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
any Circle or Petitio principii or identical arguing that whatever be doth witness of himself is true And can the Doctor disprove this Pag. 123. l. 5. Not shewing at all how the infallibility of the Church can be proved from Scripture And the reason of this was to shew that Catholicks have no necessity for proving Church-Infallibility to return to the testimony of the Scriptures for it as the Dr and some other Protestants say they must Annotations on his 8. §. The Argument from Tradition for Infallibility PAg. l. 11. The method of his discourse is this c. Whoever learns the method of ones discourse from an Adversary is seldom rightly informed who will not be deceived must consult the Author As for example here in the Dr's giving an account of N. O's Method concerning Tradition he hath fairly left out that which N.O. most pressed viz. these Governours of the Church in their General Councils inserting from time to time as they thought fit their Decisions in the Church's Creeds which shews what opinion both General Councils and the whole Church have had of the Infallibility of their Decisions and which by N. O. was named in the first place and preceded their Anathematizing of Dissenters Pag. 124. l. 8. What thinks he of the Religion of the Patriarcht who received their Religion by Tradition without any such Infallibility 1. First he thinks it somewhat strange to see the Dr plead the certainty of Oral Tradition elsewhere by him so much decried to evade Church-Infallibility 2ly He thinks that in those first times for their Religion people were not left wholly to Tradition which as to many points of their Religion could not have afforded them especially such persons as had not much conversation abroad a sufficient Certainty therein but that then also they had Priests and Prophets endued with Gods Spirit and who as to the Office of Teaching were not only set over them for exhorting thein to a good life but for directing them also in all necessary Credends and Truths and that the traditive doctrine of these Priests so assisted must be granted much more not to be liable to errour in those points wherein the Tradition of the people is thought by the Dr sufficiently certain so that the mor◠the certainty of Tradition is established the more is confirmed their Infallibility also who were the principal Conservers of it 3ly He thinks also that the Church of God had even from the beginning many Positive Divine Laws besides that of Nature prescribing many things in the Worship of God So we find early in Genesis mention of several laws committed afterward to writing by Moses See before Note on p. 85. l. 14. Neither can he suppose Oral Tradition such a faithful and exact Guide in all these laws and to every one so well known and that so free from all controversy in necessary matters as to supersede the necessity of any Church-Infallibility in them But however it be in the Church under the Old Testament the Promises of an infallible guidance by Gods Holy Spirit to its Governours seem much more necessary in the New for the certainty and stability of Christian Religion in all its parts where is such an enlargement made of the Articles of Faith and especially if these should not have been committed to writing Ib. l. 12 No such necessity of infallibility for that purpose viz. for receiving the Scriptures or Churches infallibility by vertue of common and universal Tradition True there is no necessity of Church-Infallibility to prove or assure them of Church-Infallibility or other points of their faith such as are sufficiently evidenced to them by the forementioned Tradition But 1 there is a necessity of Church-Infallibility still that so there may be a stability and certainty in them even to the unlearned as to many other points of Necessary Faith not so clear in Tradition as Church Infallibility is nor so clear as to be thereby self-evident to all Christians As for example for this point of faith the Divinity and Consubstantiality of onr Saviour against the Arian Unless we may perhaps imagine that the same or greater Controversies in Religion that have risen notwithstanding the Scriptures would not so without them See before Note on p. 84. n. 4. a. Next Observe also That Church Infallibility as it is divinely assisted being a Divine Revelation is in its delivering to us the other Articles of our faith much more relied and rested upon in the same manner as all other Divine Revelations are than the Evidence of Tradition in its delivering to us the same Articles though the Ground and Reason that such Infallibility is believed to be a Divine Revelation be Tradition Pag. 125. l. 1. For if the Tradition may be a sufficient ground if faith how comes Infallibility to be necessary Thus Tradition may be a sufficient ground of Faith for some points clearly delivered by it and as to the persons clearly knowing such Tradition and yet Church Infallibility be necessary for many other points not cleared sufficiently to all men by Tradition For things of a sufficiently generall Tradition which Tradition is reposed presently in writings cannot be so well known to all Christians many neither having learning nor much conversation abroad as Definitions of a Council may Ib. l. 7. And that therein the will of God is contained c. Contained but not clearly And this is the reason of putting Church-Infallibility notwithstanding these Divine writings which reason holds also much more for it without them Ib. l. 17. That the Church would otherwise have failed if there had been neither Writings nor Infallibility Might have failed i.e. by erring in such Necessaries as are not as to all clearly delivered by Tradition Ib. l. 9 For we see God did furnish the Church with one the Scriptures and left no footsteps of the other Church-Infallibility Yes the Definitions of the Church contained in the Athanasian Creed are footsteps of it Ib. l. ult Not left in to the determinations of men liable to be corrupted by interest and ambition i.e. Of Lawful General Councils our pretended Infallible Church-Guides Pag. 126. l. 2. But hath appointed men inspired by himself to set down whatever is necessary for us to believe and practise Add and hath appointed others divinely-assisted also as to Necessaries to determine both in belief and practice what the former as to all capacities have not so clearly set down as that they may not be therein mistaken or also by some teachers misguided Witness Dr St.'s testimony hereof Rat. Account p. 58. pressed by N.O. p. 63. where he grants this here said and upon it allows as far as his line will let him go the sense that the Catholick Church in succeeding ages gives of the Scriptures to be a very useful way for them to embrace the true sense of the Scriptures even in Necessaries His own words are It seems reasonable that because art and subtilty may be used by such who
to any Guides of the Church ever since we are sure they spake by an infallible Spirit and where they have determined matters of faith practice we look upon it as arrogance presumption in any others to alter what they have declared Where they have determined matters of faith or practice But who 's Judge of this what Christ and his Apostles have determined the Church's Councils or private men each for himself Ib. l. 13 Til ignorance ambition private interests swayed too much among those who were called the Guides These vices in all ages are found in some and are justly by others reproved But doth He charge these on the Church's Supremest Guides or its General Councils Then if we declining their judgment on this account to what other Courts or Persons will He direct us to apply our selves that are more free what private Person or inferior Court Ib. l. 3 In matters imposed upon us to believe or practise which are repugnant to plain commands of Scripture or the evidence of sense or the Grounds of Christian Religion no Authority of the present Guides of a Church is to overrule our faith or practice In things contrary to the plain commands of Scripture or grounds of Religion we join with him No Church-authority is to overrule our faith or practice But the former Question still returns Who shall judge among us what is or is not so contrary As for the other thing he mentions contrary to the evidence of sense If a Divine Revelation be contrary to such evidence I hope our Faith is to be over-ruled by the Revelation and for this I think I have the Dr's consent in these words in his Rational Account Where discoursing of Transubstantiation whether consistent with the grounds of Christian Religion he saith ‖ p. 567 That which I am now upon is not how far reason I suppose he will allow me to say or sense is to be submitted to Divine authority in case of certainty that there is a Divine Revelation for what I am to believe but how far it is to be renounced that is Reason or Sense when all evidence that is brought i.e. for such a Divine Revelation is from the authority of the Fathers So that that Question in short is Whether there be greater evidence that I am bound to believe the Fathers in a matter contrary to Sense and Reason or else to adhere to the judgment of them though in opposition to the Father's authority Where I understand him to say that he is to believe a Divine Revelation that is certainly such made known to him by one Sense the Hearing though against the perceptions of another Sense the Seeing but notwithstanding this that he is still rather to adhere to the judgment of his Senses than credit the Fathers concerning the truth of such a Divine Revelation as contradicts his Senses So The certainty of the Divine Revelation is here the only thing in question which once any way proved the evidence Sense gives-in against it is to be neglected Now of the certainty of the Divine Revelation or of the true sense of Scripture we reckon the unanimous consent of the Fathers or Primitive Church if such can be shewn so expounding it a sufficient proof And I think sometimes so doth Dr St. in these words Rat. Account p. 375. We profess to be guided by the sense of Scripture at interpreted by the unanimous consent of the Fathers and the four first General Councils And p. 56. It is a sufficient prescription against any thing that can be alledged out of Scripture that it ought not to be looked on as the true meaning of the Scripture if it appears contrary to the sense of the Catholick Church from the beginning And so laying the evidence of Sense here aside what their consent is is the first thing to be discussed Pag. 150. l. 4. For there are some things so plain that no man wil be guided by anothers opinion in them Catholicks willingly allow withdrawing obedience where you have Certainty But how vainly doth any one pretend or promise himself a certainty of any thing wherein a General Council or a much major part of the Church having all the same means of certainty as he judgeth contrary or fancy that such a matter carrieth the like evidence to persons as doth the Whiteness of Snow Ib. l. 12. I am certain if I destroy the evidence of Sense I must overthrow the grounds of Christian Religion What if I disbelieve Sense only in such a particular thing where Divine Revelation declares the contrary Though indeed the Sense in Transubstantiation is not deceived at all its Object still remaining there out the Person if from it He collect the Substance of Bread to be under it Ib. l. 19. To reject that authority which overthrows the certainty of Sense He must meane with his Exception unless it be Divine Ib. l. 3 We preferr the grounds of our common Christianity before a novel and monstrous figment Good reason but not before a Divine Revelation This Controversy therefore must first be decided before any argument from Sense can be used He goes on Ib. l. 2 Hutched in the times of ignorance and barbarisme fostered by faction and imposed by tyranny Speaking evil of Dignities Jud. 8. Concerning the evidence of Sense N.O. †Consid p. 92. had this Discourse on Dr St's 4th Consequence charging the Church of Rome as maintaining opinions repugnant to the principles of Sense and Reason 1. That the judgment of our Senses appointed by God the Instruments by hearing or reading them of conveying Faith and his Divine Revelations to us affords a sufficient natural certainty or infallibility whereon to ground our belief in all those things subject to our senses wherein the Divine Power doth not interpose But 2ly That where the Divine Power worketh any thing supernaturally that is contrary to our sense as it may no doubt here we are not to believe them And 3ly That we are to believe this divine power doth so so often as certain Divine Revelation tells us so though by the same senses it tells us so We believing our Senses as our Hearing or Reading for this as we ought where we have no Divine Revelation or other evidence concerning their deception when at the same time we do not believe the same Senses for some other thing as that that which we see is Bread when a Divine Revelation tells us the contrary The truth of which Divine Revelation in any non-evidence and questioning of the Sense of Scripture we are to learn from Gods Church infallibly assisted in necessary Faith c. For which I referr the Reader to what hath been said more at large in § 60.61.62 of the preceding Discourse Thus N.O. in his Considerations ‖ which the Dr passeth over in silence For it is better not to debate or acquaint a Reader with those Scruples we cannot easily satisfy Cosa ragionata via và P. 151. l. 1. We
be both an act of prudence and of duty to submit our judgment to our Superiours in whatever they shall define and especially in matters of Necessary Faith § 42 Again p. 144. That the exercise of this Faculty was not to cease as soon as men had embraced the Christian Doctrine Granted as the former and yet our submission of this our Judgment to what doctrines our Superiours shall define be both our duty and a most rational act of this our Judgment and any perswasion of our judgment not rightly used to the contrary no way excuse our non-submission from guilt I say as the exercise of this faculty doth not cease so it must be rightly used which it never is when used it at any time dissents from the doctrine of our Lord or his Apostles or of lawful General Councils whereto is required its assent § 43 Again he saith p. 146. That the Authority of Guides in the Church i.e. for their determining truths in necessaries is not absolute and unlimited but confined within certain bounds and afterward he saith confined to a Rule which if they transgress they are no longer to be followed Be it so when they transgress against their Rule if this be certainly and demonstratively known by any such person is not to follow them this is confessed already by N. O. But Consid p. 73 who is appointed Judge of these Supreme Judges when they transgress against this Rule or when their Subjects have Demonstration for this Their Subjects who are from them to learn the sense of the Rule where difficult and disputed and who are bidden to follow their faith The right exercise of our judgment will not judge so but will judge that if Demonstration were on his side these Supreme Judges having all the same Evidences would have discovered it sooner than he or at least have discovered it when related to them by him and also the Protestants Definition of it concludes it none if these Judges do not discern it such Who then since he is not excused from sin and disobedience by using his judgment if he judge amiss will not think it the safest way still to continue his submission The Socinian in judging the Council of Nice in their Definition of Consubstantiality to have transgressed the Rule they are confined to and so not to be followed is not hereby released at all from his obedience to this Council or secured in his discession from it That authority is none that is only to be obeyed where the Subjects are to approve first of its sentence § 44 Again p. 148. he saith He allows a very great authority to the Guides of the Catholick Church in the best times of Christianity and looks upon the concurrent sense of Antiquity as an excellent means to understand the mind of Scripture in places otherwise doubtful and obscure First for the limitation of places doubtful and obscure This seems to render such Authority useless as to Necessaries in which this Author will have the Scriptures clear and perspicuous Next a right judgment cannot but account all those places so in the sense whereof either the ancient or present major part of Christianity are of a contrary judgment from himself Lastly the looking on such a concurrent sense as an excellent means c. is short and will not serve the turn for the unity of faith it must be looking on it as a Rule requiring our obedience when such sense is declared by their Councils § 45 He proceeds p. 149. That in matters imposed to be believed or practised which are repugnant to plain commands of Scripture or the evidence of sense or the grounds of Christian Religion we assent that no authority of the present Guides of a Church is to overrule our faith or practice But the same thing is here replied as before § 43. in answer to that in his p. 146. concerning the Guides transgressing the Rule § 46 P. 151. He goes on That no absolute submission can be due to those Guides of a Church who have opposed and contradicted each other and condemned one another for errour and heresy True not to both but to one part It is and N. O. hath told him that it is to the Superiour Or in the Supreme Court where a party dissents to the major part joined with the President Lawful Supreme Councils contradicting one another in matters of necessary faith are not by this Author nor cannot be produced § 47 P. 172. He saith That in the present divided state of the Christian Church a man that would satisfy his own mind must make use of his judgment in the choice of his Church and those Guides he is to submit to True now and in all former times wherein also have been Divisions and Anti-Communions in the Clergy and Guides against Guides that we are to make use of our judgment in the choice of a Church But our Judgment there must be used rightly and being so tells us both that we are to obey those who are found by this judgment to be our lawful Spiritual Superiours and which in such divisions be so And whenever in this our judgment is not used rightly but mistakes we are never a whit the more by this so used released from our Obedience Generally in these Answers here is the exercise of our Judgment or liberty to Judge pleaded against absolute Obedience or Submission of it as if the proving of the one annulled the other when as himself urgeth a ‖ p. 144. liberty of Judging may be used also concerning the Apostles Authority and their Doctrines and yet this liberty well consistent with an obligation of absolute Obedience to such their Doctrins Authority as infallible So then is it well consistent also with that to the Supreme Guides of the Church in their defining necessaries if they be in these infallible or if fallible yet with an obligation still of submission of Judgement to them where any are not demonstratively certain of the contrary Which demonstrative certainty of convincing all those to whom proposed no Protestants have in matters debated with Catholicks § 48 Again for qualifications of Obedience p. 178. he brings That we are not to submit to all those who challenge the authority of Guides over us though pretending to never so much power and infallibility And p. 179 not to submit to those who are lawful Guides in all things they may require Both which are most true and yet well consistent with this that we are to submit to our lawful Guides in all their Determinations in matters of necessary faith if they Supreme and Infallible herein and if they fallible in all things of which we are not demonstratively certain to the contrary Thus you see the Dr's Responsory Propositions are admitted and N. O's Obedience no whit lesse established CHAP. IV. Concerning Church-Infallibility as to Necessaries § 49 4ly AGainst such Principle and for submission of private mens judgements to that of the Church N.O.
more subject to mis-interpretations and where for the thorow studying the one or the other the vocations and employments of most Christians admit not a competent vacancy 5 Lastly the Questions that tend to void Church-Infallibility from the sufficiency of Tradition may as well serve for rendring useless the Infallibility of Scripture on the same account and the same Question that demands Why the Church is believed more infallible than Tradition which Church-Infallibility is proved only by Tradition may as well be put concerning the Scriptures Why these held more infallible than Tradition the strongest proof of which Infallibility of Scriptures among Protestants is from it Annotations on his §. 3. of N. O's Concessions PAge 85. l. 14. N.O. yields That there is no necessity at all of Infallibility under natural Religion 1 There are no words so put together in the Doctor 's 2d and 3d Principle conceded by N. O but by taking his own Principles in what sense he pleaseth he may represent N. O's Concessions of them what he pleaseth 2 If by what he saith N.O. yields he means this see his p. 86. l. 5. That we may have a sufficient certainty of some Principles in Religion without or antecedently to the Infallibility of the Church as it is assisted by Gods Spirit first known to us it is willingly granted him But meanwhile from the Beginning besides the Law of Nature teaching in general the Worship of a God there were also Positive Divine Laws concerning his Service conserved in that Body which constituted his Visible Church So we finde early in Gâ—nesis mention of Sacrifice Firstlings Holocausts Peace-offerings clean and unclean beasts birds in Sacrifice not divided not eating the bloud mention of Holy Times Places Persons Priests Prophets of Tithes paid to the Priest Purifyings Cleansings changing their garments Vows Prohibition of Polygamy as we may gather from Matt. 16.4 8. of contracting Marriages with unbelievers as may be gathered from Gen. 6.2 compared with 1. Excommunication or expulsion out of the Church as we may gather from Gen. 4.12 14 16. And these Laws we may presume were received from an infallible external Proponent and were preserved by the Ecclesiastical Superiours and Teachers of these laws in such a manner as those delivered since and for the certainty of Religion there seems an infallibility in these as necessary if not more for solving the great doubts arising therein before as after the times of a Written Law These laws and statutes are made mention of Gen. 26.5 when God promised his blessing upon Isaac and his seed because that Abraham had obeyed his voice and kept his Precepts and Commandments observed his Ceremonies and Laws Whose Service had been performed more publickly and solemnly from the times of Enos ‖ Gen. 4.26 and after that the days of Adam were half run out And of these Positive Laws and the Tradition of them and of these Ecclesiastical Superiors thus S. Athanasius †De Synod Nicen. Decretis Quae Moses docuit eadem ab Abrahamo observata sunt quae porrò Abraham observavit eadem Noe Enoch agnoverunt Abel quoque hujus rei testis habendus est qui ea quae ab Adam perceperat Deo obtulit Adam autem Magisterio Dei instructus fuit Pag. 86. l. 8. He yields That Reason is to be Judge concerning Divine Revelation i. e. as I understand him Judge whether that which is pretended be a true Divine Revelation or if such Judge again what is the true Sense of it To this I say 1. That whereas He collects this from N. O's granting his 4th Principle there is no mention at all of Reason in this 4th Principle from which this Author deduceth such a Concession 2. That N.O. upon the Dr's 5th Principle hath delivered the just contrary to this Concession imposed upon him in these very words ‖ Consid p. 6. Here if the Dr means that every Christian hath a faculty in him which as to all Revelations whatsoever proposed to him can discern the true and Divine from others that are not so and when a Revelation certainly Divine is capable of several senses can discern the true sense from the false and all this exclusively to and independently on the instruction of Church-Authority This Proposition is not true For then none will need as experience shews they do to repair to any other Teacher for instructing him in a dubious Revelation or the sense of any Divine Revelation controverted which is the true Revelation or which is the Sense of it 3. Yet however this shall be granted him in relation to that Principle that nothing ought to be admitted for Divine Revelation which overthrows the certainty of or is contradictory to true Reason But if the Revelation be of somthing above Reason Reason may be no fit Judge of it Ibid. l. 12 He yields That the will of God may be sufficiently declared to men by writing This and the following Concession That the written will of God doth contain all things simply necessary to Salvation I have re-considered and â—â—nd no advantage to our Author's cause from N. O's yielding them Pag. 87 l. 9. But he quarrels c. Whether the Dr's consequence Princip 21. drawn by him from what was said Princip 20. be well deduced or no which is called N. O's quarrel here I appeal to any judicious Reader reviewing these Principles after this our Author's defence Pag. 88. l. 11. As for instance that the Church is infallible is in the first place to be believed upon their principles Their Principles affirm no such thing c. See N.O. Consid pag. 37. saying the contrary in these words A Christians faith may begin either at the infallible Authority of Scriptures or of the Church and this infallible Authority of either of these be learnt from Tradition and that of the other from it Ibid. l. 10. The Ground on which a Necessity of some external infallible Proponent is asserted must rather make every particular person infallible If no divine faith can be without an infallible assent and sorenders any other Infallibility useless Any infallible assent necessary to the right believing this Artiele of our faith the Church's Infallibility more than that which Tradition affords N.O. affirms not See what the Dr puts in the next page for N. O's 6th Concession As for the Dr's arguing here The ground on which c it is not good For every particular person's being antecedently infallibly assured i.e. by Tradition of this particular point of faith that the Church is Infallible renders not at all the Church's Infallibility useless as to the same person his being assured of several other points of faith only by the Church's Infallibility which according as the person's condition needs instruction may both ascertain him of many more points of Faith and more clearly ascertain them to him than Tradition doth Ibid. l. 3. Our only Question is about Infallibility whether that be necessary or no Writing thus
to the justifying of the Doctrine and Religion that such Heathen or Heretical Miracle-workers professed and of the Honour of those Gods they served suppose those Miracles of Pythagoras or Aesculapius or Apollonius Thyanaeus or of the Arian or Donatist-Bishops who urged them against S. Austin for a justification of their sect and orthodoxness of their doctrine Or on the other side * to shew that those who have related our Lord's and his Apostle's Miracles have to give these their just force and value expressed alwaies that they were done to this end the Dr mentions here and not to some other ends from which consequently nothing could be concluded concerning the truth of their doctrine Of which end of them therefore it concerned the world chiefly to be informed not of the fact Or * to shew that our Lord or his Apostles alwaies cleared this to be their end to their Auditors and spectatours which was in the first place necessary to be done But the people we see without examining this argued the men to be from God from their beholding the Miracles done And the Pharisees not dreaming of the necessity of such a circumstance never offered to elude any of our Lords Miracles as for example that done upon the blind man Jo. 9. alledging them to be done not in confirmation of his doctrine but upon some other by-account and so as they might possibly be done also in a false Religion and so his Doctrine to be rendred no way more creditable thereby Ib. l. 10 But such as the Church of Rome pretends scarce any Religion in the world but hath pretended to the same 1st Here that the same Miracles are pretended by other Religions that are by the Roman Church will signify nothing if they have not as good ground for or proof of what they pretend Or if those which are not only pretended but really done in the Roman be only pretended in the other 2ly The Roman Church pretends many such as the whole Catholick Church if such a Church there was in being did in many ages before Luther and even all along from the Primitive times as sufficiently appears in Ecolesiastical History 3ly These Miracles pretended both by the present Roman and by the Ancient Catholick Church were of the very same kind as those wrought by Christ and his Apostles i.e. giving sight to the blinde healing the sick raising the dead casting out devils Fiunt ergò nunc saith S. Augustine multa miracula eodem Deo faciente per quos vult quemadmodum vult qui illa quae legimus in the Scriptures fecit ‖ De Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 8. and which Miracles are such as this Authour here seems to say can never be done by any other Religions than the true 4ly That such Miracles were not only pretended but really done in the Church Catholick in the ancienter times as in S. Austin's this Authour I suppose will not deny or also hath granted See in his 2. Disc c. 3. p. 578.580 and then there seems no reason why he should deny the like in the Church of latter ages or in the present If there appear first as no absolute necessity of these Miracles in latter times so neither in S. Austin's 2ly If there be the same ends and benefit of them still in these as in his viz. the greater manifestation of Gods Presence and Providence in his Church the Honour he is pleased to do to his more extraordinary faithful Servants the rewards of a strong and unwavering Faith of obtaining what is asked for his better service and greater glory and lastly that end mentioned by S. Austin our greater edification in the true faith See De Cura pro Mort. c. 16. where he faith that Miracles are done Per Martyrum Memorias quoniam hot novit expedire nobis ad adificandam fidem Christi pro cujus illi confessione sunt paessi 3ly Where the Histories of latter times produce as evident and irrefragable testimonies of the truth of several of these Miracles done in them which is sufficient as those in S. Austin's days had Ib. l. 7 Who all pretend to Miracles as well as the Church of Rome Pretend as well but I hope not so truly nor 2ly so much the pretences of Heathens or Hereticks to Miracles being no way comparable for number or greatness to those pretended in the Church Catholick or Roman No more than Simon Magus his are to those of the Apostles and those few also that are said to be done by the Heathens after the Apostles days seem seigned in emulation of the great reputation of those of Christians But Pretences on any side signify nothing The Catholick and the Roman Church require belief of Miracles not upon pretence but a Rational Evidence Pag. 122. l. 15. But he saith a Christians faith may begin either at the infallible authority of Scriptures or of the Church i.e. That the first Article that a Christian believes or that in his learning the Faith is by his Parents or other instructers first made known to him may be this that the Scriptures are Gods word and infallible or may be this that the Church is Infallible I add or perhaps neither of these but some other As that God hath a Son and that he became Incarnate for his sake and the like Any of which Articles such Christian may savingly and with a Divine faith believe without being made infallibly certain thereof from some other formerly-known Divine Revelation on which this Article may be grounded As for example such person may with a divine and saving faith believe the Scriptures to be Gods word before he believe the Church to be infallible that hath defined the Canon of Scripture Or believe the Church to be infallible before he knows those Scriptures to be Gods Word by which Cnhurch-Infallibillity is proved Ib. l. 18. It seems then there may be sufficient ground for a Christian faith as to the Scriptures without believing any thing of the Church's Infallibility and for this we have reason to thank him whatever they of his own Church think of it Yes there may so A Christian not as yet believing the Infallibility of the Church as divinely assisted may both believe and have a sufficient ground of believing the Infallibility of Scripture viz. the forementioned Tradition And as Catholick Writers ordinarily state it to whom the Dr owes his thanks as well as to N. O It is not necessary that the first thing every Catholick believes or is sufficiently certain of be Church-Infallibility See the Catholick Authors cited in 3d Disc of the Guide § 129. n. 4. c. Ib. l. 3 Nay he goes yet farther and saith That the Infallibility of Scriptures as well as the Church may be proved from its own testimony And adds this Reason For saith he ‖ Princ. Consid p. 37. whoever is proved i.e. by some other medium or granted once infallible in what he saith the consequence is clear without
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
in general is full of ambiguities Whether infallibility be necessary means he Whether Church-Infallibility be necessary at all Notwithstanding that a sufficient certainty from Tradition sufficeth for our being assured of such Infallibility in the Church See this Question I think sufficiently solved in the Note on pag. 84. l. ult n 4. Or means he Whether an absolutely infallible Testimony be antecedently necessary for knowing or rightly believing the Infallibility of the Church If so such infallible Testimony is affirmed not necessary unless he will allow Tradition such Ib. l. ult If sufficiently certain evidence will serve for the Church's infallibility why may it not for the Scriptures or any matters of faith contained therein It may where it can be had See N. O's Concess 6. in the Dr's p. 89. Pag. 89. l. 3. If they mean no more by infallibility than sufficient certainty c. Catholicks by Church-Infallibility as assisted with Gods Spirit mean more than a Moral Certainty such Church-infallibility being affirmed a Divine Revelation and so believed to be absolutely infallible And affirm Christians in such Necessary Points of Faith where neither the sense of Scripture nor of Tradition is clear and doth afford sufficient certainty without this Church-Infallibility to be no way secure from errour Ibid. l. 7. We all say matters of faith have sufficient certainty What that all matters of faith have sufficient certainty as to us if Church-Infallibility be excluded as it is by Protestants I ask from what have we this certainty From the Scripture How this where its Sense is doubtful and controverted as in the Text Hoc est Corpus meum From Tradition But all Necessary Points of Faith are not in such clear and express terms delivered by It that no Christian can have any reasonable doubt therein Ibid. l. 12. I only desire to know why a like right and saving faith may not be had concerning the Scriptures without their Church's infallibility A Catholick may have a right and saving Faith concerning the Scriptures I suppose their being the Word of God or concerning any other Article of Faith clearly delivered in them without such a person 's being infallibly assured of Church-Infallibility but without Church-Infallibility cannot have a certain and unerring faith as to those points that are not so clearly set down in Scripture but that some persons may mistake or also as to those Books of Scripture that are not so clearly attested by Tradition or this Tradition not easily knowable to such person Ib. l. 9. From hence it follows that an infallible assent is not requisite to saving faith directly contrary to my former adversary E.W. Whatever difference may be amongst Catholicks concerning What assurance of their faith in some Catholicks is necessary to salvation yet all agree that all Catholicks may have a sufficient certainty of their faith from Church-Infallibility which sufficient certainty for this serves our turn as to this Author's Principles Protestants cannot have in many points thereof as â—elying on their own Judgment in the Sense of dubt us Scriptures and not on the Definitions of the Church See before Note on pag. 84. l. ult Pag. 90. l. 7. He yields That the utmost assurance c. N. O's words p. 56. that he referrs to are Any person may be and that antecedently to the testimony of Scripture at least with a morally-infallible certainty or whatever certainty that may be called which Vniversal Tradition can afford assured of this Divine Revelation the Church's Infallibility from such Tradition and other Motives of Credibility as Protestants allow for a sufficiently or morally infallible and certain means of believing the Scriptures to be the word of God Here is no mention of utmost Ib. l. 5. It moral Infallibility is joining two words together which destroy each other Surely the Author in such passages as these studies some recreation for his Reader or some relief of the Stationer in an age given so much to jeâ—ts even in the most grave and serious subjects N O before he writ these Considerations on his Principles found him in this merry Critical humour in his Rational Account Where pag. 154. the Replier to the Archbishop saying that the Church's infallibility must come from the Holy Ghost and so be more than humane and moral He falls on descanting thus upon it You tell us very wisely that this infallibility is not a thing that is not infallible And It is well you tell us of such a rare distinction of infallibility for else I assure you we had never thought of it viz. of an infallibility that may be deceived Thus He. But forgetting the like language in the Archbishop whom he defends The Archbishops words p. 124. are If you speak of assurance only in the general I must then tell you and it is the great advantage which the Church of Christ hath against Infidels a man may be assured nay infallibly assured by Ecclesiastical and humane proof Men that never saw Rome may be sure and infallibly believe that such a City there is by Historical and acquired Faith And if consent of humane Story can assure me this why should not consent of Church-Story assure me the other Now what is this but Moral Infallibility And so Mr Chillingworth ‖ p. 330. We are and may be infallibly certain that we are to believe the Christian Religion i.e. from the more reasonable Grounds we have for it than for any other and I find our author himself in the same Rational Account p. 96. where this Critical humour was not so violent and where he had some inducement to advance the credit of a Moral Certainty treating this term Infallible a little more gently If by infallible certainty saith he there you mean only such as excludes all possibility of reasonable doubting upon the consideration of the validity and sufficiency of that testimony I am to believe the Canon of Scripture upon then I assert c. And p. 197. Thus we see how impossible it is to avoid a Circle in the supposition of a supernatural Infallibility in the Church's Tradition But if no more be meant but a kind of rational Infallibility though those terms be not very proper i.e. so great evidâ—nce as if I question it I may upon equal grounds question every thing which mankind yields the firmest assent to because I cannot imagine that so great a part of the wisest and most considerative part of the world should be so grosly deceived in a matter of such moment especially supposing a Divine Providence then I freely and heartily assert We have such a kind of rational infallibility or rather the highest degree of actual certainty concerning the truth of the Canon of Scripture and that the Catholick Church hath not de facto erred in defining it But without all this defence our Author knowing N. O's meaning what needs he quarrel about his words unless it were to gain this poor victory that N.O. hath in somthing spoken improperly But