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
so adoring iâ— as they ought should it be so how come they I say to commit such gross Idolatry as the Dr. in his Book charges them with and so all without Repentance of it if Idolatry be a Mortal Sin miscarry in their salvation And if from a Major part of the present Church interpreting Scripture an Appeal be made to a Major part of the Ancient Church pretended to interpret them on the Protestant side Consid p. â—â— neither will this relieve the Dr because since this also 〈◊〉 what side Antiquity stands is a thing in Controversy foâ—â—d â—â—â—râ—omg of it we are to presume here like wise that a sincere â—nâ—â—â—â—owr being allowed to all parties to understand the sense of the former Church this also stands on that side as the Major part apprâ—â—â—e 〈◊〉 it Now the present much Major part of Christianity preâ—e â—â—oth 〈…〉 the sense of the Ancient Church inâ—â—â— pâ—â—â—ing this Scripture 〈◊〉 a Corporal Presence § 7 To this Query of N. O How the Controversy shall bedecided when in a matter of Necessary Faith two contrary Pâ—â—ties say the Scripture is â—lear on their own undeâ—â— I and this Author answering first p. â—92 〈…〉 of determinine Controversies in Religion by a Living Judge is not built on any sufficient Foundation of Scripture or Reason i.e. as I understand him there is no necessity of it Mr Chillingworth made such an Answer before him but more clearly in these words ‖ p. 59. That those places of Scripture which contain things necessary and wherein errour were dangerous need no infallible Judge or Interpreter because they are plain and thâ—se that are obscure need none because they contain not things necessary neither is errour in them dangerous But the Reader may observe here that the Dr. saith only of determining Controvdrsies in Religion leaving this term Controversies indefinite as is usual with him when as N. O. speaks not of Controversies in general many of which he grants not necessary to be decided but expresly of controversies in points necessary that it is requisite the true sense of Scripture herein be some way or other cleared else Christians cannot know what to believe in them Upon which reason the Dr. himself also in his Principles ‖ Princ. 13. pleads a necessity that the Scriptures be clear in them § 8 2ly He tels us p. 197. That there are means ef attaining the certain sense of Scripture in doubtful places without the supposition of an Infallible Guide and so makes a long discourse from p. 197. to p. 260. concerning the Means used in the Primitive times and the many good Rules given by the Ancients for this As a diligent comparing of Scriptures Considering the scope designe connexion whether the sentence be literal on figurative illustrating the difficult by places more plain few by many recurring to the Original Tongues c. Where 〈◊〉 N. O. eâ—quiâ—eâ— how necessaries may be decided for those persons who after all these means used remain still in some suspense or also for those whose low and mechanick condition or weak judgment cannot examine these things can neither compare Scriptures nor search the Testimony of Antiquity Whether 1. 〈◊〉 q. for such it is not much safer to adhere to their Guides though fallible who also have used all those other helps the Dr mentions for deciding these than to be committed to their own judgment much likelier to erre herein than the others § 9 Next I find him when some twenty leaves have been spent in shewing thiâ—â—â—riety of means p. 249. delivering this as the sâ—â—se of the Fathers formerly pâ—toted by him and so also I suppose his own That If after examining and comâ—ering Scriptures c. the dispute still continues and that it be not against the Rule of Faith in express words but about the sense of it then if ancient General Councils have determined it which had greater opportunities of knowing the sense of the Apâ—stolical Church than we it is reasonable we should yield to them but if there have been none such then that the unanimous consent of Fathers is to be taken so it be in some new and upstart Heresies And so saith he There is no necessity of Infallibility in the Guides of the Church to give us a certain sense of Scripture which was the thing to be proved § 11 But here are several things that leave us still without a Determination of such Controversies so as in them to have any settlement of our Faith For 1st he saith If Ancient General Councils have determined it c. But I ask When may Antiquity and such obliging authority expire and What if such ancient General Councils have not and some latter General Councils have determined it whether is it not reasonable we should yield to them and Whether the Church in all ages since the Apostles hath not the same and equal Authority Otherwise if a certain distance from the Apostle's times doth alter this Authority why may not the Arrians put in such an exception against that of Nice not held till after 300. years and so much more against other Councils later than Nice Again since new Controversies in Necessaries may arise in latter times which such ancient Councils have not considered or decided as there did after 300 years several such as had not been discussed or so resolved before thus we shall have no Judge left for deciding them lastly when any Controversy ariseth concerning the Determinations of ancient Councils or Consent of Fathers in any such Point surely some Judge we must have for determining this before the Controversy can be determined 2ly The Terms he useth It is reasonable we should yield to them are general and ambiguous Doth he mean It is reasonable to yield our assent unto them Else how do such Decisions direct our faith or belief at all in these necessaries 3ly He saith So it be in some new and upstart Heresies But why may not this unanimous consent of Fathers be taken against whatever opinions Elder or newer that contradict them But if this Authour means reasonable to yield our assent unto them and if to lawful General Councils of whatever times he allows the same and equal authority and will admit the authority of the latter to resolve any disputes touching the consent or statings of the former what other thing is this but to come home to N. O's Infallible Guide which is lawful General Councils or other known unanimous consent of the Church-Governours Ancient or Modern Which Councils also for the matters they do decide are a standing Guide not only to those present times when they sit or wherein they live but to all Posterity And so this Author at last hath pitched upon that very means of ending Controversies in Necessaries where the sense of Scripture is disputed and other means the comparing of Scriptures c. as to many are either not practicable or effectless which he had endeavoured to avoid the truth of which
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
both as to this Crime at the same distance from Salvation or the Divine Mercy Unless the Roman be at a greater from having so much more light Thus then is the Roman Idolatry in that Discourse frequently represented by Him N. 6 Now after all this would not one wonder at the greatness of this man's Charity in maintaining in his Answer to Mr. J. W. such a Church as in all these Idolatries equals the heathens yet to retain still all the essentials of a true Church and such Opinions and Practices without any retractation of their errour or reforming their fault to hazard only and not destroy men's Salvation And must not this his Charity be enlarged further to the Heathens also that they in worshiping and sacrificing to their false Gods and Heroes and the Manicheans in worshiping the Sun offended nothing in this matter against any essential of Gods true Religion nor by such a worship forfeited their salvation Whilst they also as well as the Church of Rome in general make profession of this fundamental point in Religion viz. that the Honour which is due only to God is not to be given to a meer Creature and that if given to any Creature it is Idolatry N. 7 But now to examine these things a little more closely 1. First Whereas he saith p. 22. If those of the Roman Church can prove that all sorts of Idolatry do necessarily destroy the essentials of a Church the consequence is we must have less charity for them than we had before and such a concession from us that they do not doth not shew their guilt to be less but only our charity to be greater It may be observed that N. O. here charged him not of making the Church of Rome only but the whole Catholick Church both the Western and Eastern as is shewed in the 3d Discourse touching the Guide in Controversy ch 8. guilty of such an Idolatry which if so and this Idolatry he imputes should be affirmed by him a fundamental errour or mis-practice then he must by his rendring the Church Catholick guilty thereof unchurch It also for many ages and so deny an Article of our Creed From whence it appears that he how farr soever inclined by charity yet is also upon necessity forced in his fastening such an Idolatry on the Roman Church as extends also to the Catholick forced I say in defence of his Creed to maintain such species of Idolatry not to unchurch a Body or diminish any of the Essentials of a Church nor to destroy but only to hazard salvation lest he should destroy salvation in the Catholick Church and also unchurch It for several Ages Now as the Archbishop p. 141. All Divines Ancient and Modern Romanists and Reformers agree in this that the whole Militant Church of Christ i.e. in any age and that as to the Religion professed in it cannot fall away into a General Apostasy And so this if proved against him by Catholicks that such Idolatry doth unchurch any Society that teaches and practises it must constrain him to free the Roman Church of such a charge and so to confess his own arguments whatever brought to such a purpose to be faulty and unconclusive And indeed the favour here the Church of Rome notwithstanding such heavy charges as these upon her receives from Protestants of being affirmed still a true Church seems to be on this account because else they should miss a Catholick Church for divers ages before Luther and derive the succession of their Clergy from a Body already unchurched Thus we see what obligation the Church of Rome hath to his Charity in maintaining some sorts of Idolatry to consist with a true Church Where indeed it appears both the Catholick's interest to prove the Idolatry imputed to it not consistent with the being of a true Church whereby they free the Roman Church from any such Idolatry and the Dr's interest to shew such Idolatry no fundamental errour or miscarriage so to retain still the Roman Church a true Church viz. That so also the Catholick of some ages and the present also that is beside the Protestant Churches may be so N. 8 2. Next to examine the Reasons he brings for justifying such his Assertion In that Answer to J. W. p. 30. he saith That the very being of a Church doth suppose the necessity of what is required to be believed in order to salvation i.e. that all things necessary to salvation are believed in it which is granted 2ly saith That whatever Church ownes those things which are antecedently necessary to the being of a Church cannot so long cease to be a true Church Which also is granted But what are these things that are necessary to the being of a Church For explaining this p. 31. he saith That these Articles are such as have the testimony of the whole Christian world of all ages and so of the Roman Church Again Ibid. That nothing ought to be owned as necessary to salvation by Christian Societies but such things which by all those Societies are acknowledged antecedently necessary to the being of the Catholick Church Where if the belief of nothing is to be accounted necessary to salvation or to the being of the Church Catholick but what hath the testimony and approbation of the whole Christian world of all ages or what by all Christian Societies is acknowledged necessary to such a being it seems to me to follow that all Christian Societies must be true Churches or true members of the Catholick and so * that none are or can be Heretical since all Heretical Churches are non-Catholick See Archbishop Lawd p. 141. and * that no such point can be essential to such Being wherein any Christian Society hath dissented from the rest and so though this dissent be in some Heresy yet neither will this render any such Church not to be Catholick still which it remains to be by vertue of those points that have also its consenting with all the rest for it seems those points only wherein it consents with the rest constitute the Church Catholick and so the Arian Nestorian Pelagian are true Churches and parts of the Catholick N. 9 But this being passed by the Question will still be What in particular those points are that are essentials to the being of a true Church and Why the contrary to what the Church of Rome teacheth and practiseth in the matter of Idolatry as we see our Author hath described it before is not one of them To this purpose therefore he saith p. 32. That the ancient Creeds of the Catholick Church are the best measure of those things which were believed to be necessary to salvation or to the being of a true Church and p. 28. he saith The main fundamental points of doctrine are contained in the Apostles Creed and p. 33. When we enquire into the essentials of a Church we think it not necessary to go any farther than the doctrinal points of faith the reason is because
find no command so plain in Scripture that we must believe the Guides of the Church in all they deliver as there is that we must not worship Images See the Scriptures declaring Church-Infallibility as to Necessaries and commanding obedience to it cited before in Note on p. 113. l. 14. The Scriptures that prohibit worshiping of Images do so of any Creature in heaven earth or under it but meane a Divine and Soveraign Worship of them not such a Worship as we say is lawfully given to Men or veneration as is given to Sacred Things Temples Altars Gospels c. He goes on Ib. l. 5. That we must pray with understanding Therefore are all publick Formes of Prayer that are thought necessary for the vulgar by Catholicks translated and published in the vulgar tongue and by those who can read communicated to others Ib. l. 6. That we must keep to our Saviours Institution of the Lords Supper Surely no Precept obligeth us to our Lords Institution or Practice in every thing not in communicating after Supper Sitting at table taking it into our hands washing of feet before it nor in communicating always in both kinds a thing sufficiently cleared by the practice of Antiquity and purest times which on several occasions and that where no absolute necessity gave it in one kind only believing our Lord's Body and Blood to be received in any one Species Now where a Divine Precept obligeth the contrary Practice in no time would be lawful The Eastern Churches also for the same reason as the West viz to prevent the many abuses and irreverences that have hapned since Christianity so exceedingly populous communicate the people not by their eating our Lord's Body and drinking his Blood apart but by giving them both these together taken out of the Chalice with a little Spoon and so putting it into their mouths and think herein they transgress no Precept So Jo. 6.53 is not understood as a precept extending to all for so it would to Infants Nor that Jo. 13.14 Or Jam. 5.14.15 Or Matt. 6.17 5.34 and such like Ib. l. 7. But if any Guides of a Church pretend to an authority to evacuate the force of these the Divine Laws c. Evacuate i.e. in the sense you take them in standing to no certain Judge concerning this sense Ib. l. 15. If they require things contrary to a direct command of God Contrary i.e. in your mistaken private judgment Ib. l. 18. If they the Guides can prove us mistaken we yield No surely Your own soberest Writers say you are to obey and submit your judgment to that of your Guides except you can prove and that demonstratively and that demonstration such as is allowed by all rational persons them to be mistaken Ib. l. 8 I would gladly know whether there be not some points of faith and some parts of our duty so plain that no Church authority determining the contrary ought to be obeyed And will not then those also be so plain as that no Church-Authority will determine the contrary This granted then that there are points of faith so plain yet it is contended that none wherein General Councils require our obedience are contradictory to any such plain point of faith How can that be maintained by any a plain truth to the common reason of mankind which a General Council and a major part of the Church accepting this Council denies as false And if it be said that passions and interests blind men we ought to imagine they do so private men or our selves sooner than General Councils In this 7th Proposition p. 149. what hath our Author said in defence of his Religion against Church-Authority that a Socinian or Arian may not say for his Pag. 152. l. 12. These Guides of the Church have declared each other to be fallible by condemning their opinions and practices Lawful General Councils have not condemned the opinions of one another And what former Councils have been held for lawfully General where any doubt is made it is fit private men should learne from their present supreme Ecclesiastical Guides Those Councils urged for this contradiction by Protestants are either Particular against General Councils or Councils stiled General that are not allowed to be so by the judgment of the present Church Catholick Or those definitions of them to contradict which do not in the foresaid judgment or opinions commonly-received only in some age urged for such defined Ib. l. 18. Suppose a man Living in the times of the prevalency of Arianisme when almost all the Guides of the Church declared in favour of it Arianisme at no time prevailed upon a greater part of the Church or its Governours That of S. Jerome Ingemuit totus orbis miratus est se esse Arianum only signifies that the whole Catholick world wondred that its Decree which passed in the great Council at Ariminum was interpreted by the Arian party which was favoured by the Emperour quite contrary to its meaning Doth the Dr as yet doubt of this He goes on Ib. l. ult Must he adhere to the Nicene Council but there were more numerous Councils which condemned it Yes he must Because those Arian Councils if any more numerous for the Bishops that were present in them Whereas there were but a very few of the Western Bishops present in the Council of Nice yet had not so general an acceptation especially in the Occidental Churches As for any illiterate vulgar that have not a sufficient means of distinguishing lawful General Councils from others not so that contradict them they are excused by their invincible ignorance till further light for any non-conformity to their Decrees And generally where any dispute concerning the authority of a Council is private men may so long suspend their obedience to their decrees till a sufficiently general acceptation or reprobation of such Councils by the Church-Governours and the Bishop of the Apostolick See of the same or the succeeding times have cleared such difficulty But such a general Acceptation and confirmation of this Council of Nice was manifest immediately after the sitting thereof And of this those who made any doubt ought to have informed themselves better But meanwhile by this Question doth not this Authour fairly free a Socinian from any obedience due to the decree of the Nicene Council concerning Consubstantiality Pag. 153. l. 4. Liberius went so far that Hilary denounced an Anathema against him N. 1 and all that joined with him The Relation in which this passage is found is none of S. Hilary's See thereasons given by Baronius A. D. 357. The Historians of those times differ in their Records concerning Liberius some speaking more favourable of him than others The Syrmian Confession subscribed by him may be taken in an orthodox sense and it is justified as such by S. Hilary ‖ De Synod And if he communicated only with such a party as those called Semi-Arians who joined with him in this profession though understood by them in a sense
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.
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
Heresies both ways are used but not necessary therefore that all writings against them use both Or that Councils condemning them register the reason of their condemnation But so it is that this Council of Antioch in their Epistle to Paulus Samosatenus do use both as they urge the Scriptures so also the Church's consentient Tradition in these words Decrevimus fidem scripto edere exponere quam a principio aceepimus habemus traditam servatam in Catholicâ Sanctâ Ecclesitâ usque in hodiernum diem And Qui Filium Dei non esse Deum praedicat hunc alienum esse ab Ecclesiastica regula arbitramur omnes Ecclesiae Catholicae nobiscum consentiunt Pag. 228. l. 1. I would advise them to be conversant in the Divine Oracles ‖ Athanas cont Arian S. Athanasius in all th gives very good advice for in the Father's confuting Heresies by Scriptures and by Councils Scriptures have the prime place with Athanasius's limitation there writing to Bishops and those quibus gratia data est ut discernant spiritualia whilst he saith there Contra Arian Orat. 1. simplex non firmiter institutus dum solummodo verba Scripturae considerat statim illorum astutiis seducitur Especially these Scripture-proofs are necessary to Bishops when dealing with Adversaries that contemn Councils as now also Scriptures are urged by Catholicks to Protestants declining Church-Authority Ib. l. 7. But did not the Arians plead Scripture as well as they how then could the Scripture end this Controversy which did arise about the sense of Scripture This Objection was never so much as thought of in those days What thinks He of Tertullian's Prescription against Hereticks quoting Scriptures from Church-authority declaring Apostolical Tradition concerning the sense of such Scriptures c. 15. Scripturas saith he obtendunt hac suâ audacià statim quosdam movent in ipso verò congressu firmos quidem fatigant infirmos capiunt medios cum scrupulo dimittunt And Quid promovebis exercitatissime Scripturarum cùm si quid defenderis negetur ex diverso si quid negaveris defendatur Hunc igitur potissimum gradum obstruimus non admittendi eos ad ullam de Scripturis disputationem i.e. by transferring the Controversy to be tried by the consentient Doctrine and Tradition of the Church Catholick Or what thinks he of the words of Athanasius in the same Oration that is here quoted advising those he writ to thus Zelum Domino zelate retentâ Patrum fide quam Fatres qui Nicaeae convenerant scripto professi sunt Ne sustinueritis eos qui contra eam novis rebus student etiamsi dictiones ex sacris literis scribant Ib. l. 9. They did not in the least desert the proofs of Scripture because their adversaries made use of it too No why should they the true sense of which was on their side and this also evident enough to some mens reason But to those not by this way convinced they pressed also the universal Tradition of the Church and the Definitions of its General Councils as infallible and to be submitted to by all private judgments For which to view this Author he speaks of Athanasius See the beginning of his Epistle to Epictetus Bishop of Corinth Ego arbitrabar saith he omnium quotquot unquam fucre haereticorum inanem garrulitatem Nicaeno Concilio sedatam esse Nam Fides quae inibi a Patribus secundum sacras Scripturas tradita confessionibus confirmata est sat is mihi idonea efficaxque videbatur ad omnem impictatem evertendam c. And therefore he saith the Bishops thereof afterward divesis Conciliis istos lucifugas quae Arii sunt sapientes communi calculo unius spiritus incitatu anaethemate percusserunt Quâ igitur audaciâ fit ut post tanti Concilii authoritatem disceptationes aut quaestiones instituantur And Quae ita manifestò prava pervâ—rsaque sunt ea euriosiùs tractare non oportet ne contentiosis hominibus ambigua videantur sed tantummodò ad ea respondendum est quod ipsum per se sufficit ea orthodoxae Ecclesiae non esse neque majores nostros ita senfisse And Si vultis filii Patrum esse non debetis sentire diversa ab iis quae Patres ipsi conscritserunt Again in the beginning of his Epistle to the Affrican Bishops Sufficiunt ea quae Niceae confessa fuere satisque per se virium habent quemadmodum superiùs diximus tum ad subversionem impii dogmatis tum ad tutelam utilitatemque Ecclesiasticae doctrinae And Neque Deum metuerunt ita dicentem Ne transmoveas terminos aeternos quos posuerunt Patres tuiâ— Qâ—â—accusat Patrem aut Matrem morte moriatur neque patres nostros quicquam reveriti sunt denunciantes anathema si quis contraria suae ipsorum confessioni sentiret Plusquam decem Synodos jam instituerant c. Verbum autem illud Domini per Occumenicam Niceae Synodum in aeternum manet And in the close of that Epstile after citing the Apostle 1 Cor. 11.2 Laudo vos quod quemadmodum tradidi vobis traditiones ita eas servatis he goes on Ipsa enim Nicaena Synodus reverâ trophaeum columnaque est ubi omnes haereses inscriptae ostentui sunt alluding to Col. 2. 15. then declaring how this Council established the Faith he saith Quam Patres statuissent de fide in Filium id statim adjectum voluere Credimus in Spiritum Sanctum And in his Epistle de Synodis he saith of these Fathers shewing their just authority in matters of faith that In negotio Paschatis placuit ut adderetur Visum est ut omnes obtemperarent De fide verò non scripserunt Visum est sed Ad istum modum credit Catholica Ecclesia statim confessio ipsa credendi adjuncta est ut ostenderent eam non novam esse sententiam sed Apostolicam quae ipsi scripsissent non esse sua inventaâ— sed Apostolorum documenta Pag 223. l. 11 So Athanasius saw no necessity at all of calling in the assistance of any infallible Guides to give the certain sense of Scripture in these doubtful places Of any infallible Guides or of any Guides at all he may say for here are none mentioned fallible or infallible No necessity then of the Council of Nice in Athanasius's judgment Review the places but now mentioned and see more in Note on p. 245. l. 1. This Author hath need of very credulous Readers Pag. 230. l. 15. Yet he no where saith that without the help of that Tradition it had been impossible to have known the certain sense of Scripture Nor do Catholicks say so They say only that the Church Governours met in a General Council are infallible in their decisions of necessary faith by reason of an evident Tradition of such an Apostolical Doctrine or sense of Scripture descending to them Or by some necessary Deduction of theirs made from such traditive doctrine in the same
these Church-Governours may rightly understand all necessaries upon a sincere endeavour nor that a sincere endeavour is used by them How can he since that endeavour which may be used by any Mechanick he holds sufficient But is necessitated to pitch upon this That such Fraud and malice may be used by the Church-Governours even by General Councils that they shal teach and define to and for their Subjects and exact upon Anathema their assent to the contrary errour and that in matters necessary to what themselves believe and hence contends that a private man cannot safely adhere to their sentence or Decrees So that the Church's Infallibility he now controlls is not an Infallibility in not erring or in believing aright in necessaries here granted to the Church-Governours in like manner as to mechanicks but only their Infallibility in Teaching to others the same necessary things which they themselves believe and by their Infallibility here is meant not passively their not being deceived but actively their not deceiving and N. O. is required to prove the contrary Now I had thought the Infallibility of the Church or of General Councils he had quarrel'd with had been a non possibility in them of erring or not believing aright in some necessaries as he hath expressed himself heretofore frequently in his Rat. Account part 3. ch 1. treating Of the Infallibility of General Councils and according to his Description of it passively before in this Answer p. 80. Infallible is that which cannot be deceived where also he cashiers the Notion he is glad now to take up And Now it seems N. O. in proving these Governours their believing aright in necessaries hath lost his labour his discourse proceeding as the Dr. saith from a very false way of reasoning from believing to teaching and that the Teaching of a General Council in necessaries what it doth believe for of these General Councils there N. O. speaks who for this reason requires obedience and a submission of private men to their judgment in such necessaries is the only thing to be proved by N. O. To prove which a thing that seems of it self evident it is enough to say it hath that moral certainty in it which generally Church-Tradition is said to have viz. that so many such persons cannot conspire in such a matter viz. a necessary to salvation to falsify the truth against their own belief and conscience to all their Subjects and to Posterity with an Anathema to all Dissenters when themselves also are such And had it not here been much better for him if not out of charity or reverence to so Sacred Persons yet from the irrationality of such a defence to have passed over this Objection of N. O's as he hath done many other in silence But if a further proof yet be exacted of me I say that our Lord's Promises of their not erring in necessaries and the commands of our obeying what they teach do engage to us as to Necessaries their not teaching amisse as without which their teaching us right we have no security or benefit of their not-erring And so I leave these things to the Dr's Reflections § 39 Again N. O. further affirms p. 48. in the behalf of a prudent Obedience That whatever fallibility and liability to mistakes even in necessaries the Church Guides are Subject to Yet that there is much more hazard to the most of Christians their capacities being very little abstracting from the directions of a Guide their mean condition void of learning or Leisure and a thing uncertain also when they have used a due endeavour and this a prejudice of it not rightly used if they do not discern in these Scriptures the pointing out this Guide which saith S. Augustine the Scripture without any ambiguity doth demonstrate Contra Crescon l. 1. c. 33. and which repaired-to may demonstrate to them what else is necessary That there is much more hazard he saith in adhering to their own judgment excepting only this if any shall have a demonstrative certainty of his private opinion against his Guides than to that of their Guides though these fallible for whereas in following such Guides such persons may fall into some errours and perhaps some of them great ones in this latter way of following their own Apprehensions the unlearned may fall into a thousand and some of these much greater and grosser than any such Christian Society or Body of Clergy will ever maintain That God hath made no promise to preserve in truth those who desert his Guides to direct them nor to reward their diligence in other ways who live in disobedience Witness here the unhappy Socinians and so many gross Sects of late much more absurd in their tenents than those other who remain in a constant submission to the Ministry and Religion established by Authority in the Protestant Churches Consid p. 100. And that better it is in the erring also of these Guides that all erre their errours for so at least there will be some Vnity and Peace and for Inferiours so mis-led some excuse and in probability more verisimilitude in their mistakes than that every one should err a several and his own errour both to the utter ruine of Peace and a greater deviation from Truth Nay if from such Subjects could only be obtained in a liberty of their Opinion the obedience of silence and non contradiction thus would be secured the Peace of the Church and the Propagation of such Sects which must be either by Writing or Discourse prevented But as things stand here 1 from our own being assured by the Drs Principle of our rightly understanding and not erring in all necessaries and then we 2 from it rightly collecting that others who hold the contrary to us do err so and 3 then that such errour as in a necessary being judged not tolerable neither may this obedience of Silence be therein observed from these I say must needs break out daily many new Reformations all founding themselves upon the justness of the first and this a Reforming too not of themselves only but of so many others as they can perswade as it was in the first which all of them justify § 40 The things here the Dr. returns in shew of an Answer against the former Obedience so much pleaded by N. O. are delivered by him from p. 142. to p. 180. in several Propositions Where I find him saying p. 142. That God hath entrusted every man with a faculty of discerning Truth and falshood supposing that there were no persons in the world to direct or Guide him Which is willingly granted him in confidence that this will not take away all Submission of judgment to our Superiours or to persons more prudent § 41 Again p. 143. That this faculty is not taken away nor men forbidden the exercise of it in the choice of their Religion by any principle of the Christian Religion Which is granted also and yet a Religion being chosen by us it may well
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
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
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
to believe it just But in matters of Religion such a Judge is required whom we should be obliged to believe to have judged right So that in civil controversies every honest understanding man is fit to be a Judge but in Religion none but he that is infallible at least in all necessary matters Thus he Ib. l. 9 Which absolute obedience we are ready to yield when we see the like absolute command for Ecclesiastical Judges of controversies of Religion as there was among the Jews for their Supreme Judges in matters of law What thinks he of our Lords Dic Ecclesiae and Si Ecclesiam non audierit sit tibi sicut Ethnicus c in the sense wherein Church-Tradition hath understood this Text as applied to the highest Courts of the Church and to their cutting off by a spiritual death the disobedient whether contradicters or dissenters Is there more injustice and tyranny in this than inflicting a corporal death on the dissenters or contradicters under Moses his law This Discourse of the Dr as also what he hath said of the same matter Rat. Account p. 239. I had occasion to examine in the former Discourse § 22. c to which I referr the Reader for what is here omitted Pag. 117. l. 7. Such a pretence implying an infallible assistance of the Spirit of God there were but two ways of proving it either 1. By such Miracles as the Apostles wrought to attest their Infallibility or 2. By those Scriptures from whence this Infallibility is derived What thinks he of a third way of proving it viz. By Tradition But then If the Church-Guides give this evidence of their being infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost in necessaries namely the clear Testimony of the Scriptures I ask is not this sufficient for the world to credit them to be so without their doing Miracles Doth not this Author of the two ways to prove it named just before allow either of them sufficient Now see this latter proved before in Note on p. 113. l. 17. and so I hope we may peaceably take leave of Miracles Pag. 118. l. 2. When I speak of infallibility 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 Now whence learns he this that true Christians shall never faile I suppose whence other Protestants do viz. from the Promise of our Lord in Scripture that the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against his Church See Archbishop Lawd p. 140. That the whole Church saith he cannot err in doctrines absolutely fundamental seems to me to be clear by the promise of Christ Mat. 16. That the gates of hell c. And it is as clear that the Arch-bishop meant it not only of a number of true Christians as our Author doth here but of true Pastors also and Doctors of the Church If this Promise then be enough for believing of this the non-failing of Christians that shall believe all necessary truth without Miracles will it not supposing such a promise made to them be as sufficient for believing the other the indefectibility of the Church-Guides as to teaching all necessary faith without their doing Miracles Ib. l. 16. But in case any persons challenge an infallibility to themselves antecedently to the belief of Scriptures c such persons are equally bound to prove their infallibility by Miracles as the Apostles were What if they challenge this Infallibility like wise from the Scriptures as most certainly they do This latter challenge of theirs surely will supersede Miracles But let us suppose no such challenge What thinks he if they produce the evidence of Tradition for their Infallibility antecedently to Scripture as also they do Is not this we here suppose there is such a Tradition which is proved before ‖ Note on p. 113. l. 14. a sufficiently clear and self-evident proof of it If not of their Infallibility how then is the same Tradition without Miracles a sufficient proof to Protestants of the Canon or Infallibility of Scriptures Suppose the same promises made no Scriptures written would not the Catholick Church have been what it is and must it then have perpetually-shewn Miracles or no Infallibility as to Necessaries have been believed in it Ib. l. 7 The Sum of which is c. In the Dr's suming of N. O's Answers still somthing is lost as here the Reason is omitted why no such need of Miracles to be done by the Church-Governours delivering only from age to age that Doctrine which by the first Teachers was sufficiently confirmed by Miracles viz. this the Evidence of Tradition which received from the Apostles and from their Ancestors they unanimously convey unto Posterity Yet such Miracles were necessary then to more persons than those Apostles who made the very first Sermons concerning the Gospel because the bare Tradition of a few at the first was not so evidently credible as that which by many Sermons made and Miracles done in many places afterward became Vniversal Pag. 119. l. 12. The necessity of Miracles was to give a sufficient motive to believe to all those to whom the Gospel was proposed Must all then in the Apostles times who received the faith see their Miracles Or if their Miracles only related to them by a creditable Tradition would serve the turn why not the same Miracles related now Pag. 120. l. 1. Those persons ought to confirm that authority by Miracles as the Apostles did And again l. 20. See Note on p. 118. l. 11. N. 1 Ibid. l. 11. Yet he is very loth to let go the Miracles of their Church done in latter times as well as formerly N.O. ‖ See Consid p. 29. is loth to let go the Miracles of their Church i.e. of the Catholick Church East or West for both have been noted for Miracles In latter times i.e. from the Apostles daies to the present there being the same evidences in all ages of the facts I say not of all the facts that are related but of many of them which is sufficient and the same Reasons where and when the World is already Christian in all times for the doing of them N.O. loth to let them go not as to this his affirming a Necessity of them now in the Church for the believing of its Infallibility or any other part of the Christian Doctrine or also for the Conversion of the yet Infidel and Heathen Nations after such a plenitude of Tradition appearing in the greatest part of the world already subdued by the Gospel Of which non-necessity N.O. saith ‖ Princ. Consid p. 29. That Miracles having been wrought by the Apostles in confirmation of that Doctrine which their Successors deliver from them are not now alike necessary to or reasonably demanded of these their Successors N. 2 But he is very loth notwithstanding this to part with true Miracles still wrought in the Church since the Apostles times and these too of the very
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
the Roman Church No But because you are not for any effectual way at all Ib. l. 10 But I pray Sir are Authority and Infallibility all one in your account No. N.O. his affirming some of this Authors Principles to take away the Church's Authority as to some part of it as well as its Infallibility makes not these two one And therefore the pains here to prove these different and that one takes not away the other is lost Ib. l. 8 We suppose that Magistrates and Parents and Masters have all of them an unquestionable authority but I never heard yet of any man that said they were infallible Some part of the Church's authority is greater than that of Civil Magistrases Masters or Parents viz. the deciding of Truth and Errour lawful and unlawful in Divine matters or the defining of points Controverted in Gods Word and in matters of necessary faith and the power of obliging Subjects to belief and assent thereto and this part of their authority must also be joined with Infallibility as to Necessaries that their Subjects therein may not err For other our Superiours Civil magistrats Parents Masters c as they have no Infallibility so they are deficient in one branch of Authority whose proposals we only admit when we believe them to be truth and practise their commands when we believe them first to be lawful lawful I mean by the Divinc law but where there is any doubt herein we repair to the Ecclesiastical Count for the resolution of them and so proceed to obey or disobey the other 's commands and for this reason see before in Note on p. 116. l. 11. Mr Chillingworth candidly granting infallibility necessary to an Ecclesiastical Judge though not so to a Civil but still to save his phanomena denying such an Ecclesiastical Judge necessary Lastly I ask will this Author yield no more submission at all to the Authority of the Church defining Controversies in Religion than to his Prince or Parents defining them Ib. l. 3 Why may we not allow any Authority belonging to the Governours of the Church and yet think it possible for them to be deceived Some Authority which they I mean General Councils have claimed we cannot allow if they may be deceived viz not that of enjoining a certain Assent to their definitions in matters of necessary Faith For a Church fallible in necessaries can in nothing at all which she proposeth justly oblige her subjects to any absolute and certain belief Pag. 264. l. 7. These are strange ways of arguing c. Strange indeed but not these or any like ways of arguing to be shewed in N.O. Ib. l. 6 But it may be said c. But no such thing is said by N.O. Pag. 266. l. 6. The meaning of all this is c. I willingly grant to our Author without the demonstration of his many instances that if one using a Guide afterward by experience finds he hath guided him wrong as he may find this when he misseth of his end he hath reason for the future to desert him And thus upon this supposition may any reject N. O's Guide a lawful General Council But I hope this Author is a man of more modesty than to say * that such Councils or universal consent of the Church any other way known do misguide men in the Principles of Religion or common precepts which are so plain that every Christian may know their misguiding and meanwhile the Councils themselves either not know it or knowing yet impose such falsities and that in the profession of their own faith as well as others Or say * that they command them to believe against their eye-sight in any thing but what themselves also do believe upon the Divine Revelation more infallible than sense or to break the plain Commands of God c. Or if he will say they do so I know N.O. will say the contrary Ib. l. 2 And this is not to destroy all authority c. That a Church-Authority fallible may be of great use for its direction as it is said here by Dr St so it is granted by N.O. who also requires submission of judgment to it though fallible especially from the illiterate for many good reasons ‖ See the former Difâ—â—â— course §. 37 c but will He allow as much Pag. 267. l. 1. For they may be of great use for the direction of unskilful persons in matters that are doubtful But he will not say here in any necessaries doubtful since he contends that these are plain also to the unskilful Ibâ—l 12. I shall now shew what real authority is still left in the Governours of the Church though Infallibility be taken away That a reall authority is still left in the Governours of the Church though Infallibility be taken away is granted to him without his proof but this is also maintained as well consistent with it that these Governours united in Council have an Infallibility in all their Definitions concerning Necessaries and this given them from our Lord and that this by any other Authority he can shew given them is not taken away Ibl. 12 An authority left in the Church-Governours of receiving into and excluding out of the Communion of the Church I add and an Authority the Church hath of excluding amongst other things for Heresy against the infallible definitions of the Church Ib. l. 7 Which authority viz. of inflicting Censures upon offenders and of receiving into and excluding out of the Communion of the Church belongs to the Governours of the Church and however the Church in some respects be incorporated with the Common-Wealth in a Christian State yet its fundamental rights remain distinct from it 1 Here means he that the Church as this being a fundamental right of it may inflict such Censures and exclude from its communion such persons as justly incurr them to which I may add its declarative power of what is God's will or truth in particular doctrines of faith mentioned by him below p. 269. without or against the consent of the Civil State or the Supreme Governour thereof viz. when he prohibites the Exercise of such Censures or Declaration of such a particular Doctrine to his Subjects Which Power if our Lord hath given his Church and then hath given also to the Civil Magistrate if Christian another power of prohibiting to the Church the Exercise of this Power will not this be to use the Dr's expression ‖ Irenicum Disc of Excommunication §. 9. p. 423. to give it a power with one hand and take it away with the other And since the Church exercised this power given by our Lord before it was incorporated into the Civil State and then when the Civil State also prohibited exercise of such a power it seems most reasonable as the Dr saith elswhere †p. 446. that no accession to the Church of the Civil State can invalidate its former Title or Right But then how will all this consist with the Oath
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