaken in it Nor would the same S. Austin have had any reason to presume as he doth De Baptismo 1. l. 4. c. that S. Cyprian would have corrected his opinion concerning this Point and yielded to the Council's judgment or any reason to charge the Donatists with Heresy for dissenting from it after the Determination of such a Council Nor the 2d General Council have had any just ground to put it in the Creed Credo unum Baptisma in remissionem peccatorum if such Universal Councils in their stating matters of Faith are errable and amendable Which are N. O's words ‖ Addit to p. 86. l. 11. by prevention relating to that known passage in S. Austin Ipsaque plenaria Concilia saepè priora posterioribus emendari and declaring they can have no such sense as the Dr. ‖ Answ to N.O. p. 255. and others impose upon them § 56 Again p. 58. he urgeth That in the belief and profession of this Church-Infallibility and submission of private mens Judgments to her sentence passed in her Synods Consid p. 58 the Tenet of the Greek Church seems no way varying from the Roman That Jeremias the Constantinopolitan Patriarch in his Contest with the Lutheran Protestants is much in this as a sure Retreat for ending Controversies establishing Peace †Resp 1. p. 139. where he tells them ‖ Quae Synodicè legitimâ Conciliorumratione mandata sunt
being thus granted by these persons Next as for the Vniversal Acceptation the conditi on of this Infallibility or of our assurance thereof they allow the first four General Councils to have been so accepted and therefore profess to them all obedience and that which these Councils required we know was Assent And concerning this Obedience and submission of Judgment to these Consid p. 32. upon such an universal acceptation of the Church Diffusive Dr. St. writes thus ‖ Rat. Account p. 375. The Church of England looks upon the keeping the Decrees of the four first General Councils as her Duty and professeth to be guided by the sense of Scripture as interpreted by the unanimous consent of the Fathers and the four first General Councils that is she professeth to take that which such Councils deliver for the sense of Scripture Not then to admit that which they deliver if she first judgeth it to be the true sense of Scripture So also elsewhere he saith ‖ Ib. p. 59. The Church of England doth not admit any thing to be delivered as the sense of Scripture which is contrary to the consent of the Catholick Church of the four first Ages that is in their Oecumenical Councils as he expresseth it in the preceding Page And here also he gives the ground of such Submission viz. a strong presumption he might have said an absolute necessity for what he urgeth provesit that nothing contrary to the necessary Articles of faith should be held by the Catholick Church whose very being depends upon the belief of those things that are necessary to Salvation These first Councils therefore being as they allow universally accepted the Universal Acceptation necessary to render any General Councils infallible can be exacted no greater or larger than that which these first Councils actually had upon this account the same title of Infallibility must be allowed by them to several others yet whose Definitions in matters of Faith they to several others yet whose Definitions in matters of Faith they oppose § 60 Lastly to that which this Author presseth against such pretended Infallibility in His Reply to the Cousiderations p. 150. †Conseq 4. and in his Principles and frequently elswhere ‖ See Rat. p. 117.567 Rom. Idol p. 540. That in Opinions absurd and repugnant to the first Principles of Sense and Reason which any Church obtrudes upon the faith of men men have the greatest Reason to reject the pretence of this Infallibility as a grand Imposture N. O. answers clearly to it thus †Consid p. 92 93. 1. That where the Divine Power supernaturally worketh any thing that is contrary to our senses as no doubt it may here we are not to believe them And that this he thinks none can deny 2. And next That we are to believe this Divine power doth so so often as certain Divine Revelation tells us so because we have no Divine Revelation herein not to believe them and yet we are not to believe the same Senses in the thing wherein they inform us contrary to what this Revelation tells us For otherwise Lot and his Daughters or the men of Sodom were not to credit the Divine Revelation supposing that Divine History then written and extant that the seeming Men who came to Sodom were Angels because this was against their Senses Now here would he argue well as Dr. St. †See Stillingst Rom. Idol p. 540. Rat. Account p. 117 567. and Dr. Tillotson ‖ Rule of Faith p. 275 do against Transubstantiation who because Lot's sight was actually deceived upon this supernatural accident in taking the Angels to be Men as certainly it was from hence would inferr that the Apostles had no sufficient certainty or ground from their seeing and handling our Lord to believe him risen from the dead Or that no belief could ever be certainly grounded upon our Senses which Senses are appointed by God the ordinary instruments of conveying faith and his revelations to us viz. by our hearing or reading them and do afford a sufficient certainty whereon to ground our belief in all things subject to them excepting only those wherein we have some Divine-Revelation of the Divine Power interposing and working somthing above Nature that in such particular matter we are not to believe them 3ly Which Divine Revelation we are to learn that is where the sense of the Scriptures Gods word is any way controverted from Gods Church infallibly assisted in necessary Faith I add or also by Tradition evidently from age to age conveying to us such a sense ' of such Scripture to be the true Thus N. O. to that obstacle much urged of late That no pretence of Church-Infallibility may be admitted in any thing that is repugnant to our Senses § 61 And thus since no truly Divine Revelation can be false whether it stand with or against our Senses or seeming Reason the dispute here as to any particular point of our saith suppose Transubstantiation is clearly removed from what is the evidence of sense or seeming Reason in such a matter to what certainty there is of the Revelation its being Divine Neither can we conclude any thing from the former evidence of our Senses where Divine Revelation is pretended contrary till the latter evidence that of the certain truth of the Revelation is first disproved The evidence therefore of Tradition an evidence sufficient as for proving the Scriptures to be Gods Word so for such or such sense of any part of Scripture to be Divine Revelation not of our Senses is first to be enquired after Which Primitive Tradition interpreting Scripture this Author also I think elsewhere saith he will stand to And §. 62. n. 1. if these things be so his arguing in his Rational Account p. 567. if he pleaseth to reflect upon it cannot stand good where he saith the Testimony of the Fathers carries not so great an evidence as that of our Senses The question saith he there in short is Whether there be greater evidence that I am bound to believe the Fathers in a matter contrary to sense and reason or else to adhere to the judgment of them though in opposition to the Fathers And afterward Supposing saith he the Fathers were as clear for you as they are against you in this subject yet that would not be enough to perswade us to believe so many contradictions as Transubstantiation involves in it meerly because the Fathers i.e. thus interpreting the Scriptures delivered it to us For nothing but a stronger evidence than that of sense and Reason can be judged sufficient to oversway the clear dictates of both So that suppose Catholicks could prove for example for the literal sense of Hoc est Corpus meum an universal consent of Fathers or of Tradition yet what shall we be the nearer in dealing with such men who say they must rather believe the evidence of Sense as being the foundation of the Christian Faith But if the
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
Author or Protestants would generally stand to it that private men should follow such an evident consent of the Universal Church on this account viz the unreasonableness of the believing that so many so wise so disinteressed persons should be deceived But I am afraid the Dr if put to follow constantly such a consent will relieve himself here with a clause that lies dormant and which his Reader perhaps takes litle notice of viz. in such a case as this i.e. a case doubtful and difficult Yet one would think if we have reason to follow these wise men's judgment in things that are difficult and that have little evidence and light in Scripture as Rebaptization was much more have we reason to follow it in such things still as are more clear in Scripture since this is more incredible that so many so wise so disinteressed persons should be deceived in them Or that That is there clear to us which is not so to them but the contrary And so I take leave of the Dr's Answer to return again to the progress of N. O's Discourse CHAP. V. Concerning Sects and Heresies not suppressible without an Ecclesiastical Judge § 81 V. FIfthly N.O. much presseth against such Principle 1st that the remitting thus all manner of persons for the understanding of all points necessary to salvation Scripture as asserted clear therein only they using a due endeavour without requiring any submission of their judgment or of assent in such matters to the Definitions of the Church as pretended in these not infallible is a Plea no more justifying the Reformation and the dissent from superiors of the Church of England Consid p. 97 than that of any other Sect whatever even of those which the same Church of England most abhorrs For that all these Sects also for the Doctrines and Extravagancies they maintain and Discessions they make do equally appeal to the Clearness of the Infallible Scriptures in them sufficiently intelligible unto their sincere endeavours and decline as fallible all other Ecclesiastical Authority § 82 So Volkelius †Volkel de verâ Relig. l. 5. c. 7. pleads for the Socinians as the Dr for the Church of England Quae de fide in Christum statuenda sunt ex Sacris Literis patere And again Deus qui religionem Christianam usque ad mundi finem vigere voluit curavis etiam tale aliquid perpetuo extare unde ea quatenus omninò ad salutem est necessarium cognâ—sci indubitatè possit At nihil tale extare praeter Sacras Lateras Crell de uno Deo Patre in Praesat To the same purpose Crellius another Socinian saith Haec Sententia by which Christ's Divinity is denied plurimis ac clarissimis Sacrarum Literarum testimoniis nititur It is needless to cite more From whence is manifest That such Principles as here appear only in the defence of the Religion established in the Church of England make the same Apology also for all those other Protestant parties and for the most blasphemous Sects disclaimed by it Consid p. 98 The Dr in the mean while omitting that by which the former learned Defenders of his Church usually have justified it against them namely the Church of England's adhering to the Traditional Exposition and sense of Scripture received from the Primitive Church This I say he omitts perhaps because it may be thought to relish a little of Church-Infallibility § 83 2ly Neither doth such Principle leave any just and sufficient means in such Church as maintains it of suppressing any Sect Schism or Heresy Consid p. 98. By Sects here I do not mean any Parties that are of different opinions in matters not determined or stated on any side by the Church or those Ecclesiastical Superiors to whom they owe Obedience but such as dissent from and refuse conformity to her established Doctrines and Injunctions And by suppressing them I mean preserving the Church perpetually in its integrity and unity of faith by excluding all such if otherwise uncorrigible from her Communion and purging herself from such a leaven and contagion For which effect our Lord hath left a perpetual Authority to his Church in her General Councils equally taking upon her in all ages to judge what is Heresy or Schisme and who Sectaries and requiring a strict assent to her Definitions in matters of faith and removing such as do not so submit out of her Society by Excommunication according to our Lord's Si Ecclesiam non audicrit sit tibi sicat Ethnicus Tit. 3.10 and S. Paul's Haereticum hominem post unam fecundam correptionem devita 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Vtinam abscindantur qui vos conturbant Gal. 5.12 By which she preserves herself Vnam Sanctam Catholicam one Body and not only of one language by the silence and non-contradiction of any of her members but by assent also of one mind and one faith and without any rent or schisme all the Parts of this Body as hath been said before § 26. being placed in an exact subordination by which it is well known in any division and dissent of these Governours to whom Obedience is due By Obedience of Affâ—nt I say preserved of one mind for though a General Non Contradiction to any of the Church's professed doctrines may possibly procure the Church's peace and prevent the spreading and contagion of such Heresies and Sects where such an Obedience is strictly observed Yet 1st So long as no submission of Judgment is required Heresy is neither at all prevented in or ejected out of the Church if any of her Members be stained therwith but only silenced 2ly Where there is a dissent in Judgment it is almost impossible that none also shall appear in discourse or writings for out of the abundance of the heart the month will be speaking 3ly If the obedience of a Non-contradiction sufficiently secures the Church's Peace Yet Protestants upon their ground of Church-fallibility in Necessaries cannot Universally allow or admit such an obedience because so there could never have been any Reformation of such Church her Errours though never so grosse and fundamental where no lawful gainsaying or contradicting them either by Laicks or especially by the Clergy The Church then by requiring such submission of Judgment and removing dissenters preserves her subjects for ever not only of one Language but of one Mind in the common faith But according to this Principle of the Dr's which leaves all persons upon the securing them if using a just diligence they cannot err in necessaries to their own judgment as to their assent to or dissent from what the Church determines which Assent is maintained by him not to be justly required as to matters of Faith by any Judges save the infallible here can be no just excluding any dissenters from such Church's communion and so all Sects and opinions equally remain if they please in it Or in their separating one from another as an Vnion of Charity and
peace lasts not long where is once a diversity of Opinion or Faith there is no means left here upon such a ground for reducing any to the sentiments of the rest though in those points which are of the greatest moment For when two contradicting parties after both repairing to the Scriptures and supposing a due endeavour used to understand them do contend Scripture clear for themselves the clearness of such Scripture how great soever it be on one side how falsly soever pretended or imagined on the other cannot be made an instrument of conviction to the other here then can be no suppression of any side nor abscission of them from the Catholick Communion how pernicious soever their doctrine be unless things be prosecuted further than Scripture to their hearing the Church that is asserting and submitting to its judgment or else being esteemed and treated as Heathens Matt. 18.17 Now the Church here referred to by our Lord in case of differences is not so proper an Arbitrator and Judge of any contentions as of those that happen in the matter of the Christian Faith in which matter also we see S. Paul Timothy and Titus used their Ecclesiastical Authority and Judicature and therefore they seem to do much wrong to this Text who would limit it especially if not only to trespasses in Manners 3ly N.O. adds also that the great licentiousness of opinions that follows upon such a Principle seems very contrary also to the former pretences and practice of the Church of England for which he urgeth §. 84. n. 1. Consid p. 77. * the Title of the 39. Articles which are said to be Agreed upon for the avoiding of diversities of opinions and the establishing of Consent touching true Religion Preface p. 6. Consid p. 77. And * 5. Canon Synod 1602. Whosoever shall affirm these Articles agreed on for establishing Consent in true Religion such as he may not with a good conscience subscribe i.e. assent unto let him be excommunicated and not restored but after repentance and revocation of such his wicked not gainsaying or contradiction but Errour and * Can. 36. Where the Clergy are obliged To allow and acknowledg all the Articles agreeable to God's Word i.e. to assent to them and the * Statute 13. Eliz. c. 12. Where such as enter into the Ministry are required to declare their assent and subscribe to the 39. Articles of Religion this being there added also which only concern the confession of the true Christian faith and doctrine of the Sacraments Entitled Articles whereupon it was agreed c and shall have from the Bishop a testimonial of such assent and subscription c. Of which matter the Reader if he pleaseth may see much more in the 3d Disc concerning the Guide in Controversy ch 7. N.O. also contends Ibid. against the Dr's 26th Principle §. 84. n. 2. That the Church of England's rejecting in her Articles several points believed in the Church of Rome as contrary to Scripture as she doth Purgatory Adoration of Images Invocation of Saints Article of the Church of England 22 Works of Supererogation Art 14. Sacrifice of the Mass Art 31. Transubstantiation Art 28. is as plainly making the Negatives of these Articles of her Faith as the Roman Church doth the Positives and using the same severity herself which she complains of in others Because the declaring any Positive proposition to be contrary to Scripture makes the Negative thereof to be a thing revealed in Scripture and therefore this to be believed by all who hold it is so Thus though if I profess not to believe Transubstantiation because neither contained in Scripture nor deducible thence I do not hereby make the denial or Negative thereof an Article of my Faith Yet if I profess not to believe it because contrary to Scripture I do Now in all these things this Church seems to have an aim at the preservation of an Vnity of Faith and opinion amongst her subjects and a removing from her Communion of such as shall not assent to her Doctrines and acquiesce in her Ceremonies And I know not whether by some later different Comments on the sense of these her Canons and Laws but so it is that since Chillingworths â—imes who seems the first that made this Principle more current and authentick in this Church Sects have much more multiplyed in this Nation than formerly And By this way N.O. saith ‖ Consid Pref. p. 7. our later English Divines seem to have brought the Authority of their Church into a great disreputation and waning condition and to have excused yea justified all Sects which have or shall separate from her i.e. as to the liberty they take of such a sâ—pa ation For indeed what fault can it be to forsake when they imagine the contrary to be truth the doctrine of a Church whose teaching none is bound to believe or obey out of conscience § 85 4 But N.O. yet further observes that though the Church of England should or also doth require assent and submission of judgment from her Subjects to her Decrees and Articles of Religion for hindring Sects and divisions from her yet that she cannot ju ify to her subjects any such proceedings nor justly restrain them â—rom doing toward her that which she indulged her self in the Refâ—rmation toward her Superiours So that if in some cases viz. in what not indeed were but seemed to her manifest and intolerable errours she might depart from and publickly oppose the doctrine of Church-Councils superiour to her National one so might others again break off and reform from her on the like to-them-seeming good grounds and causes Such submission of assent being by no particular Church divided from the more Universal Pref. p. 5. with the least pretence of reason to be challenged from her subjects when she herself and particularly the Church of England refused the same to all the Superiour Church-Authority that was extant when she departed as surely there was and is always an Authority Superiour to a Primate as to Persons or as for Councils to a National one Now to consider the Dr's Replies to these things § 86 To N. O's pressing here that he seems in his Principles to discede from the intentions of the Church of England which in several passages ‖ See b fore §. 84. requires an Assent from her Subjects to the verity of her Articles of Religion and conformity to her Ceremonies which implyes Assent I do not remember he hath said any thing Yet a Point that if it were but for the Presbyterians sake who boggle much at such a submission needs some cleaâ—ing Nor hath he said any thing in Answer to the Church of England's being shewed ‖ §. 84. n. 2. to make the Negatives Articles of her faith whilst she condemns the tyranny of the Roman Church in making the Positives so § 87 Next to N. O's words That by their way the late English Divines have excused yea
had commanded them Means he not this here of the Church of England in opposition to the Roman obliging mens consciences that it only teacheth such things but challengeth not any absolute obedience or belief from its Subjects that Christ hath commanded such things as it teacheth If so Doth not this still spur on the Sects to cast about for themselves since this Church may tell them Christ hath commanded them what indeed he hath not and since this Author tells them moreover that the Scriptures read by them with a sincere endeavour to understand them will be clear to them in necessaries § 92 5ly P. 185. He saith The reasons we plead for separation from the Church of Rome are in themselves far more considerable than those which are pleaded by such whâ— separate from our Church And That our Church's imposing of three Ceremonies declared to be indifferent by those who require them cannâ—t be thought by any men of common sense so great a burden to their consciences as all thâ— load of superstitious fopperies in the Roman Church To this I say Be it a less or a greater load that is laid upon us both oppress us where neither can be born Ceremonies he saith declared to be indifference by those who require them But what if not by the Dissenters believed to be indifferent as a fallible Church tells them May these be imposed upon them so as to require conformity in the practice which includes assent to the lawfulness thereof Or if the departure of the Church of England from Rome for many things imposed for the presâ—rving her Conscience otherwise perswaded is juâ—tified why not the departure of these Dissenters from the Church of England though for fewer things imposed justified here also And can this Author blame them therein And saith he not to this purpose in the beginning of this Answer ‖ p. 180. That the perswasion of conscience equally serves to all Parties From all these instances he would collect that the Sctarists have less reason to depart from the Church of England than she hath from Rome which is true as to these matters whilst the sects are of the same Judgment with her therein therefore also for none of these do they depart from her But yet for other matters they may and do wherein they think her faulty and defective and do this according to the Grounds of a lawful departure which they have learnt from her and the Example which she hath formerly given them in her separation from her Superiours Which matter having been shewed at large in the 4th Discourse Concerning the Guide in Controversies I may save this labour and referr the Reader to it Where for an Instance the Socinian draws up his Plea proceeding on the Protestants Principles and Concessions and particularly those of this Dr which there are frequently cited by him that in his Tenents concerning the Trinity he holds nothing either repugnant to the Holy Scripture i.e. rightly understood or to the unanimous sense of Antiquity or Definitions of lawful General Councils so far as these two are admitted by Protestants to oblige Nor that he stands guilty either of Heresy or of Schisme i.e. according as Protestants state them And also in all these Replies here of the Dr let the Reader consider Whether N. O's Objection is not rather more fortified by what he pretendeth to dissolve it § 93 Lastly to N O's urging †See before §. 83. That such Principles leave no just and sufficient means in such a Church as maintains them of suppressing Sects Schismes or Heresies He returns an answer from p. â—86 to the end of his Discourse to which he gives this Title â—nâ— is Contents The Roman Church's way of suppressing Sects compared with our's Where I find him 〈◊〉 â—87 c very bitterly inveighing against the Roman Inquisition and spending the most of his Reply upon it Which Inquisition as used in some Catholick Churches so is not admitted in others and which no way mentioned in the Dr's Principles or in N. O's Considerations I wondred how he brought it into his Answer or why he spent so many pages upon it but at last I considered it might be much to his purpose as a thing which to his Protestant Reader would seem odious though it be nothing to N. O's discourse who presseth not the Roman Inquisition but the Catholick Church in her Councils requiring Assent to her Definitions pronouncing the Dissenters Hereticks and expelling them from her Communion and so preserving among the Subjects of this Body the same Faith and Vnity at least proportionable to the extent of her laws and decrees of which means of suppressing Sects and Heresies or any other that can be effectual the Dr in dissallowing such practice and leaving every one to the liberty of their own judgment in the matters most necessary to their salvation seems destitute § 94 Again I find him p. 289. saying That setting the Inquisition aside the Church of England hath as many reasonable means and I think many more of convicting dissenters than they can pretend to in the Roman Church But expecting he should name these means he saith ‖ p. 290. We recommend to the people the vertues of Humility Obedience due submission to their Spiritual Pastors and Governours and that they ought not to usurp their â—ffice and become their own Guides Yet we do not exact of them a blinde obedience c. Thus he But if the Church of England doth only this and no more it is a means apparently unsufficient for suppressing Heresies or Sects For men are still left to the liberty of their former tenents or practices so long as the contraries are in his stile only recommended to them not required of them and Counsel is no Power of the Keys The Recommending of a due submission to our Spiritual Pastors will not serve the turn if this due be not stated and understood to extend to submission of judgment which the Dr will not admit and therefore in repeating N. O's words and professing the like endeavour against Sects performed by Protestants as is by Catholicks he changeth them here and instead of N. O's Submission of judgment puâ—s in due submission For some submission well consists with the liberty of enjoying our own opinions and corrupting by them the Common Faith As a submission to the Church's Rules and Canons in matters in their own nature indifferent in matters of Order and Dâ—cency in necessary Religious Ceremonies and ancient Rites of the Christian Church a submission of judgment conditional in matters of Faith viz. in what the Church shall determine according to the Scripture a submission of Silence or non-publick contradicting her Doctrines or Decrees but this not absolute but only where her errours herein are not manifest or intolerable For if Protestants would admit an absolute obedience of non-contradiction it is granted that this would preserve the Church's peace and her non-disturbance from Heresies and consequently
the Schisms that ordinarily follow them But in conceding such a submission Protestants well see there could have been no justifiable Reformation in Luther's time nor can be hereafter in any other against such erroneous doctrines of the former Church Again the teaching them that they ought not to become their own Guides what sense soever he will put upon it yet if not this that they ought to submit their judgments to the Doctrines of their Guides I mean as to the Decrees of their General Councils and ought to follow their faith a thing his Principles admit not it must fall short of suppressing Heresies or Sects whilst every one retains his own opinion still notwithstanding the contrary doctrine of his Guides § 95 For what he adds That his Church exacts of none a blind obedience if it be not meant a blind i.e. an obedience which there is no Reason for which obedience it is granted may never be exacted or exhibited but signifies the Church not to require of her subjects an absolute assent where all either do or ought to know they owe it though they perhaps do not yet see the Reason or grounds of those Truths wherein they give it so any less obedience than this exacted can never crush Heresies and Sects We see the Church of England made her Articles for establishing consent in judgment and for avoiding diversity of opinions Yet these Articles are not proved by her to their Reasons there where they are delivered And S. Austin writ a book De Vtilitate Credendi i. e of believing the Church upon some other grounds before men saw the Reasons of those things that were proposed by her to be believed and relates a Story of those who first doing this yielding their obedience to her proposals said a Gratias Deo afterward for their understanding the other viz. a good reason of the things she proposed Gratias Deo Qui expertos doeuit quà m vana inania de Ecclesiâ mendax fama jactaverit S. Augustin Epist 48. and when we see no Reason of the thing to be believed being not yet cleared to us we may see much to believe and rely on the judgment of the Church proposing it to be believed rather than our own § 96 These things our Authour here hath returned in his own defence In which methinks Mr Chillingworth hath dealt somewhat more plainly and openly Who seeing that a diversity of Opinions according to such Protestant Principles must be allowed and that all Judge to decide and end them or declare amongst these opinions what is Heresy must be taken away besides only the Scriptures the clearness also of which Scriptures for one side can hardly be maintained as to such places thereof though touching matters of great moment where whole Nations do understand them in a contrary sense one to another thought of another way of preserving perpetually the peace of the Church in ordering rather that diversity of opinions might be no hindrance to unity of Communion i.e. that men of all opinions should peaceably live to gether in one external communion His words to this purpose are ‖ ch 4. §. 39 40. This is most certain that to reduce Christians to unity of Communion there are but two wayes that may be conceived probable the one by taking away dâ—versity of opinions touching matters of Religion the other by shewing that the dâ—versity of opinions which is among the several Sects of Christians ought to be no hinderance to their Vnity of Communion Now the former of these is not to be hâ—ped fâ—r without a miracle that is unless it could be made evident to all men that God hath appointed some visible Judge of Controversies to whose judgment all men are to submit themselves What can be made more evident than besides the Scriptures the Laws and Practice of the Church in her General Councils have made this He goes on What then remains but that the oâ—her wâ—y must be taken and Christians must be taught to set a higher value upon these high points of faâ—th and obedience wherein they agree than upon thâ—se mâ—tâ—ers of less moment wherein they differ and understand that agreement in those ought to be more effectual to join them in one Communion then their diffâ—rence in other things of less moment to divide them But here I pray why must the matters wherein they differ be of less moment than some of those wherein they agree Or are there not some points wherein those that are involved within the General Name of Chriâ—tians do differ of the highest consequence and concernment or of much greater than some others are wherein they acâ—ord Since then this is a law that ought if in any to be observed in all times men may consider here of what great consequence some of the ancient Heresies and differences were And in some of tâ—ose points of greater moment wherein men agree now may not they differ hereafter § 97 Suppose them among these diversities of opinions there happen to be also some errour in some Fundamental or Essential as they use to stile it to the constitution or being of a Church which is Heresy in their notion surely such Errours ought not to be tolerated among the rest for example Socinianisme but suppressed and if to be suppressed how may it be discerned or by what Judge is it to be declared such for knowing it must precede suppressing it Is it to be known by clear Scripture because in all such points Scripture is affirmed clear on their side So Mr. Chillingworth saith being asked this Question by his Adversary ‖ ch 2. §. 127 For If Scripture saith he be sufficient to inform us what is the faith it must of necessity be also sufficient to teach us what is Heresy seeing Heresy is nothing but a manifest deviation from and an opposition to the faith That which is straight will plainly teach us what is crooked and one contrary cannot but manifest the other Thus he Now this is very well If all men that read the Scriptures were all agreed in the same Opinion But in our endeavouring to discover what or on which side is Heresy the Sense of Scripture is the very Ball of the contention and the Heretick suppose a Socinian will say for himself as readily as the Catholick that the Scripture the straight Rule for what he holds plainly shews him the tenent crooked which he opposeth This I say were a good Answer if Mr. Chillingworth will maintain as I think he doth and can justify it that no points are necessary or essential in the Christian Religion but what all Christians or all except a very few in their reading the Scriptures are agreed in To which purpose ‖ Answ to Pref. §. 26. in requiring the using mens best endeavour to believe the Scripture in the true sense he saith also that He hopes many on all sides I understand him in all Sects of Christians and Divisions of Opinion do perform
this truly and sincerely which they doing he saith It is impossible but that they should believe aright in all things necessary to salvation Seeming thus to make Necessaries those points only wherein all sides or the many on all sides are agreed But then there can be no Heresies i. e contradictions of any Christian Societies or Parties in points necessary if all sides be thus agreed in them Or at least all those differences we have hitherto seen will be no Heresies if hitherto in necessaries hath been no difference And so if any necessary point now generally agreed on by Christians shall happen hereafter by any considerable party to be contested it must be thenceforth cashiered as a non-necessary § 98 The same Mr. Chillingworth elsewhere ‖ ch 6. §. 48. answers a like Question methinks with as litle satisfaction the Question How a Protestant without any Guide save Scripture may know he holds no fundamental errour against Scripture To which he answers That we believing all the Bible are certain enough that we believe all that is fundamental and so maybe certain also that we hold no Heresy But so all Hereticks too will be no Hereticks suppose a Socinian for they believe the Bible to be God's Word as well as others But if he means by the Protestants believing all the Bible his believing the true sense of it all what he saith is very true that such may be certain he holds no Heresy But Is the Protestant then certain of this his believing the true sense of it all Or if not but only he believes he doth so at least in all necessaries so may the Heretick too and still remain an Heretick Since then Hereticks also do both urge and on their side pretend the Scripture clear here the Question returns who there is to decide on which part it is clear Is this then to be decided by the Common Sense or Reason of Christians For I know not what else can be said our Lord 's Dic Ecclesiae being declined and this Common Reason the Dr often appeals to But this also is common to and pretended by Catholick and Heretick Shall it be then the Common Reason of the much major part or the more learned part of the Christian World But now we are fallen upon a Judge beside the Scripture to decide what is Heresy in points necessary and it seems there is need of such a one But then if such Common Reason may decide Controversies for suppressing Heresy these are so decided already against the Protestants as to many points wherein the major part of the world doth declare the Scriptures to be against them For which the inquisitive may see 3d. Discourse Concerning the Guide in Controversy chap. 8. formerly referred to But suppose here it be said No But the Common Reason of Antiquity shall decide this matter Yet since both sides pretend also this Antiquity as Roman Catholicks and Protestants do in their Controversies will not this again return us to the Common Reason of the major part of the present Christianity suppose against a Socinian to judge what is the sentiment of Antiquity in such matter § 99 But besides these difficulties this Device of Mr. Chilling worth and his Disciples seems much to saile in one thing more viz. that diversities of Opinion will cross one another in the very Service and Form of that External Communion wherein he would have them all to be joined so that in this Publick Service what pleaseth one will dislike another for which reason he saith often elsewhere that though Protestants have no cause to depart from the Roman Communion because of her other Corruptions yet have they for those in her Communion a concurrence wherein is exacted of them Here therefore at last must not the Communion be brought to this that all Christians keeping as they think fit several external communions yet should preserve amongst themselves one Internal But then as for remedying such quarrels also about the Form he seems to propose that in such external communion no manner of Service or Worship of God should be used but what all Christians approved for so he requires in the following words That it should be a joint Worship of God after such a way as all esteem lawful But besides that thus scarce any part of the Church's former Publick Service would remain and the Church of England's Liturgy would no more stand than the Roman thus the Publick Service must continually vary hereafter as any Christians shall dislike somthing in it and then what all agree in to day they will not to morrow for Nunquam futurum est ut idem omnibus placeat I add especially where a thing is established modò placeat omnibus sires velut in medio positae singulorum arbitrio relictae fuerint as Calvin ‖ Instit l. 4. c. 10. §. 31. The same proposal or design as Mr Chillingworth for conserving the Church's Peace in the declining of an Ecclesiastical Judge had also Mr Hales of Eaton in his Tract of schisme There p. 10. his words are these Were Liturgies and publick forms of Service so framed as that they admitted not of particular and private fancies but contained only such things as in which all Christians do agree Schismes on the variety of opinion were utterly vanished for consider of all the Liturgies that are and ever have been and remove from them whatsoever is scandalous to any party and leave nothing but what all agree on and the evil shall be that the publick Service and Honâ—ur of God shall no ways suffer Whereas to load our publick forms with the private fancies upon which we differ is the most soveraign way to perpetuate Schisme unto the worlds end And a little before I do not see that opinionum varietas and opinantium unitas are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or that men of different pinions in Christian Religion may not hold communion in Sacris and both go to one Church And that you may know what manner of opinions he includes here he proceeds Why may not I go if occasion require to an Arian Church so there be no Ariamsâ—e expressed in their Liturgy We see what a different complexion this man is of from the Ancient Church and its Governours from our Lord 's si non audierit Ecclesiam sit tibi sicut Ethnious and S. Paul's Haereticum hominem devita against whom may be repeated the same as hath been against Mr. Chillingworth § 100 Not well satisfied with such answers allowing as seemed to me no means effectual for crushing Heresies or diminishing Sects but rather countenancing and increasing them if the toleration of diversity of opinions may be thought to do so I reviewed what the Dr had said in some pages before ‖ p. 267. concerning the Authority that is still left in the Governours of the Church though Infallibility be taken away to see if this Church-authority might be there as to this present matter any further enforced There
Church both which fall short of requiring an assent to the truth of these Articles or of this doctrine Or with Bishop Bramhal and himself Ration Account p. 55. a Consent for peace sake not to oppose them for so Dr Stillingfleet quotes the Bishop there saying ‖ Reply to Chalcedon p. 264. We do not oblige any man to believe but only not to contradict them And so the Qualification the Dr adds in the words following here seems to explain this Clergy Consent Not saith he to the end that all those propositions should be believed as Articles of Faith but that none might preach or officiate in a way contrary to the designe of the Reformation i.e. as I understand him preach against any of the reformed doctrines Not that all thâ—se propositions saith he should be believed as Articles of Faith Very perplex'd this For I ask Are not some of these Articles at least then required by the Church of England to be believed as Articles of Faith Otherwise the English Clergy as to the whole Body of Christian Faith is left to their liberty to disbelieve any part thereof And if some be required to be so believed yet so long as no distinction at all is made any of the Clergy may leave out of his Faith which Articles he pleaseth For example one inclined to Socinianisme leave out that of God the Son's Consubstantiality with God the Father But next supposing the belief of some Articles expresly and distinctly required of this Clergy yet then what if this Church as being fallible should be mistaken in some of them But now considering the Clergy's consent not required for belief but on the latter account viz. that none of them should teach the people contrary to the Church's Reformation Yet here again since this Church may possibly be faulty in something it reforms is this just to stop the mouths of all Gods Ministry in this Church that none of them may speak against it If it be why is not the same thing as lawful to the Church of Rome as that of England And then if her Clergy also had been obliged to observe this Luther and other Reformers being part of this Clergy how could there lawfully have been a Reformation and why is the modern practice of the Roman Church in this matter declaimed-against by Protestants as the highest Tyranny as also that of the Church of England is by the Presbyterians These perplexities seem to attend the Dr's qualification But as hath been said before whatever consent may be exacted of the Clergy there is still left to Heresies and Sects the liberty of this Church's Communion though not of its Ministery for any Barr that the Dr hath put in here to hinder it And so I leave these things here briefly represented to the further Consideration of the Dr and his Protestant Reader THE SECOND PART Annotations on Dr Stillingfleet's Answer to N. O's Considerations of his Principles HAving in the former Discourse reviewed the Considerations and made some Necessary Reflections on the Drs to me seeming-unsatisfactory Answers as to several principal matters urged therein against his Principles I see not why I might not take the same liberty as himself hath used toward N. O to let pass the rest of his Discourse unreplied-to especially where it digresseth to many other by-matters and neither vindicates his Principles nor refutes the Considerations But lest that in his Book which is litle pertinent to the answering of N. O's Discourse yet be said to be much to the defence of the Protestant Cause and such things in it to have most weight whatever I shall have omitted I have drawn up some Annotations upon his whole Book following him whither his matter leads me Though these Animadversions many times be very compendious as supposing an intelligent Reader and endeavouring to avoid tediousness in Recapitulations self-justifications complaints on the Adversary and the like with which in multiplied Replies after a Controversy formerly agitated to and fro the Reader as one much more unconcerned in the Writer's reputation than themselves are useth to be much afflicted confounded and tired out for which cause Writings of this nature are soon laid aside and therefore I may be excused if I bestow the less pains where I see it likely to be cast away For the matters in him which I think fit to speak to in Epitomizing or summoning up in brief what he saith the Reader or perhaps himself would complain I wronged his sense to transcribe every thing at length I have not the leisure nor had I this a purse well to beat the charge of the Impression So mentioning some words only and noting the page I leave the Reader rather to peruse it in his own Discourse uncontracted and undivided from the rest and with all the vigour that the Context and other circumstantials may afford it well knowing that who desires rightly to understand a Controversy must inform himself what the Disputants say not in one another's but their own writings and also chieflly intending these Remarks for such who have and value his Book and where I speak to any passage that which may seem satisfactory I desire the judicious Reader to apply it himself to the consequents or to the like matter recurring in other places without my further trouble herein Meanwhile I offer my Prayers for him to our Good Lord that he would illuminate and direct him through the many great Controversies which are now agitated in Christendome concerning the sense of the Holy Scriptures in the safest way to his salvation whether this be from the Church's Fallibility in Necessaries every Christian's liberty to judge and discern Truth for himself or from the Church's In fallibility in Necessaries every Christian's duty to obey and learn the Truth where disputed from Her the main Contest between us I likewise humbly beseech his Heavenly Majesty to protect his Truth the maintainers of it whoever they be and if in any thing here I have offended though unwillingly against it to discover at least to the pious Reader my errours that wherein deceived my self I may not also deceive others The Figure enclosed in the following Discourse between Parentheses thus is to be numbred from the bottom of the page Annotations on Dr Stillingfleets first Section Dr St's Answ to Consid p. 75. l. 13. I pass by therefore all those unhandsome Reflections c. Numb 1 THe unhandsome restections if any such there be in N. O's Preface it is a commendable charity in the Dr to pass by and not exaggerate But two things in the same Preface that seem very considerable I wonder he passeth by also speaks not to The one contained in these words p. 1. That he accuseth the whole Catholick Church of God both Western and Eastern for the same practices as to several of his Idolatries are in both for so many ages before Luthers time of Idolatry and this Idolatry as gross as that of the Heathens
Baptism adn its men into the Church upon the profession of the true faith in the Father Son and Holy Ghost and whatever is sufficient to make a member of the Church that is in it self sufficient being embraced to make a Church Thus he From whence he collects that the Roman Church's teaching some kind of Idolatry that destroys no Article of the Creed professed in Baptism and so no essential of the true Church cannot therefore render it no true Church N. 10 But here 1. First may not the same be said of teaching any kind of Idolatry whatever that it is not against any Article of the Creed which speaks only of matters of Belief not Worship Yet he grants that some kind of Idolatry such as this teaching people to joine false Gods with the true in the same worship is a a fundamental errour ‖ p. 24. and destroying the being of a true Church Now If he saith this is by a clear consequence against the Creed must he not say the same of the Roman Idolatry in adoring the Eucharistical Bread of which he affirms p. 136. in the words forecited That the worshiping false Gods supposing them to be true is as venial a fault as worshiping that for the true God which is not so as he saith the Roman Church doth Again will not this also be an errour against the Creed if any acknowledging one Supreme God yet reserve no part of Divine Worship as peculiar to him which they do not teach may be lawfully given to a meer Creature which thing he chargeth also on the Roman Idolatry †Rom. Idol p. 161. in these words It is evident they of the Church of Rome in those Honours which they teach may be given to Saints and Angels have reserved no part of Divine Worship peculiar to God himself any more than the Heathen did Here is a true Church then without retaining any peculiar worship in it that is given to the true God N. 11 But 2ly Supposing the Idolatry taught in the Church of Rome to trespass against no Article of the Creed Can no Doctrine render a Society no true Church by no true Church I mean and so I suppose doth he no true part or member of the Church Catholick though it should be still a Church professing Christianity save only such The Creed speaks not of matters belonging to Gods Worship nor of the Ten Commandements the First and Second of which prohibite Idolatry Yet is the Worshiping of God as essential to a true Church as Believing in Him and the observance of the Tenn Commandements as necessary to Salvation as the belief of the matter contained in the Creed and Teaching the contrary to them by any Society as for example to teach it lawful to commit Murders or Adultery or Theft as destructive to the essence or being of a true Church and the Dr in his 30th Principle denies Errors in Opinion to be more dangerous to mens Souls than a Vicious life is Neither are any in Baptism admitted into the Church simply upon professing of the Creed pressed by the Dr ‖ Stillingfl against Stillingfl p. 33. as if nothing els were necessary but also on the promise of yielding obedience to God's Commandements No Heretical Church is any true member of the Catholick And would not such doctrines teaching contrary to the 10. Commandements be great Heresies as we know Denying the lawfulness of Marriage hath been anciently condemned as such And then will not the Idolatry taught in the Roman Church be such an Heresy which expressly opposeth as he will have it the Second Commandement Of which he saith Rom Idol p. 59. It cannot enter into my mind how God should have forbidden the worship of Images by more express and emphatical words than he hath done in it Which leaves the Roman Church void of any excuse of involuntary ignorance to free her herein from a mortal sin The Catholick Church and all the parts of it are believed in our Creed to be Holy as well as Orthodoxe and the one to be of its Essence distinguishing it from other Christian Societies as well as the other To be Holy at least so far as to teach the lawfulness of no Mortal Sin such as unrepented of destroyes Salvation And whether the Roman Idolatry as he hath described it before contrary to the express words and sense of the Second Commandement and no more excusable by any involuntary ignorance than the Heathens can be any thing less I leave to his better consideration And this for his recalling his Charge upon it of so great a Guilt since he cannot his Assertion of its being a true Church Whilst I conclude with Mr. Thorndike's Admonition ‖ Justweigh oh 2. p. 11. to those Protestants who charge the Pope to be Antichrist and the Papists Idolaters Let not them saith he lead the people by the nose to believe that they can prove their supposition when they cannot and then expect that it be maintained by them that owne the Church of Rome for a true Church and therefore that must contradict thomselves if they maintain it i.e. their supposition of Papists being Idolaters N. 12 As for our Author 's distinguishing ‖ p. 31. 23 between the Essentials of a Church and the Integrity or soundness of it and saying That a man is a true man though he have the plague upon him To this I answer 1st That if the plague be mortal the man must necessarily cease thereby to be a man And 2ly That whatever may be required to the integrity or soundness of a Church right Doctrines in Practicals are as necessary to its essence as in Speculatives if Mortal Sin exclude from salvation as well as an erroneous Faith This of N. O's charging him in his Preface For accusing the whole Catholick Church of God both Western and Eastern for the same practices as to several of his Idolatries are in both for so many Ages before Luther's time of Idolatry and this Idolatry as gross as that of Heathens and for his thus unchurching this great Body and quite divorcing this Adulteress from Christ From which charge that which he hath said in his Answer to I. W. seems no way to free him N. 13 The other Considerable in the same Preface †p. 6. which he hath passed by and said nothing to is this That Mr. Chilling-worth ‖ See ch 4. §. 18. and since him several Divines of the Church of England and among these Dr St. in their denying Superiour Councils to have the just Authority of obliging their Subjects to the yielding of Assent to their Declarations are constrained also to disclaim such a Submission of Assent to the Articles of Religion and Book of Common-Prayer passed in the National Synods of the Church of England Yet which Submission of Assent this Church hath formerly challenged in her Canons and severely even with Ecclesiastical Death punished the Refusers untill they should repent not
their external disobedience or contradiction but their wicked errour The 39. Articles being declared in the same 5th Canon To have been by this Church agreed upon for the avoiding Diversities of Opinions and the establishing of Consent touching true Religion To which I add that Consent touching true Religion is Consent surely touching matters of Faith and again that establishing of Consent is to be understood amongst all the Members of the said Church all whom it concerns to be united and established in the true Religion as well as amongst the Clergy Therefore the Stile of the two Canons runs generally Whoso shall hereafter affirm the Articles c in any thing erroneous And the excommunicating of those who will not abjure their holding Popery or Socinianisme see Synod 1640. Can. 3. and 4. is not of the Clergy but any whatever Which may be confirmed also by the practice of the Synods of other Reformed Churches abroad proceeding to the excommunication of Dissenters from their Doctrine To this purpose in the Ecclesiastical Discipline of the Reformed Churches of France the 31. Article of the 5th Chapter Du Consistoire runs thus Si un ou plusieurs c. If any one or more of the people shall raise any debate to the breach of the Church's Vnity concerning any point of Doctrine the Form of the Catechism Sacraments Publick Service c. if matters cannot be otherwise composed in the last place a National Synod is to be assembled which shall give them an hearing with all holy liberty and in it shall be made a full and final Resolution by the Word of God to which resolution if they refuse to acquiesce in every particular point and with an express disavowing their errours recorded now surely this disavowing their errours is assenting to the contrary truths they shall be cut off from the Church Here then is required a punctual assent to what the sentence of the Synod not the persons convented shall judge to be the sense of God's Word as it is also there cautioned before sans que la decision en appartienne a autrez qu' au Synode And the same course is taken against the Remonstrants by the Synod of Dort See Acta Synod Dordrecht Sess 138. Synodus haec Dordrechtana pro authoritate quam ex Dei verbo in omnia Ecclesiarum suarum membra obtinet in Christi nomine injungit omnibus singulis in Foederato Belgio Ecclesiarum Pastoribus c ut hanc sacram veritatis salutaris doctrinam viz. that delivered in the 91. Articles concerning the five points in controversy sinceram inviolatam conservent illam populo juventuti fideliter proponant explicent c. which surely includes the requiring their assent to and belief of thesh Articles excommunicating the disobedient donec per seriam resipiscentiam dictis factis studiis contrariis comprobatam Ecclesia satisfaciant atque ad ejus communionem recipiantur This I have added to shew the same proceedings of other forreign Synods of the Reformed with these of England To which now to return Either in the forementioned expressions these English National Synods do excommunicate all those whoever affirm any thing in the former Common-Prayer-Book to be repugnant to the Scriptures as all those must do who affirm the imposing something there to be done or used in God's worship which he hath not commanded to be a thing repugnant to the Scriptures or who do affirm any thing in the 39 Articles to be erroneous and then what a number of persons are there at this present in this Kingdom of England that are excommunicated by the Church of England Or if no consent to her Articles is required in general of all her Subjects what an indulgence is here for variety of Sects every one being left in matters touching true Religion to Liberty of Opinion Yet for the avoiding of which this Church saith she composed these Articles This of the Doctors Passings-by in the Preface Pag. 76. l. 3. The Controversy in short is this Whether Protestants who reject the Roman Church's Authority and Infallibility can have any sufficient Foundation to build their faith upon There is no such Question proposed by N. O. And if there had it would have been proposed on this manner in order especially to the Doctors 13th and 15th Principles Whether a Protestant in refusing the submission of his judgment to the Authority or Infallibility of the Catholick Church in her Councils can have in several Articles of Necessary Faith wherein the sense of Scriptures is controverted as sure a foundation of his Faith as he who submits his judgment to the foresaid Authority or also Infallibility Ibid. l 11. Those of the Church of Rome charge us That we can have no certainty of our faith as Christians without their Infallibility The Certainty pretended by this Author in his Principles and opposed by N. O. is such a Certainty from the Clearness of the Sense of Scriptures in all points of necessary Faith to every person as that no person whatsoever what useth his best endeavour I suppose he means such endeavour as consists with his Vocation to understand them can mistake therein And this is denied by Catholicks and sufficiently confuted by Experience Ib. l. 9. The occasion was my Adversaries calling for Grounds and Principles c. This account that follows nor concerning N. O and those worthy Persons whom the Doctor opposeth being much better able to return an answer for themselves if perhaps they think this worth their pains I shall pass on to p. 79. Annotations on § 2. Of the Notion of Infallibility PAge 79. l. ult Sometimes they apply Infallibility to the Object that is believed And hath not our Author used this language of an Objective Infallibility himself in his 20th Principle where he saith Assent doth not depend upon the objective infallibility of any thing without us Whereby it appears himself hath a share in the Jargon And what thinks he of that of his Archbishop Lawd ‖ p. 125. We must distinguish of Infallibility For first a thing may be presented as an infallible object of belief when it is true and remains so c. Doth not this make the Arch-bishop also one of the Jugglers he talks of P. 80. l. 10. Infallible is that which cannot be deceived Now if no one will say that a Proposition cannot be deceived it is absurd to say That it is infallibly true Infallible is that which cannot be deceived I add or as applyed to things is that wherein we cannot be deceived and so may Propositions be infallible And is it then such a great absurdity to say This proposition Homo est anâ—mal is infallibly true Doth not himself say the Scriptures are writings infallible See his Princ. 12. And is not this â—re infallibly true N. 1 P. 84. l. ult And being deceived In these two or three leaves the Dr hath been â—aâ—ing and fixing as he saith the Notion of Infallibility where leaving the
necessitated thereto for the reason given before Ibid. N. 7. Now if this Being of a true Church or a member of the Catholick be stated as it ought or as Dr Field l. 2. c. 2. and l. 4. c. 2. hath stated it it must be affirmed that these Churches being allowed members of the Catholick have hitherto never fallen into any Heresy N. 5 This Plea of N. O. I desire may be applied by the Reader to the Dr's Discourse so often as he questions such a sense of these Scriptures and Promises of our Lord or such a Tradition and that the Reader would well examine what satisfaction he finds from the Answers the Dr hath here returned to it Which former practice of Church and Councils if once allowed Chillingworâ—h ‖ p. 200. saw pressed so far for Church-Infallibility and a proportionable Obedience to it that as N. O. hath observed in his Preface he plainly declares That what warrant the Fathers of the Church in after times to the Apostles had to oblige others to receive their Declarations under pain of damnation which they did he knew not and that he that can shew either that the Câ—urch of all ages was to have this authority or that it continued in the Church for some ages and then expired this because some Protestants amongst whom this Dr would willingly submit to four or five of the first Councils for which yet Chillingworth could see no just reason why such Post-Apostolick Authority for some time admitted should not be so always he that can shew either of these things saith he let him for my part I cannot He goes on Yet I willingly confess the Judgment of a Council though not infallible yet so far directive and obliging that without apparent reasâ—n to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to afford is an outward submission for publick peace sake Where the words though not infallible shew that he held the practice of former Councils disallowed by him clearly inferred Infallibility the thing N. O. urgeth Mean while whatever satisfaction he may find for either opinion here debated the Reader may observe that both from Scripture and Tradition N. O. contends for the Infallibility of General Councils in Necessaries and accordingly requires Submission of judgment to their Definitions the Dr opposeth it and the Reader hath also just cause to think there is some reason and interest in the two Religions of N. O. and of Dr St. and Mr Chillingworth for this defence made by the one and Opposition by the other and lastly any plebeian may discern what are the two necessary effects of the submission of private mens judgments to General Councils as such or withdrawing it from them as not such viz. Vnity and Division Pag. 113. l. 19. How easily might all the contentions of the Christian world have been prevented if Christ had said c. We must not prescribe to God but humbly leave to him the way how he shall be pleased to manifeâ—t his Will to us sure to be one way or other sufficiently made known by the clearness of his Scriptures 1 Cor. 11.19 or expositions of his Church For also Oportet esse haereses ut qui probati sum manifesti fiant Would not the Creed of Pius 4. or the 39. Articles of the Church of England delivered by our Lord or his Apostles have prevented many Controversies now extant See in the former Discourse § 1. Pag. 115. l. 5 If this point viz. of an infallible Judge be not clearly proved we are never the nearer an end of controversies c. Yes If such an unappealable Judge be proved as none may oppose or reform against Ib. l. 18. Let them if they can produce one clear Text c. I referr to the Texts forementioned ‖ Note on p. 113. l. 14. numb 4. interpreted by the common practice of Councils and of the Church in all ages grounded upon the traditive understanding them in such a sâ—nse Annotations on his §. 7. The Arguments from Scripture for Infallibility PAg. 116. l. 1. When I came thus prepared to find whâ—t the Considerator would produce in a matter of such consequence I soâ—n discerned how little mind he had c. N. O. â—s not obliged to say every thing in every place This Author will needs transform N. O's brief Considerations on his Principles into a set Discourse of Infallibility and then shew its Defectiveness as such One would think if he had not the reputation of a learned man done on purpose to divert his Reader from any other matters that are debated there by N. O and to release himself from prosecuting the necessary vindication of his own Principles from the several deficiencies charged on them in the Considerations Ib. l. 10. But however this Deut 17.10 is thought so considerable as to be twice produced Upon our Authors mentioning the clearness of Gods Law given to Moses N. O. mentioned these Judges also appointed to expound it and the one is twice repeated because the other twice urged Ib. l. 13. It is so unlucky as it proves the Judges in Westminster Hall to be infallible Of this Comparison of the Sanhedrim to the Judges in Westminster Hall and how the great causes between Church and Church are fit to be handled there ‖ See his Epist Dedicatory let our Author if he can give a just account These Judges were appointed by God to decide the true Sense of the Law not of Princes but of God given to Moses and all persons obliged to acquiesce in the sense they gave of it and to do and forbear to practise as they fallible or infallible stated such matter to be commanded or prohibited by it and that upon pain of death This Obedience let Protestants yield to lawful General Councils more is not desired Ib. l. 11 Doth this imply infallibility No that he dares not stand to but absolute obedience I think the Dr grants here the people yielded absolute obedience to these Judges i. e I suppose assent to their sentence deciding to them what was the true sense of Gods Law which is all N. O. presseth and indeed unless they first yielding this the people could not lawfully act whatever these Judges commanded Do the people then the same to the Judges in Westminster i.e. hold themselves obliged to do whatever these tell them is lawful or commanded I mean by God's law Let him review here what he hath said in his Rational Account if he pleaseth p. 239. to the contrary allowing an obligation to submission or acquiescence but not an obligation in conscience and if he please too that which Mr Chillingworth ‖ c. 2. §. 17. hath observed of the difference between a Civil and Ecclesiastical Judge Viz. that in civil controversies we are obliged only to external passive obedience and not to an internal and active We are bound to obey the sentence of the Judge or not to resist it but not always
of the Christian Faith And here in what hath been urged out of him but now doth not he grant the just requiring of an internal assent to inferr Infallibility Or will he justify it lawful for a Council that grants it self fallible in such its decrees notwithstanding to do all these things And then may not the Council of Trent rightly do so And lastly why doth the Church of England as themselves say forbear such things I say I see not clearly what here the Dr would have N. 4 2ly Coming to that which he presseth concerning the practice of Provincial Councils anathematizing Dissenters and yet these Councils granted by Catholicks not Infallible which Concession of Catholicks and particularly of Bellarmine de Concil l. 2. c. 10. is produced as ruining this weak argument of N.O. that would prove from Anathematizing Dissenters Infallibility First here N.O. consulting Bellarmin he is found De Concil l. 2. c. 3. where he maintains the Infallibility of General Councils to urge together with N.O. this very Argument for it See his words recited in the former Discourse § 65. Next for the objection concerning Provincial Councils N.O. had considered and answered it thus ‖ Consid p. 40. We finde indeed subordinate Councils also stating somtimes matters of faith censuring hereticks and requiring assent to their decrees but still with relation to the same Infallibility residing in the general Body of Church-Governours and to their concurrence therein They not passing such Acts without consulting the Tradition and Judgment of other Churches and especially of the Apostolick See and a general Acceptation rendring such their Decisions anthentick and valid so as those of General Councils are And Bellarmin's answer ‖ l. 2. c. 16. is shewed to be in substance much-what the same Dr St. replies to this †p. 125. l. 6. That the Anathemas of Provincial Councils did not relate to the acceptation of their Decrees either by the Pope or the whole Church as N.O. supposes but did preceed upon their own assurance of the truth of what they decreed otherwise their anathemas would have been only conditional and not absolute and peremptory as we see they were Thus He. To which I Answer that though such Anathemas of Provincial Councils do relate to the general approbation of their Decrees yet their Anathemas are rightly made not conditional but absolute either because such a sufficient concurrence with them of the Catholick Church is known to them before the composing their Decree as it may be when yet the confirmation of their Act is only received after it Or because such post-confirmation and acceptation after the penning of the Decree yet precedes the promulgation and just force or obligation of it It being penned absolute upon such a consent presupposed as we see the Affrican Anathemas were and as it is the ordinary custome in all laws the establishment wherof depends on many successively yet in their first stile to run absolutely because such ratification is presupposed to their having the due force of Laws And so in General Councils the Anathemas are penned absolute though these Councils and their Decrees have not their full strength till the Confirmation thereof by the See Apostolick and also such an admittance and acceptation of them by the Church-Catholick diffusive as is thought necessary Neither is the transaction of these Moral things to be exacted according to the Rules in Mathematicks Pag. 129. l. 10. But did proceed upon their own assurance of the truth of what they decreed Here Doth our Author allow fallible Councils upon a perswasion they have of the truth of what they decree to anathe matize dissenters and pronounce them hereticks Then why may not the Council of Trent do so Or if he means by their assurance that Provincial Councils are certain without relation to any consent of the whole that they do not err in such Decrees where they pronounce Anathema so he seems to give to these Provincial Councils also an Infallibility more than which Catholicks do not desire to be allowed to General viz. the certainty that these Fathers met in a General Council have whether by the evidence of Scripture or of Tradition or of a necessary Consequence from something Traditive or at least of our Lords promised Assistance that they do not err in those things they decree though in many other things they be sallible Ib. l. 14. He goes on thus But I need give no other answer to this argument than in the words of Dr Field whom N.O. appealed to ‖ Fieid of the Church l. 4. c. 4. but in another matter not this before viz. That Councils denounce anathema not because they think every one that disobey the decree of the Council to be accursed but because they are perswadâ—â— in particular that this is the eternal truth of God which they proâ—se therefore they accurse them that obstinately shall resist as S. Paul willeth every Christian man to anathematize an Angel coming from heaven if he shall teach them any other doctrine than he hath already learned yet is not every particular Christian free from possibility of erring If the argument then were good from anathematizing dissenters and calling them hereticks every particular person must by it be proved infallible who are bound to anathematize even Angel from heaven in case of delivering any other doctrine from the Gospel N. 1 Where it is said first that these General Councils do not denounce anathema to dissenters because they think every one that disobeys the decree of the Council i.e. by dissenting to be or to incurr their Anathema I answer to this that then they must hold their Anathema universally pronounced to be as to such persons unjust Which I suppose the General Councils did not It is said again that because these General Councils are perswaded in particular that this is the eternal truth of God that they propose therefore they anathematize them that obstinately shall resist But 1st N.O. presseth not these General Councils their anathematizing them that shall obstinatly resist that which they propose but them that shall dissent from it and he presseth their putting it also into the Creed and under anathema requiring from all the belief of it and that as a matter of faith 2. I contend that no Council that only is perswaded but not certain that that which it proposeth suppose the Consubstantiality or Divinity of our Lord is the eternal truth of God can justly insert such point in the Creed or anathematize Dissenters But it is agreed that the four first Councils did justly these things and therefore they were not only perswaded but certain that those were truths and that in them they were infallible and then much more did hold themselves so since one may think himself to be and yet not be infallible N. 2 To that which follows out of S. Paul It is answered that S. Paul or a Galatian must be certain of his not erring in that for the meer
Church where such Pleas as these are permitted to be urged in such a sense as to set men at liberty from the submission of their judgment to the Decisions and definitions of General Councils upon pretence that there shall be many seducers and a falling away and departing from the Faith and upon pretence of Force and Fraud used in the most General Counci's that could be convened for many past Generations Which falling away and departing from the Faith c. why should they not be rather applied to these New Sects and former Heresies and from them be inferred a closer adherence and Obedience to their lawful Church Governours Ib. l. 8 The Apostles told them they had no dominion over their faith What not so far as to oblige them to obey and submit to their Apostolical Doctrine What not such dominion as S. Paul urged 1. Tim. 1.20 to the blasphemers of the Gospel and as he commanded Titus to use Tit. 3.10 Consider the Acts of the Apostolical Council Act. 15. But the Text speaks here of any unjust dominion or authority to treat the faithful as he pleased in punishing or mulcting those who walk uprightly in the faith to alter change censure any thing therein for his own profit or advantage See Dr Hammond on the place Ib. l. 4. No present Guides whatever names they go by ought to usurp such an authority over the minds of men which the Apostles themselves did not challenge although there were greater reason for men to yield up their minds wholly to their guidance If to yield up their minds be to submit their judgments were not Christians obliged in this to the very Apostles and their Doctrines See before Note on p. 144. l. 11. See we not the effects here of the Dr's 13th Principle in the people 's not needing Guides for understanding necessary Scriptures but meanwhile in the Scriptures being needful to them for trying by it their Guides Pag. 147. l. 7. Where there is a Rule for them the Church-Governours or Guides to proceed by there is a rule for others to judge of their proceedings If here He means by these others those who doubting of the true sense of the Rule repair to these Guides to learn from them the true sense of it which is only to the purpose that these are again to judge by the Rule doubted of whether the Guides have given the right sense what is this but that these are finally to determine the sense of the Rule for the determining of which they consult their Teachers As if the Consulters concerning the meaning of a Law when the Judge hath given them the sense of the Law should again by this Law examine the truth of the sense of the Judge and act finally according to their own not his sentence Ib. l. 13. Where the rule by which the Guides of the Church are to proceed hath determined nothing there we say the authority of the Guides is to be submitted unto For otherwise there would be nothing left wherein their authority could be shewn Doth not he say here the Church's Authority is to be submitted to in nothing but things left indifferent by the Scriptures Then it hath no authority in determining Controversies of faith but why then saith the 20th Article of the Church of England that the Church hath authority of expounding Scriptures in Controversies of faith and by what authority hath the Council of Nice determined Consubstantiation But so often as the sense of the Scriptures to any is doubtful may not the Scriptures here be said as to such persons to have deteâ—mined nothing and then are they not in these if in a Necessary point to repair to the determination of their Ecclesiastical Guides If so all will be well still and thus all come to submit to the sentence of the Judge but those who are certain before hand of the sense of their Rule Ib. l. 11 We plead for the Church is authority in indifferent Rites and Ceremonies But suppose the Question be whether such Rites and Ceremonies are indeed indifferent As they are taken by some not to be so because God will admit nothing into his worship but what himself hath first expresly commanded and prescribed What authority is to end this I say for such who hold some Ceremonie unlawful and repugnant to Scripture are they or the Church to judge of this unlawfulness and may the Church lawfully enjoin it and oblige them under excommunication to practise it Or will it not come at last according to these Principles that the Subjects not the Church are to decide the indifferency or non-indifferency of such Ceremonies Pag. 148. l. 7. Wee allow a very great authority to the Guides of the Catholick Church in the best times of Christianity And look upon the concurrent sense of Antiquity as an excellent means to understand the mind of Scripture in places otherwise doubtful and obscure In the best times of Christianity But do not you then in all times Or is not their authority the same in all times If various who is Judge of this their Subjects As an excellent means to understand c. This will not serve the turn it must be as an authorized Expositor of the true sense of Scriptures doubtful and obscure in Necessary matters to whose definitions all ought to submit not only to make use of their advice This Church-Tradition makes good this such Protestants as our Author oppose Ib. l. 13. We reject the ancient Heresies condemned in them But doth he acknowledge and reject all that as Heresy that hath been or shall be condemned by all lawful General Councils for such Ib. l. 11 We reject nothing that can be proved by an Vniversal Tradition from the Apostolical times downwards That can be proved But who shall judge of the proof where any thing is disputed whether it be Tradition Apostolick Our selves or the present Church-Governours Ib. l. 5 We see no reason to have those things forced upon us now which we offer to prove to be contrary to their the primitive times doctrine and practice Offer to prove To whom To any whose final judgment you will stand to Name them Shall it be to a General Council But this may err you say It erring shall it be to a Second But if one err so may all And who shall judge when It doth not err Demonstration shall decide it And who judge when it is a clear demonstration if any deny it to be so Pag. 149. l. 1. The Controversy is Whether the Guides of the Apostolical and Primitive times ought not to have greater authority over us than those of the present Church in things wherein they contradict each other Here again who shall judge this difference concerning their contradiction denied by Catholicks denied by the latter Councils of the Church that plead Tradition and their agreement with the former Ib. l. 8. But we profess to yield greater reverence and submission of mind to Christ and his Apostles than
differing about Rebaptization from other Christian Churches were observing their subordination to submit to the judgment of a Council Oecumenical A private man then where are many different Churches and Communions ought to consider under what particular Governours he liveth and in what manner they are subordinate to others and accordingly in any differences happening about points which he is not at leisure to study or hath not capacity to understand or after study is not certain on any side to yield his obedience and submit his judgment to the Superiours As in England a division happening in the Clergy thereof I suppose our Author would advise one that thus doubts in a point controverted in case the Parson of his Parish opposeth the Bishop of the Diocese or this Bishop all the other Bishops of the Province or of the Nation to submit to the judgment of the Bishop or of the Provincial or National Synod rather than to his Parson And that He would not enjoin such private person or tell him he is obliged for the settling of his judgment to study the whole Controversy debated between such Parson and his Bishop to collate their arguments and then make himself Judge at least for himself which of them is in the right wherein also should it be done the incapacity of the man or also his passion or interest on one side may easily misguide him and he fare much worse by his liberty than his obedience And this thing seems also intended by the National Synod of England in their drawing up the 39. Articles they say for taking away Diversity of Opinion which thing they do not there pretend to effect * by their confuting with arguments satisfactory to their subjects all those opinions they there disallow for no such satisfaction is offered no such thing is done by them but * by the submitting of their subjects not skilled in such matters nor certain of the contrary to their Judgment as the Supreme of this National Church N. 2 The same then let any doubting person do in any higher division and opposition of Metropolitan Churches suppose in the Western Patriarchy wherein he lives Let him examine which is the most Vniversal Body of them which the most dignified Persons and submit to their Guidance which as it is more safely relyed on may be easilier examined than the Controversies and indeed is a case clear and obvious enough to the most of men And as for others their invincible ignorance it is hoped may excuse their errour Where also let such a person consider whether such Councils as are assembled of most of the National Churches in the West joined with the Patriarch of it and deciding the many points disputed in these Western parts are not to be submitted-to by all private persons not certain of the contrary to their Decisions as how should they be so before a National only of the English Bishops especially if these opposing them in those things wherein for the most part the Eastern Churches also agree with them And if any here for standing out against this major authority should plead Certainty on his side as Archbishop Lawd and others do then let him consider how few there are among Christians so well seen in all these Controversies themselves as to withdraw their obedience on this account whilst it seems agreed that all others ought leaving these Certainists by themselves to conform to the Decrees of the Superiour Courts Ib. l. 10 What then makes those Churches the Eastern to be left out in our enquiries after the Guides of the Catholick Church How orthodox and Catholick soever the Eastern Churches may be one living in the Western Church owes no Canonical subjection or obedience to them whose whole care it ought to be to pay it where it is due according to the forementioned subordination which done he cannot miscarry as to all necessary Faith But however I think Dr St. might have spared the Description and proposal of these to a Protestants choice by reason of their many tenents in the Points controverted and particularly in those of Transubstantiation and the Idolatry of Images and Invocation of Saints agreeing with or also some of them more disliked than the Roman Pag. 174. l. 9 Now of these five parts four of them Nestorians Eutychians Greeks and Protestant Churches are all agreed that there is no necessity of living in subjection to the Guides of the Roman Church As they are agreed so it is granted For Example that the Metropolitan Church of England owes no subjection to the Metropolitan Church of Rome nor to the Pope as the Metropolitan thereof And the other three owe him no subjection neither as he is Patriarch of the West but the fourth doth and yielded it together with other Occidental Churches till of late But meanwhile the Eastern Churches are agreed that they owe all subjection and submission of judgment to the Definitions of lawful General Councils and on this account render it to the 2d Nicene and that these Councils are infallible in them for which see what is cited in the precedent Discourse § 56. And from the determination of these Councils do the same Churches entertain several Opinions rejected by Protestants Ib. l. 3. Only those of the Church of Rome take upon themselves against all sense and reason to be the Catholick Church and so exclude four parts of five out of a capacity of salvation The Roman Church confesseth it self a particular Church and only a part of the Catholick Nor doth it exclude any other Churches from being true parts thereof save those which are Heretical or Schismatical both which Hereticks and Schismaticks I think learned Protestants exclude also from being members of the Catholick Church See Dr Field l. 4. c. 2. That the Visible Church he means Catholick never falleth into Heresy we most willingly grant And l. 1. c. 7. The name of Orthodox Church is applied to distinguish right-believing Christians from Hereticks the name of the Catholick Church men holding the Faith in unity from Schismaticks Nor doth the Roman Church deny in such Heretical or Schismatical Churches a capacity or possibility of salvation to all generally but only as I think Protestants also do to those among them that are formerly guilty of the crimes of Heresy or Schisme because indeed either of these is a mortal sin and so unrepented of excluding from salvation Lastly Heretical the Roman Church with all Antiquity takes those to be that maintain the contrary to any known Definition in a matter of faith of a lawful General Council and Schismatical those that upon any cause whatever do separate from the Communion of the present Church Catholick and their true Superiour Ecclesiastical Guides Pag. 175. l. 11. When he finds so many Churches and those not inferiour to the Roman Church in any thing save only in pomp pride and uncharitableness Eph. 4.31 And evil-speaking be put away from you Et blasphemia tollatur a vobis cum omni
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
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.
that their sentence is to be obeyed in these matters and why else are they Judges If to be obeyed then either they must be infallible in all necessary controversies or else the people after as before their judgment are still in these liable to errour Suppose in the Controversy of the Arians or Socinians about the Deity of our Saviour Ib. l. 13. And in this case we think it is all the reason in the world that they who affirm should prove May not I here return the proving upon himself That Experience shews there is a Necessity of such an Infallible Guide since God is not wanting to his Church in Necessaries and since the Scriptures are not so cleare in all necessary points as to prevent all doubters and disputers and those that say they are clear let them prove it for they that affirm must prove But both for the Commission and Infallibility of such Guides see before Note on p. 119. l. 17. Pag. 194. l. 2. What if Christ having provided for the necessaries of salvation by a clear revelation should leave other things in the dark to exercise the wits of some and the charity of others Hath not his 13th Principle here unhappily engaged him to maintain with Mr Chillingw that since all necessaries are clear in Scripture all Controversies in religion are about non-necessaries and so no necessity of a Judge to determine them Can we think then that it is not very necessary that any of the Controversies that are between Protestants the Church of Rome about non-necessaries and so no necessity of a Judge to determine them Can we think then that it is not very necessary that any of the Controversies that are between Protestants the Church of Rome about Merit of Works Praying for the Dead and Purgatory Transubstantiation Adoration of the Eucharist Invocation of Saints Worship of Images in which is said to be Idolatry on the Roman part c. were decided Had the former Decisions touching such matters of these Judges in Controversies of Religion gone on the Protestant side surely we had not had so many What ifs for the non-necessity of them Ib. l. 11. What if Christ foresaw this matter of ending controversies i.e. by a living Judge would be an occasion of raising one of the greatest c. Doth not this grate upon General Councils Apply this to the Definitions of the Athanasian Creed and see what thanks these Fathers that composed it have returned to them for so settling the Christian Faith and not rather leaving such things in the dark to exercise mens wits and their charity one to another and obliging them to their own greater honesty and integrity in knowing and doing God's-will Are there not then too many Controversies yet on foot for the serving all these ends And may not the Sects that have departed from the Church of England make good use of the Dr's What ifs in respect of the things the Church of England requires from them Whom what if our Lord hath left in all such things to their Christian Liberty Ib. l. 16. What if Christ thought it reasonable to leave the failings of mens understandings and lives upon the same terms so as to give sufficient means to prevent either but not effectually to hinder men from falling into either of them Christ hath left both these here on the same terms i.e. hath left an Infallible Guide for Manners as well as Faith but so as we may possibly swerve from him in either He may be pleased to review the Consideration on his 30th Principle p. 82. where it is said That God hath provided by the same Church-Authority to preserve his Church in Truth and to restrain it from Sin giving an equal Commission to teach the Ignorant and to correct the Vicious And that since their Doctrine directs our Manners as well as Faith their Infallibility is as necessary for things of practice as of Speculation That Errour in opinion also may be such as may be much more dangerous to us than for the present a vicious life supposing our persistence in a right Faith because we have our Conscience still left uncorrupted to reclaim us in the latter but not so in the former And there is more hope of his recovery who as yet doth ill with a relucting judgment That some erroneous opinions or other also are the ordinary sources and springs of evil practices and that the Dr cannot but acknowledge this who hath spent a considerable part of the Book to which he hath annexed his Principles upon pretending to shew how Roman errours do induce an evil life and destroy devotion This of the special need of such a Guide for the failing of mens understandings Ib. l. 9 What if the nature of Religion will not bear such a determination of controversies as Civil matters will because civil matters concern the right and wrong of particular persons in which it is not the sentence of the Judge so much as the civil force whereby it is backed which puts an end to the dispute but in matters of Religion the ending controversies can be no effect of force and power but of Reason and conviction of conscience Doth not He argue here that an Infallible Guide or Judge sutes not with the nature of Religion because ending Controversies can be no effect of force and power but of reason and conviction of conscience But how then did the Infallibility of our Lords Apostles and their Laws their ending the Controversy about the Mosaical Ceremonies in the Council Act. 15. and S. Paul's anathematizing or excommunicating Hymenaeus and Alexander fallen away from and blaspheming the true faith sute with the Nature of Religion How the Anathemas of the four first Councils sute with it Was there no effect of Force and power here Then how is there so in the ending controversies by a Judge Or if there was such an effect was it not just As for that He saith of the necessity of reason and Conviction there needs none as to the proof of the controversy that is determined when there is once such a conviction that such are appointed to determine it and we to obey them And where this Conviction is not it ought to be and an erroneous conscience that obligeth us to follow it excuseth not our errour from being culpable Doth this Author hold all not convicted of their fault or errour to be freed from Ecclesiastical Censures What thinks he of the 4th and 5th Canons of the English Synod under King James Pag 195. l. 9. But in our case this who is the Judge is the main thing in dispute But it ought not to be Ib. l. 14. We must therefore allow every one that pretends to it to be such an infallible Guide No but General Councils we must upon the grounds mentioned before Note on p. 113. l. 15. Ib. l. 17. If we must not first be satisfied c. You may be rationally satisfied And if you are not so must the
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
in the places controverted between thâ—◠〈…〉 Story in brief is this Maximinus an Arian in the beginning of their dispute hath these words Si quid de divinis Scripturis protuleris quod commune est cum omnibus necesse est ut audiamus Hae verò voces quae extra Scripturam sunt homousion nullo casu a nobis suscipiuntur alluding to the definition of homousion by the Nicene Council S. Augustine takes his challenge and as he waved the Council of Nice so did S. Augustine that of Ariminum Upon which here lib. 3. c. 14. after he had said Hoc est illud Homousion quod in Concilio Nicaeno adversus Haereticos Arrianos a Catholicis Patribus veritatis i. e of the Scriptures authoritate authoritatis i.e. by the just authority of a lawfull free General Counci veritate firmatum est quod postea in Concilio Ariminensi c. multis paucorum fraude deceptis Haeretica impietas labefâ—ctare tentavit He condescends thus I say after this uttered in Justification of Nice Sed nunc nec ego Nicaenum nec tu debes Ariminense tanquam praejudicaturus proferre Concilium Nec ego hujus authoritate nec tu illius detineris he saith not tu non teneris but nunc non detineris Scripturarum authoritatibus non quorumque propriis as the two Councils were sed utrisque communibus testibus res cum re causa cum causâ— ratio cum ratione concenset That is this our conference or dispute shall only be as you desire from Authorities of Scripture Of the sense of which Scripture it is willingly granted that in many things many persons may be sufficiently certain without the directions of a Guide but not therefore all persons in all points necessary See before Note on p. 230. l. 15. Mean while none more than S. Austin pleads or vindicates the Authority of the Council of Nice needless to be further proved one would think to Dr St. Pag. 236. l. 1. This is in terms asserted by him ‖ De Doctrin Christian l. 2. c. 9 as a fuundamental principle that in those things which are plainly set down in Scripture all things are to be found which concern our faith and rule of life S. Austin doth not meane that all things containing our faith or manners are so plainly set down in Scripture as to all capacities that many do not need the direction of an infallible Church-authority for settling a certainty of their faith in them a thing affirmed by the Dr To which infallible Authority that this Father referrs such persons for learning the true Faith see that excellent Treatise of his De Vtilitate Credendi i.e. of believing Church-authority Where he saith Cûm res tanta sit ut Dens tibi ratione cognoscendus sit omnes ne putas idoneos c. And Tu in cos libros qui Sancti divinarumque rerum pleni c. sine duce irruis And Omnesne putas idoneos esse percipiendis rationibus quibus ad divinam intelligentiam mens ducitur humana an plures an pnucos paucos ais existimo Quid caeteris ergò hominibus qui ingenio tam screno praediti non sunt negandum Religionem putas Whom therefore he refers to this security of believing Church authority For In religione quid iniquius fieri potest saith he ‖ Ibid quà m ut Dei Antistites nebis non fictum animum pollicentibus credant nos eis praecipientibus nolimus credere And c. 16. that for such persons non esse desperandum ab eodem ipso Deo authoritatem aliquam constitutam quâ velut gradu certo innitetes aâ—â—ollamur in Deum Hanc autem authoritatem seposu â rationc quam sinceram intelligere ut diximus difficillimum stultis est dupliciter nos movere parâ—â—â— miraculis partim sequentium multitudine And ‖ Ib. c. 17. Quid est aliud ingratum esse opi atque auxilio divino quà m tanto labâ—re nost praedictae authoritati velle resistere And De Baptismo l. 3. c. 14. Fieri potest ut integra teneat verba Symboli I may say or of Scripture tamen non rectè credat sive de ipsâ Trinitate sive de Resurrectione vel aliquid aliud Neque enim parva res in ipsâ intus Catholicâ tenere integram fidem ita ut omnino non de aliquà creaturâ sed de ipso Deo nihil aliud credat quà m veritas hâ—bâ—t And in this book de Doctrinâ Christianâ l. 3. c. 2. he joines these two the clearer places of Scripture and the authority of the Church for our learning the Rule of Faith Cùm adhibita imentio saith he incertum esse providerit quomâ—do distinguendum aut pronunciâ—ndum sit consulat Regulam fiaci quam 1 de Scripturarum planioribus locis 2 Ecclesiae authoritate percepit More of this needs not Many excellent Rules this Father gives by which to understand the Scriptures i.e. for the more prudent and learned but not this exclusively to those person 's submitting their Judgments to the Church's authority who have no leisure or parts by these Rules to study the Scriptures or else to other's repairing to it where any thing in the Scriptures after their study still seems to them obscure Pag. 238. l. 12. ‖ S. Austin de Doctrin Christian l. 3. c. 16. Which words ‖ Jo. 6.53 seeming to command somthing evil must be figuratively understood of communicating in the Passion of Christ and calling to mind that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us And not imagining as the words strictly taken sound that our Lords Body and Bloud in a carnal or natural and sensible manner as other flesh is to be eaten and drunk by us as some of our Lords Auditors grossly mis-understood him and so forsook him in which sense Dominus flagitium videtur jubere saith S. Austin Not imagining thus I say but yet believing that his flesh and bloud is there really exhibited to us and fed on by us This Real so as also ineffable Presence of Christs Body and Blood though not to the Symbols yet in the Eucharist and so a reall participation thereof the Church of England and her learnedst Writers have much spoken of and contended for heretofore as well as Catholicks before that the Rubrick or Declaration about kneeling in receiving the Communion was by the importunity of some later Sects admitted a second time into the Common-Prayer Book A.D. 1660. Which Rubrick contrary to the Real Presence in that it denies that Christs substance can be both in Heaven where certainly it is and on earth at the same time was first contrived and published in the 5th year of the Reign of King Edward 6. in the new-moulding and correcting of the former Common Prayer Book published in the first yeare upon the Exceptions and complaints of some forraign Reformed Divines made against it and was then backed also with the 28th Article of Religion under the same King in
Church-Tradition Quod ab omnibus I mean in any one age understood of the Catholick Church and in matters of faith is always quod semper too All Hereticks also at first are only a smal number and their innovation easily discerned Therefore the universality of the present age was pleaded by S. Austin in his age against the Donatists from Scriptures that prove the same as much in any age whatâ—ver Nor is this present Church's consent with Antiquity mentioned in S. Austins arguing as if it were not to be credited without this consent also of Antiquity first proved by it for the one as is said in matter of faith always involves the other Pag 242. l. 1. That the Church in any one or more ages since the Apâ—stles times may be deceived The Church means he the universality of the Catholick Church may be deceived means he in points of necessary faith or in the Tradition of them This is denied Ib. l. 1.5 But since the great divisions of the Christian world it is both a very hard matter to know the consent c 1. The name of Catholick Church now is not as he saith that of one great faction but contains in it now as always all Christian Churches that are united in obedience to all their lawful and Canonical Ecclesiastical Superiours Persons or Councils i.e. all that are not Heretical or Schismatical 2. The Notion also of Vuiversaluy is not as he saith now debauched and corrupted but taken now as anciently in the first 4. General Councils for the much major part to whom the rest ought to conform Turpis omnis pars non consentiens toti And as it is also taken in Vincentius whether applyed to the present or ancient times see c. 38. Si quando unius vel paucorum errantium dissensio contra omnium vel certe multo plurium Catholicorum consensionem rebellaverit c. And c. 4. Quod si in ipsâ vetustate duorum vel trium hominum vel certè Civitatis unius aut etiam Provinciae error deprehendatur c. For there must be no Hereticks if no dissenters The universal consent of Christendome Universality thus qualified is easily known concerning most of the modern Controversies suppose Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints Veneration of Images Prayer for the Dead c. And to them only the knowledge of this seems difficult whom it favours not Ib. l. 2 There are some things wherein we may be certain of such a consent viz. of Antiquity and that was in the Rule of Faith Vincentius restrains not that application of his Rule only to the Symbole or Rule of Faith formerly delivered in Baptisme So it would not extend to the Decrees of the Ephesine Council which he instanceth in to have followed this Rule and little use would there be of this Rule against Hereticks if extended no further But enlargeth it to all the Faith wherein General Councils have or shall make any Decrees And the evidence of Tradition may be equal in matters as of an unequal so all of some consequence Pag. 243. l. 11. For saith he this consent of Antiquity is not to be sought for in all questions It may be sought for where-ever it can be found but in many Quaestinoulâ—e as he cals them it is not to be found Pag. 244. l. 12. Let the Pope's Supremacy the Roman he should say Catholick Church's Infallibility the doctrines of Transubstantiation Purgatory 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 1st The former Councils that have defined these points can also prove them by Antiquity Vniversality Consent taken in such a latitude as is necessary and sufficient Consent c either in the Tradition of the thing defined or of the Principles from which it is deduced But here it is not necessary that the same extent or latitude of Consent c should be shewed for all points of faith Not necessary that there be no more Bishops found dissenting in the Council of Chalcedon establishing Two Natures of our Lord than were in the Council of Nice establishing his Divinity And of the Ancient Creeds some points have had a more universal consent than some others 2. And next this Query when there is a sufficient universality of such Consent or such Tradition I know not whose judgment the most of Christians who are unlearned can better trust and rely on than that of the Supreme Guides of the present Church so informing them 3ly That these Councils should first prove or evidence such an universal Attestation to every one before they can require a submission of their judgment to their definitions as it is an unreasonable demand so it is rejected by several learned Protestant Divines when obedience hath been offered by other Sects to the Canons and Articles of the Church of England upon these terms of proving them to them first who think it enough if such submission be then released when private men demonstrate the contrary 4. Lastly What judgment can illiterate persons make of what is thus proved or not proved to them And if Obedience must pass only upon such proof to their subjects these also judging when this rightly made what confusion and licentiousness of Opinions and Practice must this introduce necessarily in such Churches as maintain it Ib. l. 18. We say the measure of Heresy in the ancient Church was the rejecting the Rule of faith vniversally received And such it is still all persons learning from General Councils not only from the definitions of the ancient but latter Councils what is this Rule universally received And the same Plea our Author can make against any latter definitions of Councils in matters of faith upon their not being expressed in the former Creeds Arius Nestorius or Eutyches might make as justly against those of the 4. first Councils not expressed in the former Creed or Rule of faith delivered at Baptisme Which first Rule only Vincentius therefore did not relate to since he contends this Rule is extended to the Deerees also of these Councils Pag. 245. l. 14. And yet he Petavius confesseth that most of the writers of the ancient Church did differ in their explication of the Doctrine of the Trinity from that which was only allowed by the Council of Nice and he grants that Arius did follow the Opinion of many of the Ancients in the main of his Doctrine Petavius after the words cited by this Author mulium a nobis diversa scripserunt expounds this diversa to be only in modo loquendi And the next words in him are Paucissimi illi sunt speaking of the ancient Writets before Nice qui in re dissentiunt a communi fide Dogm Theel l. 2. si sinceros purosque Catholicos quaerimus omnino nulli There among those qui in omnibus re consentientes loquendi duntaxat modo dissident he numbers Irenaeus Clemens Arexandrinus Gregory Neocaesariensis
N.O. layes upon him of justly incurring the displeasure of his Ecclesiastical Saperiours as indeed all Chillingworths followers seeme to do corrupting somthing which formerly remained good in the Church of England and which being good all good men have reason to wish well to and that it may be preserved there for that which is good still preparing the way to something better may end at last in an happy reunion of the divided Church hes and this may serve to answer this Author 's Ironical descant here p. 261.262 but finds him omitting here to take any notice of N. O's Reason for it immediatly preceding viz. Here i.e. in his 29th Principle first observe That what no Christian is obliged to believe under any pretence of Church-Infallibility he is much rather not obliged to believe under any pretence of Church-Authority and that the Dr's freeing the Church's subjects here i.e. as to their believing what these Governours teach them from the former doth so from the latter Thus N.O. Neither replies he any thing to this The 3d Quotation out of p. 84. is applied to one particular Consequence of the Dr's ‖ Conseq 1. In which he saith There is no necessity at all or use of an Infallible Society of men to assure men of the truth of those things of which they may be certain without and cannot have any greater assurance supposing such Infallibility to be in them Which Consequence of his N.O. saith concludes the uselesness as well of any Ecclesiastical Authority to teach men as of an Infallible to assure men of the truth of those things which by using only their own sincere endeavour according to the Dr's pretence Principle 13. they may know without them To this likewise the Dr answers nothing And here also Whereas N.O. speaks in particular This Consequence concludes he puts instead thereof that N.O. saith his Principles against Infallibility conclude c. In the 4th quoted out of p. 98. where N.O. after the words cited by the Dr viz. That the Principles laid down by him do not afford any effectual way or means in this Church of suppressing or convicting any Schism Sect or Heresy or reducing them either to submission of judgment or silence proceeds to give the reason of this Fâ—r where both sides contend Scripture clear from then selves the clearness of such Scripture how great soever it be on one side can be made no instrument of conviction to the other the Dr mentions not this Reason nor speaks he to it In the 5th Quotation out of p. 99. where after the words quoted by the Dr that the Authority of the Church of England is much debilitated c by this new way taken up of its defence N.O. thus gives the Reason of them in what follows viz. where he thinks himself its best Advocate and defender of its cause who doth most endeavour to set forth the defects and failiâ—gs of all such Ecclesiastical Societies Prelates and Councils and best proves no Scripture-Promises made to them Neither from this doth he clear himself or others But instead of taking notice of these particulars urged against him he extracts from the foresaid Assertions in N. O stript of the particular Reasons and Arguments annexed this Universal Proposition that N.O. maintains that the same Arguments i.e. all the same arguments for I suppose he would here have his indefinite terme understood universally by his Reader which overthrow Infallibility do likewise destroy all Church-Authority all Church-authority saith he i.e. all parts of it not that only of their Office as they are the Preachers and Expounders of Christs Gospel to the People of which only N.O. speaks and then on this he frames a new Discourse first divided into Heads But any such proposition N.O. disclaimes Yet this He affirms that some of the Dr's arguings in his Principles which he brings for destroying Church-Infallibility do also destroy Church-Authority as to one part of it and also names those arguings of his and wisheth that this Author in pretending an Answer had cleared them from this charge Pag. 262. l. 8. If they thought they could not sow mischief c A rent already too wide is by our Author 's new Principles still made wider and so less hopes of quite closing it And this is justly resented by N.O. as contrary to his chiefest Interest Ib. l. 10. It is a pretty plot c. True designes of defending may possibly undermine and those may be the truest Friends who are taken for professed Enemies This the Future Judgment will shew Ib. l. 15. 3. Vndermine all Church-Authority and authority wholly useless All and wholly are none of N. O's expressions his words must be added-to that they may be refuted Pag. 263. l. 1. Such malignant influence must be from one of these things Either because I deny infallibility in the Guides of the Church You deny Infallibility as to necessaries whereby none can securely yield assent to any thing that the Church defines Ib. l. 2. Or because I say that the Scriptures are plain in things necessary to salvation You say Plain to all so far as that none using his own endeavour i.e. according to his condition can mistake in them which makes men being confident of the plainness of Scripture and of their own diligence and judgment neglect repairing ro the Church's direction and guidance in matters that most concern them And hence grow such an infinite number of Sects after the direction of their Spiritual Guides cast off Independants Quakers Presbyterians Anabaptists Antinomians Solifidians Socinians and I know not what But note here that N.O. no where saith which our Author here seems to impose that One to make use of another's guidance or direction must have him infallible But saith only this which no way infers the other that where all things necessary are affirmed plain to a man only using his own endeavour to understand them One wherin he thinks he useth his own just endeavour may justly think also therein anothers guidance whether this fallible or infallible to be unnecessary Unless the Dr will here relieve himself by one of these two ways Either that though a sufficient self-endeavour sufficeth yet none can know certainly when he hath used it Or that in mentioning a mans using his endeavour this Author involves principally the repairing to his Guides for their instruction But then this latter argues the Scriptures wherein he consults them not plain but obscure rather as hath been often said and so defeats what he would chiefly maintain Ibid. l. 4. Or Because I deny the Authority of the Church of Rome You deny not only the authority of the Church of Rome as contradistinct to other Catholick Churches but the Authority of the Church Catholick as to its justly requiring submission of private mens judgments to its Definitions in matters of Necessary Faith Ib. l. 6. Or because I am not for such an effectual way of suppressing Sects and Heresies as is in use in
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
such persons who all firmly believe that doctrine infallible which Christ delivered but yet judge themselves all fallible and dare not usurp that roiall prerogative of heaven in prescribing infallibly in matters questioned but leave all men to judge according to the Pandects of the Divine Laws because each member of this Society is bound to take care of his soul and of all things that tend thereto A very true and just representative saith he of that society of men which our Blessed Saviour instituted as a Church in the world Now there the Clergy also as well as Laity seem left to their liberty so that to reconcile him to himself perhaps the consent here required of the Clergy is only conditional this consent not medling with their faith wherein they are left to their Christian liberty to hold what they think best but only in order to such an employment that if they do not testify their Tenents in Religion to be such as sute with the Synod's Decrees they must not be admitted to bear such an Office For his following words are Not to the end that all those Propositions to which a consent is required of the Clergy should be believed as Artlcles of Faith But because no Reformation can be effected if persons may be allowed to preach and officiate in the Church in a way contrary to the Design of such a Reformation Thus He. But then in the same way why may not this Church exact assent of all persons whatever i.e. a conditional one if they desire to live in her reformed communion yet not forcing their conscience therein but leaving them the liberty to stay out of it And since the designe or effects of the Reformation may be hindred also by learned Laicks their spreading abroad such errours why not in order to this such assent required of them as he saith is required in Order to this of the Clergy N. 3 2ly Such Church not being the Supreme Ecclesiastical Judge granted by our Author fallible this Authority given to it I mean of requiring assent of all its Clergy to all its doctrines or Articles of Religion seems very unjust servs equally as for the reformation of a former errour so for the corruption of a former truth For thus supposing this Church Arian or Socinian as it may be here all its Clergy receiving Holy Orders for the teaching of Gods word are engaged to believe and preach a most impious Heresy or to be dis-clergied than which what can be a greater tyranny Neither is there any remedy left in such a Church for rectifying such corruption or errour since none are admitted into the Clergy who do not assent to such errour and are removed out of it so soon as they recant it And this is it the Presbyterian Ministers have so much complained of that they might not be admitted to subscribe the 39. Articles with such a clause added so far forth as the same Articles are agreeable to Gods word And indeed the forbidding a ttuth in this Church to be taught to the Laity is in effect the forbidding it to be assented-to also by them N. 4 3ly What authority he allows in this kind to one Primatical Church he must to another and therefore as he professeth such an Authority rightly exercised in the Church of England as to requiring assent from all the Clergy to her 39. A ticles so must he that the same authority is so in the Church of Rome And thus Pope Pius's Creed so far as its requiring assent from all the Roman Clergy by which this Clergy may only preach those errours as he accounts them and cannot declare the contrary Truths is justified by himself and the Roman Church maintained herein to exercise a lawful power N 5 4. But 4ly If the Church of England hath such a lawful authority in the reformation of errours over its subjects the same have superiour Councils suppose a General or a Patriarchal in the West over it and all other Primaticael Churches viz. of requiring assent from all the Clergy whether Archbishops Bishops or inferiours to all their Decrees and not to teach any thing contrary to them and that if not for imposing them as Articles of Faith yet for the reason given by the Dr. viz. because no Reformation can be effected by these Councils if persons may be allowed to preach and officiate in these Churches in a way contrary to the designe of such a Reformation made by the Council And then supposing here under that pretended reformation of an error by such Council or Synod a corruption of a Truth and that of moment a thing this Author allows possible How can there be a reforming afterward of such a Corruption unless done by Laicks Or may the Council lawfully require an assent to such corruption from all its subjects that are admitted into sacred Orders and those that are so admitted afterward when they discerne truth as lawfully renounce and reverse such their former assent These seem to be the consequences of the Dr's stating such an authority in his Church consequences contrary to what he alloweth and these arguings seem of force especially against one that both accuseth the Roman Church because fallible for requiring assent to her Decrees and refuseth assent to the Decrees of Superiour Councils because these fallible N. 6 But notwithstanding this I am far from affirming 1. That the Church Catholick in her Supreme Councils whether fallible or infallible may not require assent of her subjects to her Definitions and Decrees as she thinks fit in matters that are not capable of a strict Demonstration against her judgment as I suppose Divine matters are not neither do I know any wiser or securer course though abstracting from the Church's Infallibility that any Christian can take as to attaining all necessary divine truth than by his firm adhering to her judgment in all things that is set over him by God himself to guide him in the way of salvation of which much hath been said elsewhere And 2ly far also from affirming that the Church of England or any other National or Provincial Synod may not require Assent not only from her Clergy but all her subjects to her Doctrines of Religion or matters of Faith and that upon Anathema to all Dissenters but then it must be for such doctrines wherein such Church or Synod doth not oppose but agree with the whole Body of the present Catholick Church and so also with that of former times according to the judgment of these times made by this present Church Taking here this whole Body I speak of as contradistinct to Heretical and Schismatical Churches or Societies and taking the consent of this whole in such an universality as is necessary for concluding the whole according to the proceedings we have seen in the first General Councils Now in these matters wherein a Provincial Council agrees with the whole as it demands assent to them from its subjects so is it infallible in
them if the whole be so It follows Pag. 270. l. 3. Not to the end that all those propositions should be believed as articles of faith Not that all but doth the Church of England then require that some of her propositions in the 39. Articles should be believed and assented to by them as Articles of her Faith His saying not all seems to imply as much and see Art 8. which saith the three Creeds ought thorowly to be received and believed This and believed being added by Queen Elizabeths Divines to the former Article as it was penned in King Edwards dayes And several of the other Articles are required to be assented to as things contained in Scripture and so as infallible and these things such as the Church of Rome's errour in them is called erring in matter of faith See Art 19. and since the principal reformation of errours that belongs to Church-authority is of those that are contrary to the doctrine of faith the preservation of which faith is chiefly entrusted to the Church's care surely it would seem a piece of strange subtilty to ty her Clergy to assent to that which is matter of faith in which faith also the Roman Church hath erred and yet not to oblige them to assent to it as a matter of faith If then she doth require Assent to some of her Articles at least as of faith upon what ground may a fallible Authority do this and why may not other Churches do this as inculpably as that of England Or if she doth not require an assent to any of her Articles as of faith of which Bishop Bramhall ‖ Reply to Chalcedon p. 350. speaks thus diminutively We do use to subscribe to them the 39. Articles indeed not as Articles of faith but as Theological Verities for the preservation of unity among our selves then the Clergy of England as to faith receiving the words of the Creeds are as for all other things permitted to believe what or how little they please Ib. l. 17. We cannot help the weakness of those mens understanding who cannot apprehend that any such thing as authority should be left in a Church if we deny Infallibility other diseases may be cured but natural incapacity cannot Non prudentes apud vosmetipsos Rom. 12.16 See Note on p. 263. l. 10 and on p. â—60 l. 15. Ib. l. 4 As that it were the foundation of all the Heresies and Sects in the world See before Note on p. 263. l. 2. and on p. 271. l. 2 n. 2. Ib. l. 3 This Principle he saith makes all Ecclesiastical Authority useless All Ecclesiastical Authority N. O. saith not this frequently imposed upon him by the Dr See before p. 262. 267. thereby to shape a thing like an answer to him in shewing the Church's Authority usefull or necessary as to several other things And the words following here that are truly cited out of N. O. do limit this uselesness of Ecclesiastical Authority to the Office of Teaching and that in matter necessary according to Dr St's limitation in his Principle of the Scriptures being as to these necessaries clear the words are clear to all persons have a limitation also in N. O. which he is pleased to leave out and conceal from his Reader viz. this I mean exclusively to their repairing to these Pastors for the learning of the meaning of such Scriptures N. 1 Ses Fanaticism fanatically imputed p. 99. Pag. 271. l. 2. For since that Train of my Principles hath been laid nothing like the old Church of England hath been seen Mr. S. C. professeth himself to think more honourably of the Church of England than to follow or maintain these Principles of the Dr and that the regard Its Governours have both to the King 's and Kingdome 's safety and their own Character will not permit them to yield to an Anarchy first in the Church and presently after in the Kingdome He saith not that since the Dr's laying his train c. nothing like the old Church of England hath been seen but that upon his ground if received and practised in this Church all would be reduced into meer Fanaticisme for saith he § 91. To make every Christian soberly enquiring into Scripture to be his own Teacher in all necessary points of faith and it is no matter what becomes of unnecessary points and to be a competent Judge of the true sense of Scripture in them all this without any regard to all External Authority infallible or fallible either for an infallible one being unnecessary what necessity can there be of a fallible authority which none is or can be bound to believe can be nothing but Fanaticisme in the heigth of its Notion Thus he N. 2 And indeed 1st For matter of fact it is manifest that several Sects of late have much more multiplied in the Church of England than in former times 2ly Manifest also that since Chillingworth's taking this way of answering Church-Authority when much pressed on him these Principles have been more in vogue and more openly maintained viz. 1 That For points necessary and for others no matter if controversy still remains Scriptures are clear to all capacities using a due diligence therein without any expressing or explaining of themselves in this manner that they mean using a due diligence to be instructed by their Spiritual Pastor in the right sense thereof which limitation should it be added would seem to make more for Church-Infallibility than against it Again 2 That every Christian is bound to reject whatever is offered to be imposed upon his faith which hath no foundation in Scripture or is contrary thereto as Dr St. in his 29th Principle i.e. if we make any sense of it which he such persons do think hath no foundation in Scripture c. for if he means here which the Church judgeth to have no foundation in or to be contrary to Scripture so say Catholicks but when will the Church judge thus and impose the contrary Again That in the Church all men are left to judge according to the Pandects of the Divine Laws because each member of this Society is bound to take care of his soule and of all things that tend thereto ‖ Rat. Account p. 133. That men are to try the Doctrines of their Guides for that many false ones are gone out into the world c. See before the Texts urged to this purpose by the Dr p. 144. c. Manifest I say that more of late such propositions and Principles as these have been much divulged and propagated But whether such Principles or some other things have actually caused such a licentiousness in opinions as hath been of late I cannot determine only this I may affirm and do appeale to the candid Reader 's judgment therein that such Principles do much invite and encourage such a Self-guidance in Spiritual matters and diffidence in and independence on our Lord's Clergy whilst Chillingworth freely acknowledgeth ‖ c. 2. §.
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
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