it where disputed viz. the Church being both infallible are alwayes actually preserved from erring in their Faith though all such persons are not infallibly certain either of the Object of their faith that it is Gods Word or of the Proponent that he is not liable to errour whilst on the other side a Protestant having or believing no such certain and infallible Guide in the Sense of doubtful Scriptures and following his own judgment in the interpretation of them either actually errs in some part of his Faith or casually hits right and fluctuates to and fro the same man as he meets with several arguments differing from himself and one from another in those matters wherein all Subjects to the Church's Authority are agreed To which purpose a late Adversary of the Doctor 's perceiving him to mistake the meaning of Catholicks in the former proposition explains himself in Errour Non-plust p. 133. 139. 143. c. the same Author mean while affirming that all Catholicks may be and that the learned are formally infallible in their assent to the object of their faith i.e. have an infallible certainty of the Infallibility both of the Scripture and the Proponent thereof viz. from Tradition the evidence of which Tradition is accounted by him to be impossible to be false but so also it is as to this Author's sense of impossible by Archbishop Lawd p. 124. but now cited And perhaps Infallible Assent thus taken by Catholicks in a various sense occasions the Dr's apprehending in them contradictions N. 7 3 Or by this infallible Assent may be meant an Assent in respect of the Subject having a Certitude of Adhesion to the matters believed exceeding that to a Science according to that of Biâ—l cited by the Archbishop ‖ p. 75. Scientia certior est certitudine evidentiae fides verò certior firmitate adhaesionis Majus lumen in scientiâ majus robur in fide N. 8 Now How proper these expressions be in the explaining of an infallible Assent and whether these two laâ—t Notions are not coincident I meddle not But however it be by such infallible assent is never meant an assent grounded on any absolutely-infallible Testimony that the Revelation is Divine transcending that of Tradition and equalling that believed infallibility of the Church the Church I mean as assisted by the Holy Ghost and as its infallibility as to necessaries is one of the Articles of our Faith or equalling that believed infallibility of the Scriptures Which Testimony were there any such absolutely infallible must either be proved by other Testimonies of an equal weight in infinirum or must rest in some one that is a per se notum I say an infallible assent so grounded Catholicks pretend not nor need pretend to The Church in necessaries the Holy Scriptures in all things are believed are affirmed to be infallible by an infallibility cui non potest subesse falsum because believed Divine Revelation and so are adhered-to as such by a firmer and constanter assent than Sense or science causeth but are not need not to be infallibly known to be so as to any rational or demonstrative evidence by any infallibility transcending that of the forementioned Tradition whereever Miracles do not intervene Which infallibility or certainty of Tradition is abundantly sufficient to render and represent the Christian the moâ—t rational Religion in the world N. 9 This that no other precedent Testimony is necessary for proving the Infallibility of the Church as it is effectually assisted by the Holy Ghost in necessaries than that of Tradition But neither do Catholicks affirm it necessary that every one for a Divine or saving Faith have that certainty of faith that Tradition affords And to see that this is no Paradox among Catholicks I referr the Reader to what F. Bacon hath said of it in his Analysis Fidei extracted out of other Catholick Authors Disp 3. c. 7. and 8. Though it is affirmed necessary in the Catholick Church that It always have a most rational and certain proof of the truth of the Christian Faith and such as no other false or Heretical Religion can equall N. 10 4ly That notwithstanding such a sufficient rational assurance and actual certainty in Tradition and so in the infallibility of the Scriptures too as to the most part of the Canon thereof sufficiently attested by the same Tradition Yet remains there still a great necessity also of the Infallibility in the Governours of the Church so assisted by the Holy Ghost as never to err in Necessaries upon a manifold account N. 11 Because though many are yet all Points of Faith are not delivered and transferred to Posterity by the forementioned Tradition in their express and explicit termes but some have only descended in their Principles the necessary Deductions from which are by this Infallible Church extracted and vindicated from age to age against those dangerous errours that may happen to assault them Again Because though this Tradition is also assisted or improved with the Infallible Scriptures for a compleater direction in the Christian Faith yet are not all Credends and Agends so clearly delivered in these Scriptures as that Christians the illiterate especially and plebeians have no need of such an Interpreter thereof as may not mistake or misguide them in any such necessary Agends or Credends To which unlearned persons though it is said not to be necessary that they be infallibly certain of the truth of that which they believe and therefore Church-Infallibility cannot be said necessary as to them upon this account yet it is necessary to them that in such points where one of the two contradictories is of necessary faith it be truth that they believe and hence necessary also that the Proponent thereof be infallible as to all such points And it is here observable that though in the Descent of Tradition the Congregatio fidelium when it first delivers to a person the Infallibility of Church and of Scripture appears not to him as yet absolutely infallible Yet indeed as to delivering necessaries it then and always is so For this Congregatio fidelium in every age that testifies such things It or some part of it is the very same Body that is promised by our Lord his perpetual assistance and is preserved for ever by Gods Spirit and Providence from erring in Necessaries 3 Again Because the same Church-Infallibility is necessary as to other Controversies so also to those if any happen concerning the Canon of Scripture so far as any part thereof hath hapned in some times not to have had in all parts of Christianity so clear a current of Tradition 4 Because after this point of Church-Infallibility is once established and confirmed by such Tradition one may hence sooner and easilier learn his faith from her plain definitions and proposals thereof than from Tradition much dispersed abroad whereby its uniformity is the harder to be discerned or from the Scriptures in several points not so perspicuous and so the
A DISCOURSE OF THE NECESSITY OF Church-Guides For Directing Christians in Necessary Faith WITH Some ANNOTATIONS on Dr Stillingfleet's Answer to N. O. By R. H. Matt. 18.17 Si ECCLESIAM non audiverit sit tibi sicut Ethnicus Publicanus 2 Cor. 6.8 Vt Seductores VERACES Printed in the Year MDCLXXV THE PREFACE BEfore my entrance upon the following Discourse it seems necessary to pre-acquaint the Reader with the occasion thereof § 11 Doctor Stilling fleet at the end of his Book of the Roman Idolatry upon his Adversary's importunity published Thirty Principles drawn up as he saith immediatly before them ‖ p. 557. to give an Account of the Protestants Faith in the way of Principles In the 13th of which he affirms That the Scriptures may be understood by all persons who sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their salvation Again in the 15th That these Writings contain in them the whole Will of God so plainly revealed that no sober enquirer can miss of what is necessary for salvation Again in the 19th That the assistance which God hath promised to those who sincerely desire to know his Will where I suppose he means such assistance as includes not that which God hath promised to Christians from the direction and instruction of his Ministers for this assistance here is opposed by him to that may give them greater assurance of the truth of what is contained in the Books of Scripture than it is possible for the greatest Infallibility in any other persons to do supposing they have not such assurance of their Infallibility Where you may observe that it follows much more may give them greater assurance than it is possible for the highest Church-Authority Wisdome Learning or Divine assistance short of Infallibility in any other persons to do And so in his first Consequence he saith There is no necessity at all or use of an infallible I add much less of a fallible society of men to assure men of the truth of those things of which they may be certain without them and cannot have any greater assurance than that they have already supposing such Infallibility to be in them § 2 These his Principles were considered and especially the forenamed opposed by a Roman Catholick as appearing to him not only untrue but of most dangerous consequence as being very derogative from church-Church-Authority as to these chief parts of their Office the Expounding of the Scriptures the Teaching and Guiding Christ's Flock in all Truth necessary to be known by them and their Defining also matters of Necessary Faith as Controversies in them do arise and Requiring from their Subjects a Belief of them and also very hazardous to mens salvation in leaving each private person to entertain in Religion especially as to points thought more necessary in which therefore the Scriptures also are affirmed by the Doctor more plain what in his own judgment after a to him-seeming sincere perusal of them he likes best even though a much major part of Christianity reading the same Scriptures assert the contrary and this without any obligation of submitting his judgment in such things to his Spiritual Superiours § 3 And indeed from some such Principle it seems to be that Luther when he had said to himself ‖ De abrogand Missâ privat praefat Tu solus sapis Totne errant universi And Quoties mihi palpitavit tremulum cor reencouraged himself to proceed in his Reformation though contradicting the whole World viz. Because the Scriptures were cleare and for him against them all often using S. Paul's Licet Angelus de Caelo c. Gal. 1. The Holy Scriptures the rest of the Christian World had read as well as himself but he meanwhile was conscious only of his own sincere endeavour and so the Principle secured him that he did not mistake if any such point were necessary wherein he opposed them From such Principle was the confidence of the Protestants then but a very few against the sacred Council of Trent i. e. all the other Church-Governours of that Age Soave Hist Couc Trid. p. 344.641 when they desired that the Authority of the Fathers might be qualified with a Fundantes se in Scripturis Of which fundantes whether it were so or no they themselves for themselves at least would be the Judges From such a Principle the Socinians departed from the whole Church of God Ancient Modern only pleading the Scriptures clear on their side See Volkelius De Vera Relig. l. 5. c. 7. Praesertim saith he si sapientiam a Deo petat quam ille nemini denegat i. e. if using their prayers and sincere endeavours though not consulting or obeying any Guides or the Church Quam in iis quoque rebus quae ad salutem sunt necessariae errare constat From such Principle it is that the Presbyterians ‖ Reasons shewing Necessity Reform p. 5. denied Subscription to the 39. Articles except this clause were added so far forth as the same Articles were agreeable to Gods Word of which how farre they make themselves the Judges And so also do the many latter Sects who for a sufficient knowledge in all necessary points and triall of the Doctrine of their Teachers therein need nothing more than a Bible and learning to read From such Principle that Mr. Chilling worth denies that any Church-Authority not excepting the first four General Councils hath just cause to oblige others to receive their Declarations in matters of Faith ‖ c. 4. §. 18. And elsewhere saith †c. 6. §. 5◠That the Bible the Bible only is the Religion of Protestants and that the belief of any thing besides Scripture and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it indubitable i. e. to those on whom they are imposed cannot i. e. by Protestants with coherence to their own grounds be required of any without most high and most Schismatical presumption From such Principle that Dr Stilling fleet accuseth the whole Church Catholick Eastern and Western for so many Ages before the Reformation of so manifold an Idolatry where his own sincere endeavour to understand the Scriptures in so necessary a point he holds cannot be mistaken and therefore all that World must be so And thus what opinion may not One maintain against all if he have first a confidence concerning himself that he hath used a requisite industry which industry also must not be maintained greater than the meanest condition of life may practise and so that Scripture is clear to him in all necessary matter and Next the consequent of this if he have a perswasion concerning others how many soever whom by their differing from him he knows to be in an errour that either they have been defective in a sincere enquiry or having with him discerned the Truth yet for some secular ends falsify it § 4 From this Principle also proceeds that Assertion That there is amongst Christians no Necessity
discussed in the ancient so may and have some others in latter times and since there is Controversy also not unfrequently concerning what hath been the unanimous Consent of Fathers in particular points or the results of lawful ancient Councils there will yet be wanting a present Judge for determining these and since the Church of all times former or latter hath equal authority any present modern Determinations seem as authentick and obliging as the Ancient § 9. 4. That since the Scriptures are affirmed clear in Necessaries only upon the condition of a sincere endeavour one not assured first of this sincere endeavour yet of which there seems no certain means cannot be secure of his not erring in Necessaries For exampple the Socinian And this especially when a major part of Christianity understands the sense of such Scriptures against him And the same uncertainty holds of one's having sufficiently used other helps if these also be required § 11. Or if here such a lower degree of endeavour be affirmed only necessary and required as sutes with Christians of the meanest emploiments and capacities that such endeavour seems not sufficient for understanding all necessary points Or if it be that by such an Endeavour the Church-Governours may as well be presumed not to err in points necessary and so the other people way safely acquiesce in their Judgment § 12. CHAP. II. Concerning a Necessity of Church-Guides for instructing of Christians in Points Necessary THat the Clearness of Scripture in all necessaries upon a right endeavour to understand them if meant without the help of the Church-Guides renders their instructing of the people as to these points not necessary But if understood with the use of their help implies the Scriptures in such points not clear without their Exposition and inferrs a necessity of the not erring of such Guides in these points that the people by them may be rightly directed § 13. Where That such Answers as these in this matter seem not pertinent * That a manifold necessity of church-Church-Authority is still maintained i.e. as to other arts of it not this * That these Church-Guides are of great use also for instructing unskilful persons in Scripture doubtful and obscure but not said to be obscure and doubtful in necessaries which would overthrow the Supposition that they are herein clear § 14. CHAP. III. Concerning Obedience and Submission of Judgment due from the Church's Subjects to their Governours in Divine matters and in these the more the more they are necessary 1. THat the Church's Subjects have an obligation of Obedience and Submission of Judgment to their Ecclesiastical Superiours and this as to points necessary § 19. Proved by Scriptures Where the Texts Deut. 17.8 and 2. Chron. 19.6 are vindicated form Dr St's Exceptions § 22. And his other Objections of the erring of the Highest Ecclesiastical Courts under Moses's Law in Ration Account p. 241. answered § 25. 2. That such Obedience and Submission of Judgment if granted due to these Governours is in any Division of them to be yielded to the Superiour Persons or Councils § 26. Where Dr St's Pleas in behalf of the Church of England in order to this are considered Viz. * That there was no obliging authority extant at the Reformation Superiour to that of this Church § 27.32 * That It was then free from the Authority of the Pope and Church of Rome § 29. * That It submitteth to or consenteth with the Church Primitive and Apostolical or the truly Catholick Church of all Ages § 31. * That It hath not been so guilty of violating the Church-Canons as that of Rome § 33. * That Particular Churches may reform abuses and errours within themselves when a more General Consent cannot be obtained But not therefore when a more general Dissent is formerly declared § 34. 3. That Learned Protestants grant a Submission of Judgment due to church-Church-Authority from all such Persons as have no demonstrable Certainty that It commands them any thing contrary to God's Word § 35. 4. That setting aside any duty of Obedience the plebeian and unlearned ought for the understanding of Scriptures to acquiesce in the judgment of those more skilful and studied in them without distinguishing those Necessaries wherein is supposed any difference in mens Judgments § 37. And that what is to them using a due industry clear in Scriptures may be presumed will be so to their Guides Ibid. Where The Answer That Christians cannot be secure that their Guides though they do not mistake in necessary matters of Faith yet do not mis-teach others in them and the transferring Infallibility thus from the Vsual Notion of these Guides their not erring or being deceived in these matters to an Infallibility of their not deceiving others seems very unsatisfactory § 38. 5. That to whatever liability to mistakes and errours the Church-Guides are subject yet there is less hazard to the Vulgar in adhering to their's than to their own opinions Where Such Exceptions and Answers as these that follow against the former Obedience asserted in this Chapter seem not solid and pertinent Viz * That God hath entrusted every man with a Faculty of Discerning Truth and Falshood But this rightly used will discerne this truth that submission of judgment is due to our Spiritual Superiours § 40. * That Guides transgressing their Ride are not to be followed True when these Guides are certainly and demonstrably known to any to do so but who shall judge of such certainty and were any so certain or rather conceited that they are so yet all the rest will remain still obliged to Obedience * That the concurrent Sense of Antiquity is an excellent Means to understand the minde of Scripture in places otherwise doubtful and obscure But here not a Means which may be beneficially used but a Superiour that must be obeyed and submitted-to is demanded for ending Controversies § 44. * That no absolute submission can be due to two Church-Authorities contradicting one another But it is denied that the Supreme have done so and in those Subordinate contradicting submission is due to the Superiours § 46. * That in the present divided state of the Church a man must make use of his judgment in the choice of his Church But this judgment rightly used shews obedience and subjection due in any division to the Superiour Persons or Councils as the Communion we ought to live in and make choice of § 47. * That we may not submit to all those who challenge the authority of Guides nor to lawful Guides in all things they may require Which as thus spoken in general so will be willingly granted CHAP. IV. Concerning the Infallibility of these Governours in Necessaries THat the Church is infallible as to Necessaries in her Lawfull General Councils § 49. Proved * by the Practice of such Councils accepted and submitted to by the Church Catholick diffusive § 50. * From the Necessity thereof for the preserving the stability and certainty of the Christian Faith
cannot judge of their Judgment whether right by the Rule concerning the sense whereof they consulted them i.e. they cannot learn the sense of the Rule from their Guides and then know the truth of their sentence from the Rule p. 140. How or by what Marks the true Church is to be discerned from Sects from which Church first known the Enquirer may learn the true Faith p. 106. 152. 155. 209. And that In any difference or contrariety of Church-Governours the Superiour Authority is to be obeyed That Christians both prudently may and in Duty ought to subject their Judgment in Divine matters to Church-Authority though supposed fallible whereever they are not certain of the contrary to its Decisions p. 99 223. That all other Magistrates and Superiours are deficient and come short as to one branch of Authority belonging to the Church viz. the Deciding of what is Truth and errour Lawful and Vnlawful in Divine Matters for which Infallibility is necessary to them when not so to the others p. 222. That Church-Infallibility is clearly enough evidenced to Christians both from the Scriptures and from Tradition p. 109. And that Catholicks place this Infallibility in a lawful General Council p. 96 Where Concerning the Decrees of General Councils their being put in the Creeds And an Vniversal Assent required to them under Anathema p. 127. Concerning the Anathemas passed by inferiour and fallible Councils p. 127 129. Some Quotations out of Dr Field and the Text Gal. 1.8 considered p. 130 131. That Dr Field clearly maintains some Visible Church or other consisting of Prelates and Subjects and giving Laws to be infallible as to Necessaries in all Ages which Church the unlearned at least are advised by him to search out and so to follow her Directions and rest in her Judgment p. 103. The Deficiencies in his Tenent p. 105. That Miracles are not necessary in all Ages to attest the Church's Infallibility p. 116. That true Miracles for many good ends advancing the Glory of God and the Catholick Faith have been continued in the Catholick Church but not so elsewhere ever since the Apostles times p. Ibid. How Miracles signify the Infallibility of those by whom God worketh them p. 118. The Latter Times of the Church doing Miracles in all the same kinds as the Former and both as our Lord and his Apostles did p. 119. Several Controversies in Religion necessary to be decided and those respecting Manners as well as Faith p. 175. c. By what Authority General Councils assemble and decide Controversies p. 174. In what manner General Councils and the Church-Guides are an Infallible standing Judge of Controversies p. 132 238. Lawful General Councils of any Age since the Apostles times of equal Authority and Obligation p. 151 160 205. That we want a Judge for the necessary Decision of many Controversies As for instance Whether Latter Times have altered what Christ or his Apostles delivered or Have imposed things contrary to the plain Commands of Scripture Or Latter lawful General Councils contradicted former or What former Councils are to be accounted General Legal and Obligatory Whether what is pretended to be the concordant sense of Antiquity or to be contrary to it really is so Whether some things repugnant to Gods Word are not commanded by our Superiours as things Indifferent c. I say that the Christian World is destitute of a Judge to end such differences unless the Present Church be It and is in such Contests to be appealed and stood to p. 140. 141. That the present unanimous Agreement of the Apostolical Churches and especially the consent of the Prime Apostolick See joined with them was by the Ancients esteemed and urged as Infallible and to which all owed Submission of Judgment p. 180 181. Held so by those Ancient Writers cited by Dr St. By S. Jrenaeus p. 182. By Tertullian p. 185. By Clemens Alexandrinus p. 188. By S. Athanasius p. 190. 203. By S. Austin p. 194 206 By Vincentius Lerinensis p. 197. The place * in S. Gregory Nazianzen Ep. 55. concerning Councils considered p. 194. * In S. Austin Contra Maximin l. 3. c. 14. p. 194. De Vnitate Eccl. c. 19. p. 212. De Baptismo l. 2. c. 3. p. 213. Arguments used by the Fathers against Hereticks both from infallible Church-Tradition and from the Scriptures and that those from the latter notwithstanding the evidence of the former are necessary against persons not submitting to the other p. 190 191. The Places out of Petavius and S. Hierome concerning the Tradition of the Doctrine of the Trinity before the Council of Nice considered p. 201. c. Vnanimous Consent of the Fathers Primitive Times Catholick-Church in her Councils in order to Our Obedience how to be understood 159 200. And Vincentius Lerinensis his Rule Quod ubique quod semper c. Ibid not necessarily comprehending all particular Persons or Churches Vniversality understood of the Catholick Church distinct from Heretical never as to Necssaries dissenting from Antiquity p. 199. How the believing of the Determinations of General Councils is necessary to salvation p. 164. That Heretical and Schismatical Churches are no Members of the Catholick p. 154. That a Church committing and teaching Idolatry is no true Member of the Catholick Church p. 80. c. The Nicene Council to be obeyed suppose the Arian Councils more numerous as to the Bishops present in them because the Nicene more universally accepted and the Arian how numerous soever formerly declared Hereticks p. 146. 193. Of Pope Liberius and Honorius accused of Heresy p. 146. 149. That no Certainty from Sense or Reason can rationally be pleaded for any Doctrine against a General Council or Major part of Christianity having all the same means of Certainty from Reason and Sense and they maintaining the contrary Doctrine certain p. 143 145. Where Concerning Veneration of Images Communicating in One Kind p. 144. That our Senses are not to be credited where is the certainty of a Divine Revelation contrary Nor doth the Disbelieving them in such things prejudice the Certainty of their Evidence as to all other matters where no Divine Revelation opposeth p. 142. c. No Reformation lawful against the Definitions of a Superiour Church-Authority p. 236. In a Controversy Whether a National Church hath departed from the truly Catholick Church of former Ages who is to be the Judge p. 237. That National Churches and Councils are subject to Patriarchal and Generall p. 152. 226. That any particular Church may require Assent from all her Subjects to her Doctrines of Religion so far as such Church accords therein with the Church Catholick Because in these she infallible if the Catholick be so p. 222. Whether a fallible Church may require assent to her doctrines or to some of them at least as to matter of Faith where she as fallible confesseth she may err in such matters Or she not requiring such submission to them as to matters of faith Whether her Subjects are not left
to their liberty to believe in such matters what seems to them truest p. 228 230. Whether a Church fallible can justly require of all her Clergy the assenting to and maintaining of all her Articles of Religion And then How Errours can be rectified in such a Church where all the Clergy stand obliged to teach nothing contrary to the publick doctrines thereof And 2ly Whether if this be justly done by the Church of England it be not so by the Roman and by Councils as to the Clergy subject to them p. 228. Whether the Church of England doth not require Assent from all her Subjects to her Articles of Religion Or leaves all men at least saving the Clergy to their liberty of opinion p. 82. 227. Whether a Superiour Authority was not opposed by the Church of England in the Reformation p. 235. 238. How she Principles of some later English Divines are said to justify Sects p. 157. That private Men's relying on their own judgment in the Sense of Scripture believed clear to any sober Reader in all Necessaries against that of their Ecclesiastical Governours occasions a multiplication of Sects p. 221. 241. That the only effectual means in the Catholick Church for preserving her Communion from Heresies and Sects is requiring Submission of Judgment from her Subjects to her Definitions in matters of Faith and removing Dissenters from her Communion p. 241. Justified by the Apostolical Practice p. 242. And in any particular Church is its Adhering to and Vnion in Faith with the Catholick Of the Inquisition used in some parts of the Roman Church not used in others p. 242. Errata PAg. 29. line 26. reade assert p. 39. l. 6. after us so adde where also we are to believe our senses that it tells us so p. 53. l. 23. r. to Scripture p. 59. l. 10. r. did from p. 73. l. 4 r. to beare p. 87. l. 6 r. faith is Ib. l. 5 r. nor without p. 96. l. 20. r. n. 3. p. 105. l. 8. r. sorry p. 163. l. 8 r. praxi p. 164. l. 24. r. Patron p. 183. l. 6 r. thither from p. 207. l. 6 Salvator p. 258. l. 12. r. till that Contents p. 3. l. 13. r. parts of CHURCH-GUIDES Necessary for Directing Christians in Necessary Faith CHAP. I. Câ—ncerning Points necessary and a right understanding of the Scriptures in them AFter N.O. In his Considerations hath conceded to Dr. Stilling fleet 1. That the Holy Scriptures do contain all points of faith that are necessary to be of all persons believed for attaining Salvation § 1 2. And again See Consid p. 22. That in several necessaries the Scriptures also are so clear that a very mean understanding in his reading them needs no further Instructer therin Yet He there denies such an universal clearness of them in all necessary matters of faith as that they may be understood by all persons who sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their salvation And whereas the Dr. saith ‖ Princip 13 That it is repugnant to the nature of the design the wisdom goodness of God to give an infallible assurance to persons in writing his will for the benefit of mankind if those writings may not be understood by all persons sincerely endeavouring to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their salvation N. O. there answers Consid p. 13 that this may as well consist with the Design and the Wisdom and Goodness of God if in those things wherin these Divine Writings are clear only to some persons more versed in the Scriptures and in the Church's Traditional Sense of them and more assisted from above according to their Mission and Employment he hath commissioned and appointed these persons continued in a perpetual Succession to guide and instruct the rest of Christians many of whom are of a mean Capacity and no learning and hath appointed these others also to learn of them the true sense of those places or points of Gods written Will wherin to these it happens to be obscure As also it would had he left no Writings at all but only Teachers to deliver his will perpetually to his Church Either way I say sutes well with Gods Wisdom Goodness the writing his Will in all parts of it so clear as none sincerely perusing this writing can have in any necessaries to his salvation any doubt For this Will if supposed so written would render any further Ecclesiasticall Guide I say not as to many other parts of the Pastorall Office but yet as to the expounding of such Scriptures to such a person useless 2 Or the leaving a Standing Ministry to explicate this his Written Will the course taken also in giving the Law of Moses in any necessary matters wherin the sense of it is to some disputable and ambiguous Which of these two God hath done is the Question N. O. denies the former as the Dr. asserts it and for his disallowing it gives many Reasons and Evidences dispersed here and there in the Considerationâ—â—â— as the Doctors Principles ministred occasion which I shall endeavour here to recollect in some better Order and shall consider where I find any his Replyes Reducing the Considerations as relating to those Principles forementioned to these chief Heads or Chapters 1. Concerning Points Necessary and a right understanding of the Scriptures in them 2. Concerning a Necessity of Church-Guides for instruction of the people in points Necessary 3. Touching Obedience and submission of Judgment due from the Church's subjects to the Definitions of these spirituall Governors in Divine matters and this more in those matters which are more necessary 4. Concerning the Infallibility of these Governors herein 5. And the Impossibility of suppressing Sects Heresies and Schisms without admitting such an Ecclesiastical Judge § 2 1. First then N.O. observes here that in the Dr's mentioning Necessaries for Salvation Necessaries cannot rationally be taken so strictly as to include only those doctrines delivered in Scripture wherin all persons that bear the name of Christians do agree for this would be to say that whatever is any way controverted is not necessary which would conclude all controversies heretofore defined in General Councils to be of non-necessaries even those definitions of theirs put into the common Creeds and so it would become not necessary if any thing now generally consented-to shall happen to be disputed hereafter But that by the same reason as we do not bound necessaries with the Apostles Creed so neither can we with the latter common Creeds I mean in such a sense as some of the Articles of those Creeds are accounted necessary For some Heresies may arise in latter times as pernicious as the ancient were and as the four first Councils lawfully thereupon enlarged the former Creeds so may other Councils in latter ages enlarge those of these first Councils to preserve the Church's subjects from any such new corruption of such
be both an act of prudence and of duty to submit our judgment to our Superiours in whatever they shall define and especially in matters of Necessary Faith § 42 Again p. 144. That the exercise of this Faculty was not to cease as soon as men had embraced the Christian Doctrine Granted as the former and yet our submission of this our Judgment to what doctrines our Superiours shall define be both our duty and a most rational act of this our Judgment and any perswasion of our judgment not rightly used to the contrary no way excuse our non-submission from guilt I say as the exercise of this faculty doth not cease so it must be rightly used which it never is when used it at any time dissents from the doctrine of our Lord or his Apostles or of lawful General Councils whereto is required its assent § 43 Again he saith p. 146. That the Authority of Guides in the Church i.e. for their determining truths in necessaries is not absolute and unlimited but confined within certain bounds and afterward he saith confined to a Rule which if they transgress they are no longer to be followed Be it so when they transgress against their Rule if this be certainly and demonstratively known by any such person is not to follow them this is confessed already by N. O. But Consid p. 73 who is appointed Judge of these Supreme Judges when they transgress against this Rule or when their Subjects have Demonstration for this Their Subjects who are from them to learn the sense of the Rule where difficult and disputed and who are bidden to follow their faith The right exercise of our judgment will not judge so but will judge that if Demonstration were on his side these Supreme Judges having all the same Evidences would have discovered it sooner than he or at least have discovered it when related to them by him and also the Protestants Definition of it concludes it none if these Judges do not discern it such Who then since he is not excused from sin and disobedience by using his judgment if he judge amiss will not think it the safest way still to continue his submission The Socinian in judging the Council of Nice in their Definition of Consubstantiality to have transgressed the Rule they are confined to and so not to be followed is not hereby released at all from his obedience to this Council or secured in his discession from it That authority is none that is only to be obeyed where the Subjects are to approve first of its sentence § 44 Again p. 148. he saith He allows a very great authority to the Guides of the Catholick Church in the best times of Christianity and looks upon the concurrent sense of Antiquity as an excellent means to understand the mind of Scripture in places otherwise doubtful and obscure First for the limitation of places doubtful and obscure This seems to render such Authority useless as to Necessaries in which this Author will have the Scriptures clear and perspicuous Next a right judgment cannot but account all those places so in the sense whereof either the ancient or present major part of Christianity are of a contrary judgment from himself Lastly the looking on such a concurrent sense as an excellent means c. is short and will not serve the turn for the unity of faith it must be looking on it as a Rule requiring our obedience when such sense is declared by their Councils § 45 He proceeds p. 149. That in matters imposed to be believed or practised which are repugnant to plain commands of Scripture or the evidence of sense or the grounds of Christian Religion we assent that no authority of the present Guides of a Church is to overrule our faith or practice But the same thing is here replied as before § 43. in answer to that in his p. 146. concerning the Guides transgressing the Rule § 46 P. 151. He goes on That no absolute submission can be due to those Guides of a Church who have opposed and contradicted each other and condemned one another for errour and heresy True not to both but to one part It is and N. O. hath told him that it is to the Superiour Or in the Supreme Court where a party dissents to the major part joined with the President Lawful Supreme Councils contradicting one another in matters of necessary faith are not by this Author nor cannot be produced § 47 P. 172. He saith That in the present divided state of the Christian Church a man that would satisfy his own mind must make use of his judgment in the choice of his Church and those Guides he is to submit to True now and in all former times wherein also have been Divisions and Anti-Communions in the Clergy and Guides against Guides that we are to make use of our judgment in the choice of a Church But our Judgment there must be used rightly and being so tells us both that we are to obey those who are found by this judgment to be our lawful Spiritual Superiours and which in such divisions be so And whenever in this our judgment is not used rightly but mistakes we are never a whit the more by this so used released from our Obedience Generally in these Answers here is the exercise of our Judgment or liberty to Judge pleaded against absolute Obedience or Submission of it as if the proving of the one annulled the other when as himself urgeth a ‖ p. 144. liberty of Judging may be used also concerning the Apostles Authority and their Doctrines and yet this liberty well consistent with an obligation of absolute Obedience to such their Doctrins Authority as infallible So then is it well consistent also with that to the Supreme Guides of the Church in their defining necessaries if they be in these infallible or if fallible yet with an obligation still of submission of Judgement to them where any are not demonstratively certain of the contrary Which demonstrative certainty of convincing all those to whom proposed no Protestants have in matters debated with Catholicks § 48 Again for qualifications of Obedience p. 178. he brings That we are not to submit to all those who challenge the authority of Guides over us though pretending to never so much power and infallibility And p. 179 not to submit to those who are lawful Guides in all things they may require Both which are most true and yet well consistent with this that we are to submit to our lawful Guides in all their Determinations in matters of necessary faith if they Supreme and Infallible herein and if they fallible in all things of which we are not demonstratively certain to the contrary Thus you see the Dr's Responsory Propositions are admitted and N. O's Obedience no whit lesse established CHAP. IV. Concerning Church-Infallibility as to Necessaries § 49 4ly AGainst such Principle and for submission of private mens judgements to that of the Church N.O.
presseth as the Church's Authority so yet further its Infallibility that is the Infallibility not of the Roman Church or of Pope as this Author will needs understand him though no such thing is once named in the Considerations but of the Church Catholick of the Catholick Church in her most Vniversal Councils and Courts that can be convened for deciding Controversies and for declaring the true sense of the Scriptures especially if these Councils and their Decrees have such a general acceptation with the Church Catholick diffusive as can be thought necessary to give us Its judgment at least as to a major part thereof And again Infallibility of such Councils not as to any Questions or Controversies whatever that may be proposed to them but of all such points as are any way necessary to salvation which necessity if any need to know it we are to learn from them And Necessary not as this word includes only those Articles without the explicite belief of which none can enter into Heaven but as it includes all those points also which either as to our belief or practice are highly beneficial thereto for in these also the right guidance of our Spiritual Pastors seems necessary and as is explained before § 2 c the Church also not undertaking as N. O. saith Consid p. 34. to end all manner of differences but so many wherein she findes on any side sufficient evidence of Tradition and for the gravity of the matter a necessity of decision The same Divine providence that preserves his Church perpetually Infallible in all things necessary to be determined disposing also that for all Necessaries there shall be a sufficient evidence of Tradition either of the Conclusion it self or its Principles § 50 Now for such Infallibility N.O. first presseth That the ordinary practice of General Councils Consid p. 40. which hath been constantly allowed and submitted to by the Church Catholick Diffusive necessarily inferrs their Infallibility viz. their inserting from time to time as they thought fit their Decisions in the Creeds and their Anathematizing Dissenters and the Church Diffusive afterward stiling such Dissenters Hereticks and opposers of the Faith That such assent and belief and submission of judgment if justly required by them Consid p. 32 inferrs such persons herein not liable to errour upon the Dr's own arguing For saith he ‖ Rat. Acc. p. 506. Where Councils challenge an internal Assent by vertue of their Decrees or because their Decrees are in themselves infallible there must be first proved an impossibility of errour in them before any can look on themselves as obliged to give it That Protestant's allowing only an External Obedience or Silence due to Councils fallible shews that Councils fallible can justly require no more and consequently that such Councils are infallible as do justly require more as did the four first Councils with the voluntary acknowledgment also and submission of the rest of the Body of the Catholick Church to such an Authority assumed by them That subordinate Councils when they have also sometimes stated matters of faith censured Hereticks and required assent to their Decrees yet did this still with relation to the same Infallibility residing in the General Body of Church-Governours and to their concurrence therein whilst they did not pass such Acta without consulting the Tradition and judgment of other Churches and especially of the Apostolick See § 51 That had there been no Divine Writings there must have been such a divinely-assisted Infallibility as for necessaries left in the Church-Guides Consid p. 38 for that without this the Christian would otherwise have been no stable or certain Religion at least as to many necessary points thereof so that all persons might have a right belief in them because that Tradition carries not with it a sufficient evidence as to all points of necessary faith especially as to all sorts of people several Controversies about Necessaries having been raised which have not been decided and ended by any then generally current Tradition Or the Clearness of Scripture supplyed this deficiency of Tradition as to the capacities of all the members of the Church without the convening Consultations of Councils who have cleared to their subjects the necessary Deductions from former Traditionals without which Deductions several most pernicious Heresies would have undermined the former Christian Faith that was in precedent times couched in more general Terms § 52 That Catholicks need not in arguing against Protestants who grant the Scriptures to be Gods Word Consid p 5. 7 to use any other testimony than that of these Scriptures for a sufficiently clear proof of such Infallibility residing in the Governours of the Church Which proofs out of Scripture every where obvious in Catholick Writers were by N.O. not thought so necessary to be produced where he made only some short Reflections on the Dr's Principles and not a set Discourse of Infallibility as this Author would misname it But since the Dr. so much misseth them though I cannot but wonder why he so earnestly calls for what N.O. hath not said whenas he so easily omits to speak to what he hath said he may find several of them put together in the first Discourse Concerning the Guide in Controversies § 7. c. and there vindicated also from the glosses put on them by this Authour in his Rational Account and may finde them mentioned also here below in the Annotation on p. 113. l. 15. And since the Doctor with other Protestants grants an Infallibility in Necessaries of the Church diffusive in all ages from our Lords Promise doubtless contained in some of these Texts I appeal to any after he hath read what is there alledged Whether such Promises in many of these Texts do not relate principally to the Infallibility of the Church-Governours And again Whether if the Common Reason of Christianity i.e. the Reason that is found in the major part thereof were to be consulted concerning the true sense of these Texts the major part of Christendome doth not and hath not believed Church-Infallibility at least in her General Councils established by them A sufficiently clear proof therefore of Church-Infallibility these Scriptures afford Consid p. 57 if that proof may be called so which by the most of the Christian World is taken to be so notwithstanding that a Party engaged by their Reformation in an apparent contrary interest do contradict it Or if whilst they deny a sufficient evidence of Church-Infallibility to be found in Scripture they would allow a sufficient evidence of Church-Authority established there to decide Ecclesiastical Controversies with obligation to External Obedience so it is that by this Authority they would be cast and silenced for the former if a much major part may be admitted as it ought to give law to the whole § 53 To this I may add that de facto the Dr. holds even the Church of Rome i.e. in its Councils and in the Pope as
in the Dr's Answers § 71 Lastly to the proof of the Church's Infallibility out of S. Austin mentioned before § 54. he returns an answer extended from p. 250. to p. 200. Where I find him p. 251. urging S. Austins words that In this matter we follow c. Sequimur sanè nos in hâc re i. e in Non-Rebaptization etiam Canonicarum authoritatem certissimam Scripturarum and there fore that men might attain a certainty of the sense of Scripture in this matter without the Church's Infallibility to decide it Thus the Dr. But this Father every where confessing the difference about Rebaptization to be a most difficult and obscure Question and not clearly resolved as to all apprehensions in the Scripture speaks this Sequimur sanê nos in hac re c. quite in another sense namely as he himself expounds it in the next words when the Donatists urged to him there was no proof or example thereof in Scripture Neque enim saith he parvi momenti habendum est quòd hoc per universam Catholicam ecclesiam quae toto orbe diffunditur observari placuit quod tenemus Explicating himself yet in the words following much more thus Quamvis hujus reicertè de Scripturis non proferatur exemplum â—arundem tamen Scripturarum in hâc re a nobis tenetur veritas cùm hoc facimus quod universae jam placuit Ecclesiae quam ipsarum Scripturarum commendat authorit as Commendat i.e. to be the true Church and then both S. Austin and the Donatâ—st were agreed that the true Church must or did in this matter hold and state the truth If this yet satisfy not see the same said again elswhere De vnitate Ecclesiae c. 22. where speaking of the non evidence concerning Rebaptization in Scripture Hoc apertè atque evidenter i.e. in the Scriptures saith he nec ego lego nec tu Nunc verò cùm in Scripturis non inveniamus c. putâ— si aliquis Sapiens extitisset cui Dominus Jesus Christus testimonium perhibet de hà c Quaestione consuleretur a nobis nullo modo deber mus dubitare id facere quod ille dixisset ne non tam ipsi quam Domino Jesu Christo cujus testimonio commendatur repugnare judicaremur Perhibet autem testimonium Christus ecclesiae suae Testimonium that we should follow its judgment facere quod dicit otherwise a testimony to it concerning somthing else would have been nothing to S. Austins puâ—pose Facere which is more than non-contradicere and which implyes also assentire verum esse quod dicit By all these passages we see the certissima authoritas Scripturarum is concerning the Church which is it i.e. the Catholick Church and then it discovered is concerning the matter in Question also as unerringly determined by it § 72 Again p. 253. he urgeth out of S. Austin That where the testimony of Scripture is very plain and clear we are not to regard what Donatus or Parmenianus or Pontius hath said for neither saith he are we to yield to Catholick Bishops themselves if they be at any time so much deceived as to hold what is contrary to Canonical Scriptures By which it is evident that he supposed no Infallibility in the Guides of the Church All which N.O. grants very true if understood as the Father speaks it of particular Doctors of the Catholick Church not of its General Councils Nor can one rationally plead the sense of Scriptures plain and clear on his tide where a General Council understands and expounds them contrary § 73 Ibid. He urgeth as S. Austins words That the true Church is to be proved and so the Dr would have it understood of other Controversies by nothing but plain Scriptures neither by the authority of Optatus or S. Ambrose or innumerable Bishops nor Councils nor Miracles c. But such words are not S. Austin's Nor doth he affirm that which is the true Church can be proved by nothing but Scriptures for himself saith elsewhere that he came to know the Scriptures from the Church first known to him and the Church by Miracles Nor speaks he here any thing derogatory to General Councils or the authority or infallibility of them of which see more in the Annotation on p. 251. l. 8. from the bâ— to But the Donatists with him allowing the Scriptures he urgeth the Church sufficiently demonstrable by their clear authority which if clear alone also sufficeth and therefore requires of them that he waving these other proofs viz of Councils Miracles c on his side wherein he had much the advantage of them by Episcopi innumerabiles and Miracula vera so they would wave the urging of their Councils far inferiour and their Miracles Visions c fallaciâ—us on their side which Arguments of theirs he calls morarum tendâ—â—ulâ— and that they should press Scriptures again 〈◊〉 Scriptures But if the Judgment of General Councils was denied by him to be any proof in Controversies why used he it as such in Rebaptization § 74 Again p. 254. he saith That all the proofs S. Austin brings for the Church relate to the Vniversality of it not to the Infallibility Where it is true that as to the Donatist the Vniversality of the Church was all the matter in controversy both sides bâ—â—â— fully agreed that that was the Truth in the Controversy of Râ—bâ—â—â—ization which the true Church which-soever it were held and taught Otherwise from the Church determining in its General Council this point of Rebaptization S. Austin could not have urged its determining a truth as he every where doth see the quotations in Note on p. 251. l. 8. from the bott and the Donatists would soon have replied that his General Council erred and that S. Cyprian's was in the right § 75 Again p. 255. he produceth that much-worn place of S. Austin Concilia plenaria sapè priora posterioribus emendari The Reader may view the place set down at large there by this Author which words of S. Austin p. 256. he afterward presseth cannot he understood of unlawful Councils of matters of fast or practice but do refer to the great Question then in debate about Rebaptizing Hereticks And that hereby S. Austin takes off the great Plea the Donatiâ—ts made from the authority of S. Cyprian and his Council which they continually urged for themselves But N.O. had already weighed this Common-place and replied to it ‖ Addit to p. 86. l. 11. That if such Plenary Councils as that which determined Non-Rebaptization were errable and amendable in these Dogmata fidei neither had S. Austin any reason to presume as he doth Ibid. c. 4. that S. Cyprian would have corrected his opinion concerning this Point or to charge the Donatists with Heresy for dissenting from it after the Determination of such a Council Nor had the 2d General Council any just ground to put it in the Creed Credo unum Baptisma in remissionem peccatorum No just cause I say
I find p. 267. mentioned An authority of inflicting censures upon offenders or of receiving into and excluding out of the Communion of the Church And That a Christian Society cannot be preserved in its purity and peace without it But looking further whether this Authority was extended to excluding from her Communion persons dissenting in their opinions from the received doctrines of such Church in matters of Faith which only serves the turn for curing Heresies and Sects of this I sind nothing but only this Power couched in these general terms To receive into and exclude out of the Church such-persons which according to the Law of a Christian Society are fit to be taken in or shut out § 101 I find him 2ly p. 268 allowing an Authority in the Church Of making Rules and Canons about matters of order and decency in the Church Not meerly in the necessary circumstances of time and place and such things the contrary to which inply a natural indecency but in continuing establishing those ancient Rites of the Christian Church which were practised in the early times of Christianity and are in themselves of an indifferent nature But when these Sects deny those things to be of an indifferent nature which this Church declares such as he knows the Sects in England ordinarily do may the Church here lawfully require their assent acknowledgment that they are of an indifferent nature and so their practice of them upon penalty if non-conforming of ejecting them out of her Communion Nothing less than which can purge her communion of such Sects and preserve her in purity Vniformity and peace I do not find him adventuring thus far as to tell us whether the Church may require assent or submission of judgment which must necessarily precede that of practice from those perswaded that the matter by the Church declared indifferent is not so and may upon the disobedient inflict her censures when perhaps she as fallible not they is mistaken in it and it seems contrary to his Principles But here he seems to tread suspensopede and manage the Church's Authority somwhat timorously as we may see by those words of his that follow that in such matters required by a lawful authority there is an advantage on the side of authority I understand him that authority hath the advantage for challenging obedience against a conscience scrupulous or doubting but what for a conscience not doubting but fully perswaded otherwise As men may be free from doubting in a thing whereof they are not certain which authority ought to overrule the practice of such who are the members of that Church over-rule the Practice but what saith he of such Authority its over-ruling the Judgment Which standing contrary it is certain none may practise though that which is right against their judgment This wary Conclusion in the 2d Proposition concerning Church Authority is somwhat like to those general words in the first A power of excluding out of the Church such persons as are fit to be shut out according to the laws of a Christian Society I suppose he means such laws as are or else ought to be in a Christian Society Of which ought to be who must judge § 102 Again he affirms p. 261. an Authority in the Church of proposing matters of faith and directing men in Religion directing several ways by particular instruction of doubtful persons to whom the help of their Guides he saith is the most ready and useful by a publick way of instructing viz. in Sermons by the representative Clergy meeting together to reform any abuses in practice or errours in doctrine and when a more General consent cannot be obtained to publish and declare what those errours are and to do as much as in them lies to reform them viz. by requiring a consent to such propositions as are agreed upon for that end of thâ—se who are to enjoy the publick offices of teaching and instructing others Not to the end that all those propositions should be believed as Articles of Faith but because no Reformation can be effected if persons may be allowed to preach and officiate in the Church in a way contrary to the designe of such a Reformation Here then we have an Authority allowed to propose matters of faith which proposal any Heresy or Sect can well comply with to instruct doubtful persons but in points necessary wherein Scriptures are clear according to him no such doubâ— needs to be in which doubting the help of their Guides is said to be the most ready and useful but for some reason or other this Author declines to say Necessary an Authority of Synods to declare what errours there are in doctrine or abuses in practice and in general he saith to do as much as in them lies to reform them by requiring a consent of its Clergy to such propositions as the Synod agrees upon § But meanwhile here occurrs nothing that such as said hold the errours in dâ—ctrine against which this Church declareth may not yet peaâ—â—ably enjoy her Communion He saith these â—ynods as much as in them lies may reform such errours but he saith 〈◊〉 this lies in their power to require any one to assent to the contrary truths upon penalty of being expelled from this Church's communion By which means only this Church can be purged and cured of the mixture of Sects and Heresies and be preserved in its purity and peace and consent of judgment in matters of Religion which the Title prefixed saith is the design of the Church of England's 39. Articles I say Whereas the Church hath no way for her preservation in unity of saith and worship but that of our Lord's and his Apostle's post unam aut alteram correptionem to shut such out of her Communion the Read er may observe here is no word of this I do not say of shutting any at all out of the Church's Communion this he allows in his first Proposition but not shutting any out on this account viz. their dissent and non-conformity to the Church's Articles of Faith and Religion § 104 For as for consent said to be required from the Clergy to such propositions as such Synods shall agree upon supposing here he means by this Consent a profession of the belief of the truth of them 1. This consent is required of the Clergy only hypothetically if they desire to officiate in the Ministry not absolutely that they may enjoy her Communion Nor will this remedy any Sect or Heresy as to such who for this cause decline the Ministry 2ly By the Church's requiring their consent he seems not to mean an assent to the truth of such Articles but either with Mr Chillingworth ‖ Pref. § 39. a consent to them or to the doctrine of this Church that who believes and lives according to them undoubtedly shall be saved and that there is no errour in them which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturb the peace or renounce the communion of this
their external disobedience or contradiction but their wicked errour The 39. Articles being declared in the same 5th Canon To have been by this Church agreed upon for the avoiding Diversities of Opinions and the establishing of Consent touching true Religion To which I add that Consent touching true Religion is Consent surely touching matters of Faith and again that establishing of Consent is to be understood amongst all the Members of the said Church all whom it concerns to be united and established in the true Religion as well as amongst the Clergy Therefore the Stile of the two Canons runs generally Whoso shall hereafter affirm the Articles c in any thing erroneous And the excommunicating of those who will not abjure their holding Popery or Socinianisme see Synod 1640. Can. 3. and 4. is not of the Clergy but any whatever Which may be confirmed also by the practice of the Synods of other Reformed Churches abroad proceeding to the excommunication of Dissenters from their Doctrine To this purpose in the Ecclesiastical Discipline of the Reformed Churches of France the 31. Article of the 5th Chapter Du Consistoire runs thus Si un ou plusieurs c. If any one or more of the people shall raise any debate to the breach of the Church's Vnity concerning any point of Doctrine the Form of the Catechism Sacraments Publick Service c. if matters cannot be otherwise composed in the last place a National Synod is to be assembled which shall give them an hearing with all holy liberty and in it shall be made a full and final Resolution by the Word of God to which resolution if they refuse to acquiesce in every particular point and with an express disavowing their errours recorded now surely this disavowing their errours is assenting to the contrary truths they shall be cut off from the Church Here then is required a punctual assent to what the sentence of the Synod not the persons convented shall judge to be the sense of God's Word as it is also there cautioned before sans que la decision en appartienne a autrez qu' au Synode And the same course is taken against the Remonstrants by the Synod of Dort See Acta Synod Dordrecht Sess 138. Synodus haec Dordrechtana pro authoritate quam ex Dei verbo in omnia Ecclesiarum suarum membra obtinet in Christi nomine injungit omnibus singulis in Foederato Belgio Ecclesiarum Pastoribus c ut hanc sacram veritatis salutaris doctrinam viz. that delivered in the 91. Articles concerning the five points in controversy sinceram inviolatam conservent illam populo juventuti fideliter proponant explicent c. which surely includes the requiring their assent to and belief of thesh Articles excommunicating the disobedient donec per seriam resipiscentiam dictis factis studiis contrariis comprobatam Ecclesia satisfaciant atque ad ejus communionem recipiantur This I have added to shew the same proceedings of other forreign Synods of the Reformed with these of England To which now to return Either in the forementioned expressions these English National Synods do excommunicate all those whoever affirm any thing in the former Common-Prayer-Book to be repugnant to the Scriptures as all those must do who affirm the imposing something there to be done or used in God's worship which he hath not commanded to be a thing repugnant to the Scriptures or who do affirm any thing in the 39 Articles to be erroneous and then what a number of persons are there at this present in this Kingdom of England that are excommunicated by the Church of England Or if no consent to her Articles is required in general of all her Subjects what an indulgence is here for variety of Sects every one being left in matters touching true Religion to Liberty of Opinion Yet for the avoiding of which this Church saith she composed these Articles This of the Doctors Passings-by in the Preface Pag. 76. l. 3. The Controversy in short is this Whether Protestants who reject the Roman Church's Authority and Infallibility can have any sufficient Foundation to build their faith upon There is no such Question proposed by N. O. And if there had it would have been proposed on this manner in order especially to the Doctors 13th and 15th Principles Whether a Protestant in refusing the submission of his judgment to the Authority or Infallibility of the Catholick Church in her Councils can have in several Articles of Necessary Faith wherein the sense of Scriptures is controverted as sure a foundation of his Faith as he who submits his judgment to the foresaid Authority or also Infallibility Ibid. l 11. Those of the Church of Rome charge us That we can have no certainty of our faith as Christians without their Infallibility The Certainty pretended by this Author in his Principles and opposed by N. O. is such a Certainty from the Clearness of the Sense of Scriptures in all points of necessary Faith to every person as that no person whatsoever what useth his best endeavour I suppose he means such endeavour as consists with his Vocation to understand them can mistake therein And this is denied by Catholicks and sufficiently confuted by Experience Ib. l. 9. The occasion was my Adversaries calling for Grounds and Principles c. This account that follows nor concerning N. O and those worthy Persons whom the Doctor opposeth being much better able to return an answer for themselves if perhaps they think this worth their pains I shall pass on to p. 79. Annotations on § 2. Of the Notion of Infallibility PAge 79. l. ult Sometimes they apply Infallibility to the Object that is believed And hath not our Author used this language of an Objective Infallibility himself in his 20th Principle where he saith Assent doth not depend upon the objective infallibility of any thing without us Whereby it appears himself hath a share in the Jargon And what thinks he of that of his Archbishop Lawd ‖ p. 125. We must distinguish of Infallibility For first a thing may be presented as an infallible object of belief when it is true and remains so c. Doth not this make the Arch-bishop also one of the Jugglers he talks of P. 80. l. 10. Infallible is that which cannot be deceived Now if no one will say that a Proposition cannot be deceived it is absurd to say That it is infallibly true Infallible is that which cannot be deceived I add or as applyed to things is that wherein we cannot be deceived and so may Propositions be infallible And is it then such a great absurdity to say This proposition Homo est anâ—mal is infallibly true Doth not himself say the Scriptures are writings infallible See his Princ. 12. And is not this â—re infallibly true N. 1 P. 84. l. ult And being deceived In these two or three leaves the Dr hath been â—aâ—ing and fixing as he saith the Notion of Infallibility where leaving the
more subject to mis-interpretations and where for the thorow studying the one or the other the vocations and employments of most Christians admit not a competent vacancy 5 Lastly the Questions that tend to void Church-Infallibility from the sufficiency of Tradition may as well serve for rendring useless the Infallibility of Scripture on the same account and the same Question that demands Why the Church is believed more infallible than Tradition which Church-Infallibility is proved only by Tradition may as well be put concerning the Scriptures Why these held more infallible than Tradition the strongest proof of which Infallibility of Scriptures among Protestants is from it Annotations on his §. 3. of N. O's Concessions PAge 85. l. 14. N.O. yields That there is no necessity at all of Infallibility under natural Religion 1 There are no words so put together in the Doctor 's 2d and 3d Principle conceded by N. O but by taking his own Principles in what sense he pleaseth he may represent N. O's Concessions of them what he pleaseth 2 If by what he saith N.O. yields he means this see his p. 86. l. 5. That we may have a sufficient certainty of some Principles in Religion without or antecedently to the Infallibility of the Church as it is assisted by Gods Spirit first known to us it is willingly granted him But meanwhile from the Beginning besides the Law of Nature teaching in general the Worship of a God there were also Positive Divine Laws concerning his Service conserved in that Body which constituted his Visible Church So we finde early in Gâ—nesis mention of Sacrifice Firstlings Holocausts Peace-offerings clean and unclean beasts birds in Sacrifice not divided not eating the bloud mention of Holy Times Places Persons Priests Prophets of Tithes paid to the Priest Purifyings Cleansings changing their garments Vows Prohibition of Polygamy as we may gather from Matt. 16.4 8. of contracting Marriages with unbelievers as may be gathered from Gen. 6.2 compared with 1. Excommunication or expulsion out of the Church as we may gather from Gen. 4.12 14 16. And these Laws we may presume were received from an infallible external Proponent and were preserved by the Ecclesiastical Superiours and Teachers of these laws in such a manner as those delivered since and for the certainty of Religion there seems an infallibility in these as necessary if not more for solving the great doubts arising therein before as after the times of a Written Law These laws and statutes are made mention of Gen. 26.5 when God promised his blessing upon Isaac and his seed because that Abraham had obeyed his voice and kept his Precepts and Commandments observed his Ceremonies and Laws Whose Service had been performed more publickly and solemnly from the times of Enos ‖ Gen. 4.26 and after that the days of Adam were half run out And of these Positive Laws and the Tradition of them and of these Ecclesiastical Superiors thus S. Athanasius †De Synod Nicen. Decretis Quae Moses docuit eadem ab Abrahamo observata sunt quae porrò Abraham observavit eadem Noe Enoch agnoverunt Abel quoque hujus rei testis habendus est qui ea quae ab Adam perceperat Deo obtulit Adam autem Magisterio Dei instructus fuit Pag. 86. l. 8. He yields That Reason is to be Judge concerning Divine Revelation i. e. as I understand him Judge whether that which is pretended be a true Divine Revelation or if such Judge again what is the true Sense of it To this I say 1. That whereas He collects this from N. O's granting his 4th Principle there is no mention at all of Reason in this 4th Principle from which this Author deduceth such a Concession 2. That N.O. upon the Dr's 5th Principle hath delivered the just contrary to this Concession imposed upon him in these very words ‖ Consid p. 6. Here if the Dr means that every Christian hath a faculty in him which as to all Revelations whatsoever proposed to him can discern the true and Divine from others that are not so and when a Revelation certainly Divine is capable of several senses can discern the true sense from the false and all this exclusively to and independently on the instruction of Church-Authority This Proposition is not true For then none will need as experience shews they do to repair to any other Teacher for instructing him in a dubious Revelation or the sense of any Divine Revelation controverted which is the true Revelation or which is the Sense of it 3. Yet however this shall be granted him in relation to that Principle that nothing ought to be admitted for Divine Revelation which overthrows the certainty of or is contradictory to true Reason But if the Revelation be of somthing above Reason Reason may be no fit Judge of it Ibid. l. 12 He yields That the will of God may be sufficiently declared to men by writing This and the following Concession That the written will of God doth contain all things simply necessary to Salvation I have re-considered and â—â—nd no advantage to our Author's cause from N. O's yielding them Pag. 87 l. 9. But he quarrels c. Whether the Dr's consequence Princip 21. drawn by him from what was said Princip 20. be well deduced or no which is called N. O's quarrel here I appeal to any judicious Reader reviewing these Principles after this our Author's defence Pag. 88. l. 11. As for instance that the Church is infallible is in the first place to be believed upon their principles Their Principles affirm no such thing c. See N.O. Consid pag. 37. saying the contrary in these words A Christians faith may begin either at the infallible Authority of Scriptures or of the Church and this infallible Authority of either of these be learnt from Tradition and that of the other from it Ibid. l. 10. The Ground on which a Necessity of some external infallible Proponent is asserted must rather make every particular person infallible If no divine faith can be without an infallible assent and sorenders any other Infallibility useless Any infallible assent necessary to the right believing this Artiele of our faith the Church's Infallibility more than that which Tradition affords N.O. affirms not See what the Dr puts in the next page for N. O's 6th Concession As for the Dr's arguing here The ground on which c it is not good For every particular person's being antecedently infallibly assured i.e. by Tradition of this particular point of faith that the Church is Infallible renders not at all the Church's Infallibility useless as to the same person his being assured of several other points of faith only by the Church's Infallibility which according as the person's condition needs instruction may both ascertain him of many more points of Faith and more clearly ascertain them to him than Tradition doth Ibid. l. 3. Our only Question is about Infallibility whether that be necessary or no Writing thus
to the justifying of the Doctrine and Religion that such Heathen or Heretical Miracle-workers professed and of the Honour of those Gods they served suppose those Miracles of Pythagoras or Aesculapius or Apollonius Thyanaeus or of the Arian or Donatist-Bishops who urged them against S. Austin for a justification of their sect and orthodoxness of their doctrine Or on the other side * to shew that those who have related our Lord's and his Apostle's Miracles have to give these their just force and value expressed alwaies that they were done to this end the Dr mentions here and not to some other ends from which consequently nothing could be concluded concerning the truth of their doctrine Of which end of them therefore it concerned the world chiefly to be informed not of the fact Or * to shew that our Lord or his Apostles alwaies cleared this to be their end to their Auditors and spectatours which was in the first place necessary to be done But the people we see without examining this argued the men to be from God from their beholding the Miracles done And the Pharisees not dreaming of the necessity of such a circumstance never offered to elude any of our Lords Miracles as for example that done upon the blind man Jo. 9. alledging them to be done not in confirmation of his doctrine but upon some other by-account and so as they might possibly be done also in a false Religion and so his Doctrine to be rendred no way more creditable thereby Ib. l. 10 But such as the Church of Rome pretends scarce any Religion in the world but hath pretended to the same 1st Here that the same Miracles are pretended by other Religions that are by the Roman Church will signify nothing if they have not as good ground for or proof of what they pretend Or if those which are not only pretended but really done in the Roman be only pretended in the other 2ly The Roman Church pretends many such as the whole Catholick Church if such a Church there was in being did in many ages before Luther and even all along from the Primitive times as sufficiently appears in Ecolesiastical History 3ly These Miracles pretended both by the present Roman and by the Ancient Catholick Church were of the very same kind as those wrought by Christ and his Apostles i.e. giving sight to the blinde healing the sick raising the dead casting out devils Fiunt ergò nunc saith S. Augustine multa miracula eodem Deo faciente per quos vult quemadmodum vult qui illa quae legimus in the Scriptures fecit ‖ De Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 8. and which Miracles are such as this Authour here seems to say can never be done by any other Religions than the true 4ly That such Miracles were not only pretended but really done in the Church Catholick in the ancienter times as in S. Austin's this Authour I suppose will not deny or also hath granted See in his 2. Disc c. 3. p. 578.580 and then there seems no reason why he should deny the like in the Church of latter ages or in the present If there appear first as no absolute necessity of these Miracles in latter times so neither in S. Austin's 2ly If there be the same ends and benefit of them still in these as in his viz. the greater manifestation of Gods Presence and Providence in his Church the Honour he is pleased to do to his more extraordinary faithful Servants the rewards of a strong and unwavering Faith of obtaining what is asked for his better service and greater glory and lastly that end mentioned by S. Austin our greater edification in the true faith See De Cura pro Mort. c. 16. where he faith that Miracles are done Per Martyrum Memorias quoniam hot novit expedire nobis ad adificandam fidem Christi pro cujus illi confessione sunt paessi 3ly Where the Histories of latter times produce as evident and irrefragable testimonies of the truth of several of these Miracles done in them which is sufficient as those in S. Austin's days had Ib. l. 7 Who all pretend to Miracles as well as the Church of Rome Pretend as well but I hope not so truly nor 2ly so much the pretences of Heathens or Hereticks to Miracles being no way comparable for number or greatness to those pretended in the Church Catholick or Roman No more than Simon Magus his are to those of the Apostles and those few also that are said to be done by the Heathens after the Apostles days seem seigned in emulation of the great reputation of those of Christians But Pretences on any side signify nothing The Catholick and the Roman Church require belief of Miracles not upon pretence but a Rational Evidence Pag. 122. l. 15. But he saith a Christians faith may begin either at the infallible authority of Scriptures or of the Church i.e. That the first Article that a Christian believes or that in his learning the Faith is by his Parents or other instructers first made known to him may be this that the Scriptures are Gods word and infallible or may be this that the Church is Infallible I add or perhaps neither of these but some other As that God hath a Son and that he became Incarnate for his sake and the like Any of which Articles such Christian may savingly and with a Divine faith believe without being made infallibly certain thereof from some other formerly-known Divine Revelation on which this Article may be grounded As for example such person may with a divine and saving faith believe the Scriptures to be Gods word before he believe the Church to be infallible that hath defined the Canon of Scripture Or believe the Church to be infallible before he knows those Scriptures to be Gods Word by which Cnhurch-Infallibillity is proved Ib. l. 18. It seems then there may be sufficient ground for a Christian faith as to the Scriptures without believing any thing of the Church's Infallibility and for this we have reason to thank him whatever they of his own Church think of it Yes there may so A Christian not as yet believing the Infallibility of the Church as divinely assisted may both believe and have a sufficient ground of believing the Infallibility of Scripture viz. the forementioned Tradition And as Catholick Writers ordinarily state it to whom the Dr owes his thanks as well as to N. O It is not necessary that the first thing every Catholick believes or is sufficiently certain of be Church-Infallibility See the Catholick Authors cited in 3d Disc of the Guide § 129. n. 4. c. Ib. l. 3 Nay he goes yet farther and saith That the Infallibility of Scriptures as well as the Church may be proved from its own testimony And adds this Reason For saith he ‖ Princ. Consid p. 37. whoever is proved i.e. by some other medium or granted once infallible in what he saith the consequence is clear without
dissent from which he can justly anathematize Angel or Man and none may anathematize another for his dissent not receiving or for his not believing any thing of the truth whereof he himself is not certain much lesse if he doth not so much as hold himself so which latter will make the fault the greater Unless perhaps such were the supreme and unappealable Ecclesiastical Judge and knew that none other could be in such matter certain of the contrary But this I grant that who is certain and infallible in some things may not be so in all neither do I contend for an universal Infallibility even of General Councils in all things whatsoever but in all that are any way necessary to be determined See Note on p. 104. l. 15. Pag. l. 130. l. 7. Let the Reader now judge in his Conscience c. What thing is there more publick in the Church's Tradition and of which there hath been a more remarkable Testimony in all ages than of the repairing where the Ecclesiastical affaires required or times permitted it following the precedent of Acts 15. to General Councils or those some way equivalent for deciding the more important Controversies in Religion that disturbed the Church and than of these Councils when met their requiring a belief and assent from all Christians to their Definitions and this assent accordingly yielded by the Vniversal Church which inferrs also a General belief and acknowledgment of their Infallibility And Councils are as well known for thus deciding controversies in the Church as he saith the Judges are for trying causes in Westminster-Hall Ib. l. 7 I challenge him to produce any one age wherein the infallibility of a standing Judge of Controversies appointed by Christ hath been received by as universal a consent as the authority of Scripture Review the last Note 1 This standing Infallible Judge are affirmed to be Lawful General Councils Which though as being a Court consisting of many it is not at all times actually assembled and sitting Yet the Members of this supreme Ecclesiastical Court are alwaies existent and in being and retain their Authority from Christ for judging matters of Faith equally whether conjoined or distant in place from one another And when happens no conveniency of assembling such a General Council the Consent of the Body of the Catholick Clergy manifesting a concurrence in their judgment whether by several Provincial Councils or by any one that is generally approved Or whether by Communicatory and Synodical Letters or whether appearing in a general accord in their publick Writings Catechismes and Explications of the Christian Doctrine I say such Consent is equivalent to a General Council The Decrees also and Definitions of former General Councils are always standing in force and the execution of them committed to the care of the present Church-Governours This of the standing Judge 2 As for the Infallibility thereof the Vniversal consent of the Church hath admitted as the Authority and Infallibility of Scriptures so of Councils as to their defining points of necessary faith as hath been shewed before Note on p. 113. l. 14. 3 But in the 3d place it is not necessary that every point of Faith to have a sufficient Attestation or Evidence from Tradition have it as ample and Universal as some other point hath no more than it is for a just ratifying of the Canon of Scripture that all points of it be shewed to have alwaies had as General an Acceptation as any other Or that the Definitions of Chalcedon equall in this those of Nice Pag. 131. l. 5. The Infallibility of a standing Judge is utterly denied by one side and vehemently disputed between several parties on the other Not the infallibility of General Councils in all necessaries disputed save only by some Protestants agreed in by all the rest whether Eastern or Western Church And if the Common Reason or Body of Christianity were to decide this contest between N. O and Dr St Dr St. would be cast Pag. 132. l. 15. If the Infallibility of the Church be as liable to doubts and disputes as that of the Scriptures it is against all just laws of reasoning to make use of the Church's infallibility to prove the Scripture by It is true that the Infallibility of the Scripture cannot be proved from Infallibility of the Church to any that doubts as much of this as of the other till this proof is also proved to them But then it is true too that a Neophyte may first be taught from Tradition the Infallibility of the Church and from this so made known to him have the Infallibility of the Canon of Scripture proved to him as this Church hath in her Councils declared and delivered it for which Church it were to no end to define the Canon if the Canon thereby received no more certainty as to any Christian than formerly Ib. l. 3 N.O. turns my words quite to another meaning In the meaning the Dr now explains his words the sense of the latter part of this Principle which I leave the Reader to compare seems coincident with the former and so is granted to him Princip 17 as the former is And if N.O. not imagining such a reduplication mistook the Drs sense here from what he found him to say in another place ‖ Rat. Accountâ—p 512 the discourse is still pertinent if not to this to the other place and N.O. hath not lost his labour Pag. 133. l. 13. Men can have no certainty of faith that this was a General Couneil that it pâ—ssed such decrees that it proceeded lawfully in passing them and that this is the certain meaning of them all which are necessary in order to the believing those decrees to be infallible with such a faith as they call divine Christians have a sufficient certainty as to all the former particulars that the Council of Nice for example hath delivered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the true sense of the Scriptures which Sense of Scripture we believe with a divine faith and this divine faith relies on the word of God as thus expounded by this Council The same to which therefore may be said as to other points and other Councils Ib. l. 3 But I expresly mention such decrees as are purposely framed in general terms and with ambiguous expressions His words in Rat. Account are Suppose saith he p. 510. we should grant that you might in general be certain of the Infallibility of General Councils when we come to instance in any one of them you can have no certainty of faith as to the infallibility of the decrees of it For you can have no such certainty 1 that this waâ— a lawful General Council 2 that it passed such decrees 3 that it proceeded lawfully in passing them and 4 that this is the certain meaning of them Then examining these four particulars coming to the 4th he proceeds thus 4ly Saith he Suppose men could be assured of the proceedings of the Council yet what
Church where such Pleas as these are permitted to be urged in such a sense as to set men at liberty from the submission of their judgment to the Decisions and definitions of General Councils upon pretence that there shall be many seducers and a falling away and departing from the Faith and upon pretence of Force and Fraud used in the most General Counci's that could be convened for many past Generations Which falling away and departing from the Faith c. why should they not be rather applied to these New Sects and former Heresies and from them be inferred a closer adherence and Obedience to their lawful Church Governours Ib. l. 8 The Apostles told them they had no dominion over their faith What not so far as to oblige them to obey and submit to their Apostolical Doctrine What not such dominion as S. Paul urged 1. Tim. 1.20 to the blasphemers of the Gospel and as he commanded Titus to use Tit. 3.10 Consider the Acts of the Apostolical Council Act. 15. But the Text speaks here of any unjust dominion or authority to treat the faithful as he pleased in punishing or mulcting those who walk uprightly in the faith to alter change censure any thing therein for his own profit or advantage See Dr Hammond on the place Ib. l. 4. No present Guides whatever names they go by ought to usurp such an authority over the minds of men which the Apostles themselves did not challenge although there were greater reason for men to yield up their minds wholly to their guidance If to yield up their minds be to submit their judgments were not Christians obliged in this to the very Apostles and their Doctrines See before Note on p. 144. l. 11. See we not the effects here of the Dr's 13th Principle in the people 's not needing Guides for understanding necessary Scriptures but meanwhile in the Scriptures being needful to them for trying by it their Guides Pag. 147. l. 7. Where there is a Rule for them the Church-Governours or Guides to proceed by there is a rule for others to judge of their proceedings If here He means by these others those who doubting of the true sense of the Rule repair to these Guides to learn from them the true sense of it which is only to the purpose that these are again to judge by the Rule doubted of whether the Guides have given the right sense what is this but that these are finally to determine the sense of the Rule for the determining of which they consult their Teachers As if the Consulters concerning the meaning of a Law when the Judge hath given them the sense of the Law should again by this Law examine the truth of the sense of the Judge and act finally according to their own not his sentence Ib. l. 13. Where the rule by which the Guides of the Church are to proceed hath determined nothing there we say the authority of the Guides is to be submitted unto For otherwise there would be nothing left wherein their authority could be shewn Doth not he say here the Church's Authority is to be submitted to in nothing but things left indifferent by the Scriptures Then it hath no authority in determining Controversies of faith but why then saith the 20th Article of the Church of England that the Church hath authority of expounding Scriptures in Controversies of faith and by what authority hath the Council of Nice determined Consubstantiation But so often as the sense of the Scriptures to any is doubtful may not the Scriptures here be said as to such persons to have deteâ—mined nothing and then are they not in these if in a Necessary point to repair to the determination of their Ecclesiastical Guides If so all will be well still and thus all come to submit to the sentence of the Judge but those who are certain before hand of the sense of their Rule Ib. l. 11 We plead for the Church is authority in indifferent Rites and Ceremonies But suppose the Question be whether such Rites and Ceremonies are indeed indifferent As they are taken by some not to be so because God will admit nothing into his worship but what himself hath first expresly commanded and prescribed What authority is to end this I say for such who hold some Ceremonie unlawful and repugnant to Scripture are they or the Church to judge of this unlawfulness and may the Church lawfully enjoin it and oblige them under excommunication to practise it Or will it not come at last according to these Principles that the Subjects not the Church are to decide the indifferency or non-indifferency of such Ceremonies Pag. 148. l. 7. Wee allow a very great authority to the Guides of the Catholick Church in the best times of Christianity And look upon the concurrent sense of Antiquity as an excellent means to understand the mind of Scripture in places otherwise doubtful and obscure In the best times of Christianity But do not you then in all times Or is not their authority the same in all times If various who is Judge of this their Subjects As an excellent means to understand c. This will not serve the turn it must be as an authorized Expositor of the true sense of Scriptures doubtful and obscure in Necessary matters to whose definitions all ought to submit not only to make use of their advice This Church-Tradition makes good this such Protestants as our Author oppose Ib. l. 13. We reject the ancient Heresies condemned in them But doth he acknowledge and reject all that as Heresy that hath been or shall be condemned by all lawful General Councils for such Ib. l. 11 We reject nothing that can be proved by an Vniversal Tradition from the Apostolical times downwards That can be proved But who shall judge of the proof where any thing is disputed whether it be Tradition Apostolick Our selves or the present Church-Governours Ib. l. 5 We see no reason to have those things forced upon us now which we offer to prove to be contrary to their the primitive times doctrine and practice Offer to prove To whom To any whose final judgment you will stand to Name them Shall it be to a General Council But this may err you say It erring shall it be to a Second But if one err so may all And who shall judge when It doth not err Demonstration shall decide it And who judge when it is a clear demonstration if any deny it to be so Pag. 149. l. 1. The Controversy is Whether the Guides of the Apostolical and Primitive times ought not to have greater authority over us than those of the present Church in things wherein they contradict each other Here again who shall judge this difference concerning their contradiction denied by Catholicks denied by the latter Councils of the Church that plead Tradition and their agreement with the former Ib. l. 8. But we profess to yield greater reverence and submission of mind to Christ and his Apostles than
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
77. That none are obliged to such a necessary belief of them as that a person nescient of them cannot be saved or that the explicite knowledge of them is absolutely necessary though always in some manner beneficial it is to salvation but that this indeed is necessary to salvation that any subject of the Church when knowing them to be determined by her obey her definitions and not reject or dissent from them Such disobedience being conceived a mortall breach of Gods command Ib. l. 11 But nothing of this nature can be objected against our Church by dissenters But this is objected by them that Assent is required to the Common Prayer Book and 39. Articles as containing in them nothing erroneous or repugnant to Scripture upon Excommunication if any one affirm it till such person repents of such his wicked errour and without any qualification that such assent be yielded only as far as the same Articles are agreeable to Gods Word Here then I ask Whether such a wicked errour and herein such an obstinate disobedience to ones lawful Spiritual Superiours and continuance out of their communion unrepented-of is not held by the Church of England to exclude such person from being a member of Christs Body and from Salvation Which Church declares Art 33. concerning a just excommunication That the person which by open denunciation of the Church is rightly cut off from the unity of the Church and excommunicated ought to be tâ—ken of the whole multitude of the faithful as an heathen and a Publican until he be openly reconciled by Penance and received into the Church by a Judge that hath authority thereunto Of which matter thus also Calvin ‖ Instit 4. c. 12. §. 4. Nequis tale Ecclesiae judicium spernat aut parvi astimet se fidelium suffragiis damnatum testatus est Dominus istud ipsum nihil aliud esse quà m sententiae suae promulgationem ratumque haberi in coelis quod illi in terrâ egerint and § 10. Qui Ecclesiae censurâ speaking of a just Excommunication by a Church Reformed excommunicantur suae etiam ipsorum perpetuae damnationis nisi resipuerint certi fiunt Ib. l. 4 That it was necessary to salvation to be in subjection to the Bishop of Rome The words in the Lateran Council under Leo are these In Ecclesiâ esse non potest qui Romani Pontificis Cathedram deserit It is necessary to salvation that one be in the Church Catholick be nâ— Heretick or Schismatick but yield obedience to his lawful Ecclesiastical Superiours the Supreme amongst whom is the Bishop of Rome the Successour of S. Peter in the Prime Apostolick See who also presides in and confirms lawful General Councils So that Obedience to all lawful General Councils in this sense involveth also obedience to him their President Pag. 184. l. 1. The Guides of the Roman Church pretend to as immediate authority of obliging the consciences of men as Christ or his Apostles had Means he not here requiring Assent to their Decrees upon Anathema But let him then urge this against lawful General Councils which have practised it and declared such matters to oblige mens consciences to obedience as being Gods Word But if he means here that the Roman Church pretends such an immediate authority in obliging mens consciences as to her Injunctions or Conâ—titutions in matters indifferent and no way commanded by God i.e. as if she enjoined their obedience also to them as to things necessary and commanded by God this is utterly denied and makes the Church contradict her self for if they are commanded by God how are they enjoined as things indifferent But the Church affirms men are bound in conscience to obey these not because they are divine Commands but only because the Persons are obliged by the Divine Command which binds the Conscience to obey the Church's Command in all such matters Necessary such things are to be observed because the Church commands them and men also bound in conscience to observe them because they are commanded by God to obey such Commands of the Church And this obligation of Conscience I think the Dr admits as well as Catholicks See his Irenieum c. 2. p. 65. where he saith that What is left undetermined by the Divine Law if it be determined by lawful Authority in the Church of God doth bind the Consciences of those who are subject to such authority to obedience to those determinations and cites for it Rom. 13.5 that we are to be subject to these Governours for Conscience sake The Church may pretend to any authority our Lord or his Apostles have given it without dishonouring or degrading or equalling themselves to the Donor He goes on Ib. l. 6. But our Guides challenge no more than teaching men to do what Christ had commanded them and in other things not commanded or forbidden to give rules which on the account of the General Commands of Scripture they look on the members of our Church as obliged to observe Obliged to observe I hope he means as obeying here a just authority and not as he explains himself in his Irenicum ‖ cha 2. §. 7. â— 46 Thus far I acknowlege a binding power in Ecelesiastical Constitutions that though they neither bind by vertue of the matter nor of the authority commanding there being no legislative power lodged in the Church yet in respect of the circumstances and the end they should be obeyed unless I judge the thing unlawful that is commanded rather than manifest open contempt of the Pastors of the Church or bring a scandal to others And here when the Church of England thus obligeth her subjects to the practice of such things as she holds indifferent unless she makes this a condition of her obligation if they first hold them lawful she obligeth them also to hold such things lawful since none may practise any thing apprehended by his conscience to be unlawful Lastly as the Church of England hath authority to give Rules in things neither commanded nor forbidden by God so I ask Hath she no authority in Controversies of Faith for the deciding them See Art 29th of the Church of England Ib. l. 17. In the Church of Rome it is accounted as much a mortall sin to disobey their Guides in the most indifferent things as to disobey God in the plain commands of Scripture As much No. But as well for Mortal Sins admit degrees And Mandata Ecclesiastica non anteponi sed postponi debere dicimus Divinis Praceptis ‖ Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif l. 4. c. 17. saith the Cardinal Though all disobeying our Superiours in lawful things is also disobeying God when He in such commanding obedience to them Again As well a Mortal Sin in some disobedience of these Governours but not in all not in things of no great consequence in respect of the benefit or damage that is received by the doing or omitting them And lastly these things are extended as well to the Laws of
Civil as Ecclesiastical Governours So that if the Catholicks seem to apply some Consciential obedience to the Ecclesiastical Judge disliked and denyed to him by Protestants so do they also to the Civil Ib. l. 10 They challenge likewise to themselves a power to dispense with the laws of God as in matter of Mariages The Church only dispenseth where antecedently no Divine Law but only a Church-law obligeth those about Marriages being many of them Levitical Judicial Laws obligatory only to the ancient Commonwealth of the Jews and not now to Christians But in impedimentis jure Divino naturali conjugium dirimentibus the Church pretends no dispensative power Ib. l. 8 And with the Institution of Christ as in Communion in one kind See this spoken to before in Note on p. 151. l. 6. Ib. l. 5 As in the five Sacraments they have added to the two of Christ As the Roman Church reckons Seven Sacraments so the Greek Sacramenta verò ritusque in hâc ipsâ Catholicâ rectè sentientium Christianorum Ecclesiâ sunt Septem saith Jeremias Patriarch of Constantinople against the Lutherans ‖ Resp. 1. c. 7. and so the Catholick Church before Luther appeared And this Author cannot be ignorant that Protestants also since that time as the Word Sacrament is taken in a more general sense have willingly admitted more than two and acknowledged this conformable to the language of Antiquity And in the short English Catechisme the Answer to the Question How many Sacraments Two only is made as Bishop Mountague observes ‖ Appeal c. 33. with this Limitation as generally necessary to salvation And on the other side the Council of Trent †Sess 7. c. 3. pronounces Anathema to those who shall make them all of an equal dignity And Baptisme and the Eucharist shall have the preeminency that Protestants desire Ib. l. 2 Setting aside these considerations we dare appeal c. For the extravagancy of the next page I referr the Reader to the Note on p. 180. l. 9. Pag. 185. l. 6. Whether our Church's Imposing of three Ceremonies declared to be indifferent by those who required them But denied to be so by those they are imposed-on who therefore complain of tyranny and of forcing the Conscience the enjoining the practice of them involving an assent also that they are lawful which they that cannot yield must sin if they practise them And in such a case who must decide this matter between these two I find him in his Irenicum c. 2. p. 63. nominating for this Judge the sense of the Primitive Church in the first four Centuries and the judgment of the other Reformed Churches There he proposeth That nothing be required nor determined by Church-Governours but what is sufficiently known to be indifferent in its own nature The only difficulty saith he is hâ—w a thing may be sufficiently known to be indifferent because one man looks upon that as indifferent which another doth not The most equal way to decide this Controversy is to make choice of such Judges as are not interested in the quarrel and those are the sense of the Primitive Church in the first four Centuries who were best able to judge whether they looked upon themselves as bound by any Command of Scripture or no and withal the judgment of the Reformed Churches So that what shal be made appear to be lefâ— indifferent by both the sense of the Primitive Church and the Churches of the Reformation may be a matter determinable by Law and which all may be required to conform in Obedience to But here 1st What if when this Judge the sense of the Primitive Church is admitted by both parties yet there happen dispute What or on which side this sense is Is it not so disputed and will not the deciding of this need another Judge 2ly For the Judgment of the Reformed Churches I suppose he means those abroad concerning the Controversies about Indifferents here in England they no way seem such as he here supposeth i.e. persons not interested in the quarrel some of them as to these things intertaining the opinion of the Prclaticks others of the Presbyterian party But were it not so their judgment being fallible It is contrary I think to this Author's Principles for others to be enjoined or constrained to conform to them either in their practice where their judgment relucts or in their judgment where their 's also may err 3ly The Judge in Ecclesiastical matters is not left to any ones arbitrary nomination but is alwaies the Superiour Prelates or Councils in respect of all others subordinate to them He goes on Can be thought so great a Burden to their Consciences as all the Load of superstitious fopperies in the Roman Church Supposing here not granting the Roman Ceremonies such yet some of which at least I hope this Author will protect because borrowed from her by the Reformed Church of England to the great grief of these Sects I ask to what end is it here to compare the Degrees of Burdens imposed where the Least if imposed against conscience is unsupportable Ib. l. 17. Whether Transubstantiation Image-worship c. be not somwhat harder things to swallow Some of these at least how hard soever they seem to you are the Definitions either of the Supreme Councils or those Superiour to a Provincial or National one of England And to these Councils therefore you owe obedience either of assent or silence and cannot separate from their Communion without Schisme Ib. l. 11 Be not somwhat harder things to swallow than the Church's power to appoint matters of Order and decency Is then the appointing matters of Order and Decency all the power the Church of England doth or may assume I mean hath this Church no power in Matters and Controversies of Faith Pag. 186. l. 1. Not for any difficulty objected by N.O. Which whatever it is is omitted here by the Dr. See Note on p. 180. l. 9. Annotations on §. 11. Of the means to attaine the sense of Scripture without an infallible Guide PAg. 186. l. 11. That is the second main Principle in N.O. that without this infallible assistance of the Guides of the Church there can be no certainty of the sense of Scripture There are no such words in N.O. N.O. denies a sufficient certainty of the sense of Scripture in several points of necessary saith ‖ See the former Discourse §. 2. but not in all especially as to some persons and capacities without the Church's exposition of them Ib. l. 17. He yields that the Church's infallibility is not necessary to the foundation of faith for mens faith he saith may begin at the infallible authority of Scriptures No such words are in N. O neither doth he call that a Foundation of Faith where Faith begins Which Faith begins at that particular Article thereof which is first taught to any by their Inâ—tructer Parents or Pastor and this happens to be somtimes one Article somtimes another N. O's
words there †are As all Articles of Faith are not by all persons learnt at once so neither by all exactly in the same order as is frequently observed by Catholick Writers A Christians faith therefore may begin i.e. in the order of his learning it either at the infallible authority of Scriptures or of the Church and this infallible authority of either of these be learnt from Tradition and that of the other from it Thus N.O. Concerning the Foundation of Faith I referr the Reader to the former Note on p. 84. l. ult Ib. l. 3 He often pleads for necessity of an external infallible Guide because God hath referred all in the dubious sense of Scripture to the direction of his Ministers their Spiritual Guides This is by N.O. given for the reason of another thing not infallibility where N.O. in answer to the Dr's 18th Principle saith in the immediate words preceding ‖ p. 46. Neither can such Promise viz. that whoso useth his best endeavour for understanding Scripture if meant exclusively to his consulting and embracing the Exposition of the Church either shall not err or not be damned for it be pretended necessary since God hath referred all men c. And here the Dr omits the vindicating of his Principle and applyes N. O's words to the proving of Infallibility Pag. 187. l. 9 Whilst the Scriptures are ambiguous c. N. O's words are whilst the Scriptures in such points at least to persons unlearned or of weaker judgments which are the greatest part of Christians are ambiguous which words are here left out by our Author Ib. l. 6 The force of all which comes to this that we can arrive at no certainty of the sense of Scripture in controverted places without an external infallible Guide and therefore we are bound to submit to him Nay comes to this that persons unlearned and of weaker judgments can arrive to no certainty of the sense of Scripture in some matters of necessary faith without an external Infallible Guide and therefore such a Guide is necessary Pag. 188. l. 1. Point to be Discussed What necessity there is for the Salvation of persons to have an infallible interpretation of controverted places of Scripture Salvation of persons he should add persons unlearned and of weaker capacitie and doubting of the sense of such places Of controverted places of Scripture He should add in points necessary of which N.O. every where speaks see his words but now quoted by himself whose Words one would think but that the Dr surely is a man of more integrity that he on purpose to make his Answers more plausible almost every where as to both these omitteth Now the necessity of such an infallible interpretation is this that such person may not err in such Necessaries Ib. l. 8. Men may attain a certain sense without an infallible Guide Here again want words Men all men the vnlearned those of weakest judgment employed in a secular vocation c. attain to a certain sense in all places of Scripture concerning Necessaries Ib. l. 13 1st We are to enquire into the necessity of such an infallible interpretation of doubtful places of Scripture Add in necessaries Pag. 189. l. 1. N.O. Must prove not that there are doubtful and controverted places which no one denies N. 1 but that the sense of Scripture is so doubtful and obscure in the things which are necessary to mens salvation that persons without an infallible Guide cannot know the meaning of them 1 Why it lies more upon N.O. to prove that the sense of Scripture is not clear as to some persons in some points necessary than on the Dr to prove that the Scripture is clear to them in all points necessary I see not since he affirms these plain to all N.O. denies it and Affirmers as he saith ‖ p. 193. ought to prove 2 Here what thinks He of several of the points of the Athanasian Creed urged by N. O much controverted in Antiquity and by the first Councils inserted in this Creed as thought necessary for mens salvation to be known Are the Scriptures so clear in all these as all capacities using an endeavour sutable to their vocations cannot mistake in them Then what thinks he of his own words Ration Account p. 58. urged by N.O. p. 63. and cited before in Note on p. 126. l. 2. The Deity of Christ and the Trinity are they not points necessary to be rightly believed for attaining Salvation And Doth not the guidance of the Church-Governours set over the Church by God Eph. 4.11.13 relate to Necessaries Or where the erring of the unlearned which always many Christians must be 2. Pet. 3.16 tends to mens destruction is not the knowing of the right sense necessary to their salvation What thinks he of the sense of Hoc est Corpus meum urged by N.O. p. 20 Is it clear on the Protestants side to all using a just endeavour when the much major part of Christianity and before Luther's time the whâ—le understands it in the contrary And if none of this world of men hath used a right endeavour how shall any be secure of such a right endeavour used by him that he may be confident in such clear Scripture he is not deceived Or is the true sense of this Text not necessary to be known where such a gross Idolatry is affirmed by our Author to be the necessary consequent of an erroneous sense But if he will restrain Necessaries to the Apostles Creed or perhaps only to three or four principal Articles thereof the pure nescience of which excludes from salvation then as he contends these are clear in Scripture so why will he not allow that General Councils are in these infallible and so the Church in Necessaries an Infallible Guide But then let him consider in any such restraint of necessaries yet whether there are not many other points at least so highly beneficial to salvation as that the Divine Providence is engaged to leave the truth of them also either clear to all sober enquirers in Scripture or to Guides that shall not err in expounding such Scriptures to the people Indeed after so much clamour against the pernicious doctrine of the Church of Rome our Author seems to have a hard task of it and also very unsutable to so much choler to maintain that none of the points agitated between it and Protestants is so necessary for attaining salvation at least with less difficulty to be believed on the Protestant side that God should either leave Scripture for it clear enough to the sober enquirer or else in the sense of Scripture doubtful some living Guide unerrably to determine it Or if he shall say God hath left Scriptures clear to all capacities well-endeavouring in all such points he seems to have as hard a task again to maintain this when the major part of Christianity reading these Scriptures do think against him the contrary to be clear in them But lastly if what He over-lavisheth
to these also this Infallible Guide is necessary to supply the effect of such studies N. 4 As for the 2d means viz. The Ancients urging the general Exposition and sense of Scriptures testified in the Apostolical Churches to be conformed to Catholicks affirm that this viz. the Apostolick Churches their unanimously delivering such a doctrine or sense of Scripture as received first from the Apostles was always held to be infallible and not liable to errour and all Chri tians held oblâ—ged to believe or embrace such a doctrine or sense of Scripture so generally consented in and the dissenters and opposers thereof always held by the same united and consenting Apostolical Churches for Hereticks in the Faith To which Traditive Doctrine I add here or any necâ—ssary and evident Deduction made by them from such a tradiâ—ive doctrine In both which the Tradition or the Deduction the Câ—urch was con tantly believed to be so preserved by God's providence over it and his Holy Spirit abiding with it as not to err in any necessaries And the unanimous consent of these Churches concerning any doctrine to be Apostolical however their minds were made known whether by Communicatory Letters or Provinciâ—l Synods for it could not be in these times of persecution by a Council General had then the self same authority as afterwards the Decrees and Definitions of Councils And thus is the Dr in urging the 2d means of knowing the true sense of Scripture fallen upon the Infallibility herein of the Church And this was the Infallible Guide in the first times whose Tradition and Ordination for matters of our faith Irenaeus saith ‖ l. 3. c. 4. Chriâ—tians muâ—t have followed and believed had the Apostles lest us no Scriptures and consequently Dissenters had been held no less Hereticks Siquibus saith he speaking of the present Churches de aliquâ modicâ quaestione how much more in greater disceptatio esset nonne oporteret in an iquissinas i.e. by succession recurrere ecclesias in quibus Apostoli conversati sunt ab eis de praesente quaestione suâ—ere quâ—d certum re liquidum est what was the certain and cleare tâ—uth to which he was to adhere Quid autem si neque Apostoli quidem Scripturas reliquissent nobis nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis quam tradiderunt iis quibus committebant Ecclesias cui ordinationi assentiunt multae gentes Barbarorum corum qui in Christum creâ—unt sine charactere vel atramento scriptam habentes per spiritum in cordibus suis salutem veterem traditionem diligenter custodientes c. N. 5 Neither was this general Consent of Churches then consulted or repaired-to only concerning their conserving of the Written Rule of Faith the Canon of Scripture or the Creed that they received from the Apostles the perpetual conservation of which in the Church the Fathers urged against some grosser kind of Hereticks denying the same Creed and some part at least of this Canon but also was consulted and repaired-to concerning the sense wherein the Scriptures and this Creed were understood by these Churches so often as disputes in those times were raised about it by other Hereticks more refined and who admitted the Scriptures and the Creed but varied concerning the sense of them in several points Against both which Hereticks the Fathers urged the prescription of the present testimony of these Churches to those who would consult them concerning the Tradition descending to them from the times of the Apostles And Tertullian frequently complains as of some Hereticks not reâ—eiving the Scriptures so of others misinterpreting them ‖ De praescript adv haeres c. 17. c. Ista Haeresis non recipit quasdam Scripturas siquas recipit adjectio ibus detractionibus ad dispositionem instituti sui intervertit si recipit non recipit integras si aliquatenùs integras praestâ—t nihilâ—minùs â—iversas expositiones commentata convertit Tantum veritati obstrepit adulter sensus quantum corruptor stilus And afterward Dicunt a nobis potius adulteria Scripturarum expositionum mendâ—cia inferri And ubi apparu rit esse veritatem disciplinae fidei Coristianae illic erit veritas Scripturarum omnium traditionum Christianarum Where I note his urging the Church's consenting Exposition of Scriptures as well as reception of Scriptures as prescribing against Hereticks Ib l. 11. It will not I hope be denied that the Primitive Christian Church had a cercain way of understanding the sense of doubtful places as far as it was necessary to be understood and that they wanted nâ— means which Christ had appointed for the ending of controversies This is willingly granted and it is contended that this inerrability in Necessaries accompanied the Clergy and preserved the Church in the unity of a true faith in all even the Primitive times being annexed to the whole Body or much major part of this Clergy not only when met in a General Council but out of it also whenever and however they manifested a concurrence in their judgment and agreement in their doctrine whether it were by several Provincial Councils assembled or perhaps only by some one convened in the place more infested with some new and dangerous errour and ratified by the Apostolick See and other coordinate Churches or not opposed and censured but taciâ—ly admitted by them Or by their Communicatory and Synodical Letters Or whether in their publick Liturgies and Offices Or in a general Consent in their publick Writings and explications of Christian Doctrine In none of which as to the Doctrine Necessary the whole Body of the Clergy or that which in any dissent is to be accepted for the whole did ever erre Of which times before Constantine and the first General Council of Nice thus Mr Thorndike in his Epilogue l. 1. c. 8. The daily intercourse intelligence and correspondence between Churches without those Assemblies of Representatives we call Councils was a thing so visibly practised by the Catholick Church from the beginning that thereupon I conceive it may be called a standing Council in regard of the continual settling of troubles arising in some part and tending to question the peace of the whole by the consent of other Churches concerned which settlement was had and obtained by means of this mutual intelligence and correspondence The holding of Councils being a way of far greater dispatch but the express consent of Churches obtained upon the place being a more certain foundation of peace And afterward he affirms That the succession of Pastors alledged by Irenaeus and Tertullian to convince the Hereticks of their time by S. Augustine and Optatus to convince the Donatists to be Schismaticks proceeded wholly upon supposition of daily intercourse and correspondence between Churches as of force to conclude particular Churches by consent of the whole And this agreement in all times hath kept the Faith of the Church steady and uniform Ib. l. 4 If no such thing was then heard of as an
their testimony when pretending one thing Tradition Apostolical than when another though these things perhaps be not of an equal importance Pag. 208. l. 1. Which Tradition they the Hereticks accounted the key to unlock all the difficulties of Scripture Hereticks indeed so accounted their false tradition but so the Churches also their true Tradition Ib. l. 12. Irenaeus appeals to the most eminent Churches And especially that of Rome because of the great resort of Christians thither where he omits the Necesse est No. Propter potentiorem principalitatem saith the Father which Pricipalitas potentior a Petro Paulo fundata caused the great resort of Christians thither propter quam ad hanc necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam c see the words at large cited before Annot. on p. 201. l. 5. Ib. l. 17. And knew of no such tradition as the Valentinians pretended to But this was not all the Fathers pleaded also in the Churches an Anti-tradition true and Apostolical witnessed by the unanimous testimony of the present Apostolical Churches as the others did a false and untestifyed Ib. l. 9 And supposing no Scriptures we must then have followed the Traditien of the most ancient and Apostolical Churches Thus said Irenaeus I add and this Tradition witnessed by the present Churches must be in necessaries infallible else Christian Religion would be liable to errour in such necessaries Pag. 209. l. 14. But Irenaeus knew nothing of any infallible Judge to determine the sense of Scripture For the contraty see Note on p. 197. l. 7. and l. 11. Pag. 210. l. 2. There must be a certain unalterable Rule of faith c. Now this Author removes his discourse from Irenaeus to Tertullian Who also as Irenaeus speaks not only of the Creed professed in Baptism nor of some chief Articles but of the whole doctrine of faith and manners necessary to salvation as also of the right sense of Scriptures controverted that it was delivered to and deposited in the Christian Churches by our Lord and his Apostles and from the unanimous agreement of the same Churches therein in any controversy made concerning it might be certainly learnt and known What hath been said of Irenaeus needs not be repeated concerning him both do tread in the same steps and Tertullian had perused the works of Irenaeus ‖ See contra Valentin c. 5. both referr Christians to the consentient Testimony of the Apostolical Churches in any doubting in matters of faith or disputed sense of Scripture a these Churches firmly conserving and rightly delivering the Tradition Apostolical and as not liable to errour herein Of these Churches thus he De praescript c. 19. Vbi or apud quos apparuerit esse veritatem disciplinae fidei Christianae delivered to them by the Apostles illic erit veritas Scripturarum expositionum omnium traditionum Christianarum And how this if these consentient Churches not held infallible in rightly delivering such Tradition c. 21. And Quid Apostolis Christus revelaverit hic praescribam non aliter probari debere nisi per easdem Ecclesias Proinde constare omnem doctrinam quae cum illis Ecclesiis Apostolicis matricsbus originalibus fidei conspiret veritati deputandam id sine dubio tenentem quod ecclesiae ab Apostolis Apostoli a Christo Christus a Deo suscepit These Churches therefore in no age are errable in conserving or delivering such such doctrine for else how any certain that not in Tertnllian's Superest ergo uti demonstremus an haec nostra doctrina cujus regulam supra edidimus de Apostolorum traditione censeatur Which he demonstrates thus Communicamus cum Ecclesiis Apostolicis quod nulla doctrina diversa facit hoc est testimonium veritatis And after c. 36. speaking of the Apostolical Churches in any diversity of doctrine to be consulted he goes on thus Proxima est tibi Achaia habes Corinthum Si non longè es a Macedoniâ habes Philippos c. Si autem Italiae adjaces habes Roman unde nobis Affricanis authoritas praesto est where he advanceth this Church above the rest as also Irenaeus Faelix ecclesia saith he cui totam doctrinam Apostoli cum sanguine suo profuderunt Videamus quid didicerit i.e. haec ecclesia quid docuerit cùm Affricanis quoque ecclesiis contesserarit Then naming some part of Its Faith and doctrine against the contrary of the Hereticks of those days adversus hanc institutionem saith he neminem recipit into its communion Then concludes Si haec ita se habent ut veritas nobis adjudicetur c non esse admittendos haereticos ad candem de Scripturis provocationem quos sine Scripturis i.e. by the infallible Testimony of the Church discovering their faith not right Probamus ad Scripturas non pertinere And Illic or apud cos igitur Scripturarum expositionum adulteratio deputanda est ubi diversitas invenitur doctrinae from the consentient Churches This occurrs in his Book of Prescriptions against Hereticks In his Books against Marcion are found like things From which authority also of the Apostolical Churches he saith there ‖ l. 4. c. 5. we receive the Canon of Scripture Eadem authoritas ecclesiâ—rum Apostolicarum cateris quoque patrocinabitur Evangeliis quae Evangelia proinde per illas secundum illas habemus Ib. l. 9 He Tertullian shews this Rule of Faith is by repeating the Articles of the Ancient Creed See Note on p. 207. l. 4. I hope He will not confine the consentient Church's authority and testimony only to the express Articles of the Creed used in Tertullian's time for then its testimony will not or may not have the same verity in those of the Athanasian Pag. 213. l. 11. Discovers their imposture Let the Reader well consider whether the Dr's translation in this and the precedent page doth not also make Tertullian clearly enough affirm Church-infallibility and whether he brings not witnesses against himself Pag. 214. l. 14. Thus Tertullian lays down the rules of finding out the sense of controverted places of Scripture without the least insinuation of an infallibility placed in the Guides of the Church for determining the certain sense of them Contrary If we Review what hath been said Tertullian lays down a certain Rule of finding out the sense of controverted places of Scripture viz. a general Consent of the Apostolical Churches touching such sense traditional and descending from the Apostles which Consent ought to determine such sense unto them Ib. l. 5 Prescription or just exception against their pleading for so prescription signifies in him The Plea Tertullian useth against the novelty of ancient Hereticks as also Roman-Catholicks do still against the Protestants namely this Mea est possessio olim possideo prior possideo c. 38. And this ‖ c. 31. Id est dominicum verum quod est prius tradtum id autem extraneum falsum quod est posteriùs immissum I say
necessaries In the Declaration of both which they are always preserved from error by the super-intending of the Divine Providence and the assistance of the Holy Spirit And that supposing the sense of Scripture without recurrence to such Tradition be cleare enough to some yet that it is not so to all who therefore in their faith of such necessaries must depend on the authority direction infallibility of their Guides Unless our Author will say the Condition of all Christians is well capable of using all means possible Pag. 232. l. 5. The same course is taken by Epiphanius c. S. Hilary and S. Epiphanius it seems do endeavour to confute Hereticks out of the Seriptures What then Ib. l. 18. After the Guides of the Church had in the Council of Nice declared what was the Catholick faith yet still the controversy was managed about the sense of Scripture and no other ways made use of for finding it than such as we plead for at this day Was not the Decree of this Council after it held perpetually by the Catholicks urged against them And if not submitted to by them the more to blame the Hereticks of those days as now also the Proâ—estans after the 2d Nicene Laterane Florentine and Trent Councils who did not acquiesce in such a just authority as that of Nice and though I think Mr Chillingworth would not yet will not Dr St. as to the Nicene Council say the same with me These then though denying submission to Councils yet not to Holy Scriptures the Fathers did in those daies as Catholick Doctors do now out of Principles coneeded by them and common to both endeavour to convince them Ib. l. 4 That none of the Catholick Bishops should once suggest this admirable expedient of Infallibility Did not these Bishops continually press to them the consentient Tradition of the Churches and the Definition of the Council of Nice To what end this if it acknowledged by them fallible Might an Authority not infallible put their definitions in the Creed and so it remains to this day in the Dr's Creed upon that account Could it exact belief and anathematize all Dissenters and not profess itself Infallible Pag. 233. l. 7. When they so frequently in Councils contradicted each other See this great Friend of Councils Before ‖ p. 149. the charge was Ancient Church and Councils contradicting those of latter times but now it is grown higher to the Ancient contradicting Ancient without any qualification of Councils held by Hercticks contradicting Councils Catholick for then the sense had been lost But I hope our Adversary is not yet gone so far as to affirm any Council equal in authority with that of Nice contradicting it but if unequal that of Nice only will stand in force Ib. l. 13. If the sense of Scripture were in this time to be taken from the Guides of the Church what security could any man have against Arianism since the Councils which favoured it were more numerous than those which opposed and condemned it i.e. If the sense of the Scripture concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were to be taken from the Guides of the Church met in the Council of Nice what security from thence could we have against Arianisme since the Arian Councils were more numerous than that of Nice and therefore more obligatory than it Doth not our Author here a litle too sar unmask himself Doth he hold then Christians to owe no obedience to the Definition of the Council of Nice against Arianisme Time was when he said ‖ Rat. Account p. 375. We profess to be guided by the sense of Scripture as interpreted by the unanimotes consent of the Fathers and the four first General Councils will he say here If these Councils interpret the Scriptures in the right sense i.e. in his And That the Church of England looks on it as her duty to keep to the Decrees of the four General Councils and so of Nice the first of them Then either the Arian Councils must not be more numerous as here he affirms they were or the more numerous I mean as to the persons present in it not always the more valid which is true But if we are now to defend the authority of the Council of Nice againâ—t the Dr. we muâ—t know that if he there speaks of the plurality of the Arian Councils they many and that of Nice only one this number is no prejudice to any one Council that is of greater authority if he speaks of the plurality of Bishops in some one Arian Council then though there were present in the Nicene Council not above four or five Bishops from all the West Yet that the whole West and all its Bishops accepted it which they never did any of the Arian Councils Therefore Athanasius ‖ Epist ad Episcop Affrican after those Arian Councils held speaks thus of that of Nice Huic certè concilio universus orbis assensum praebuit And Verbum illud Domini per Occumenicam Niceae Synodum in aeternum manet Sive enim quis numerum cum numero comparet tanto major est Nicena Synodus particularibus Conciliâ—s quantum totum sui aliqua parte And 2ly That had the Arian Bishops throughout the whole world at some time outnumbred the Catholick yet these after once pronounced Heretical by the lawful General Council of Nice were invalidated hereby whilst such from having any lawful Vote in a future Council the Catholick Clergy and Bishops remaining a distinct Body from them to whom and not to them the Christian world owed its obedience Ib. l. 9 S. Gregory Nazianzen ‖ Epist 55. declares he had not seen a good issue of any one of them c. He spake this of the many Arian Councils of his time ful of faction and ambition the chief leaders being great Favorites to Constantius an Heretical Emperor Or perhaps of some Council also held at Constantinople wherein he by such contention amongst the Bishops there suffered much but this he said exclusively doubtless both to the first General Council that of Nice Of which he saith ‖ Orat. in laud. Hiero. that Paâ—res nostri pinsque ille hominum mundus qui Nicaeam perrexerunt certis finibus ac verbis Divinitatis doctrinam circumscripserunt And †Orat. in laud. Athanas Sanctum Concilium Niceae habitum at que illum lectissimorum virorum numerum Spiritum Sanctum in unum coegisse and exclusively again to the 2d General Council that of Constantinople which he was a member of and subscribed What need I now trouble my self or the Reader with vindicating Bellarmine on this matter Meanwhile would not the Dr here have his Reader believe that this Father had a mean esteem of the first and second General Councils Pag. 234. l. 7 S. Augustine ‖ Cont. Maximin l. 3. c. 14. in dealing with Maximin as the Arian expresly sets aside all authority of the Guides of the Church as to the sense of Scripture
in the places controverted between thâ—◠〈…〉 Story in brief is this Maximinus an Arian in the beginning of their dispute hath these words Si quid de divinis Scripturis protuleris quod commune est cum omnibus necesse est ut audiamus Hae verò voces quae extra Scripturam sunt homousion nullo casu a nobis suscipiuntur alluding to the definition of homousion by the Nicene Council S. Augustine takes his challenge and as he waved the Council of Nice so did S. Augustine that of Ariminum Upon which here lib. 3. c. 14. after he had said Hoc est illud Homousion quod in Concilio Nicaeno adversus Haereticos Arrianos a Catholicis Patribus veritatis i. e of the Scriptures authoritate authoritatis i.e. by the just authority of a lawfull free General Counci veritate firmatum est quod postea in Concilio Ariminensi c. multis paucorum fraude deceptis Haeretica impietas labefâ—ctare tentavit He condescends thus I say after this uttered in Justification of Nice Sed nunc nec ego Nicaenum nec tu debes Ariminense tanquam praejudicaturus proferre Concilium Nec ego hujus authoritate nec tu illius detineris he saith not tu non teneris but nunc non detineris Scripturarum authoritatibus non quorumque propriis as the two Councils were sed utrisque communibus testibus res cum re causa cum causâ— ratio cum ratione concenset That is this our conference or dispute shall only be as you desire from Authorities of Scripture Of the sense of which Scripture it is willingly granted that in many things many persons may be sufficiently certain without the directions of a Guide but not therefore all persons in all points necessary See before Note on p. 230. l. 15. Mean while none more than S. Austin pleads or vindicates the Authority of the Council of Nice needless to be further proved one would think to Dr St. Pag. 236. l. 1. This is in terms asserted by him ‖ De Doctrin Christian l. 2. c. 9 as a fuundamental principle that in those things which are plainly set down in Scripture all things are to be found which concern our faith and rule of life S. Austin doth not meane that all things containing our faith or manners are so plainly set down in Scripture as to all capacities that many do not need the direction of an infallible Church-authority for settling a certainty of their faith in them a thing affirmed by the Dr To which infallible Authority that this Father referrs such persons for learning the true Faith see that excellent Treatise of his De Vtilitate Credendi i.e. of believing Church-authority Where he saith Cûm res tanta sit ut Dens tibi ratione cognoscendus sit omnes ne putas idoneos c. And Tu in cos libros qui Sancti divinarumque rerum pleni c. sine duce irruis And Omnesne putas idoneos esse percipiendis rationibus quibus ad divinam intelligentiam mens ducitur humana an plures an pnucos paucos ais existimo Quid caeteris ergò hominibus qui ingenio tam screno praediti non sunt negandum Religionem putas Whom therefore he refers to this security of believing Church authority For In religione quid iniquius fieri potest saith he ‖ Ibid quà m ut Dei Antistites nebis non fictum animum pollicentibus credant nos eis praecipientibus nolimus credere And c. 16. that for such persons non esse desperandum ab eodem ipso Deo authoritatem aliquam constitutam quâ velut gradu certo innitetes aâ—â—ollamur in Deum Hanc autem authoritatem seposu â rationc quam sinceram intelligere ut diximus difficillimum stultis est dupliciter nos movere parâ—â—â— miraculis partim sequentium multitudine And ‖ Ib. c. 17. Quid est aliud ingratum esse opi atque auxilio divino quà m tanto labâ—re nost praedictae authoritati velle resistere And De Baptismo l. 3. c. 14. Fieri potest ut integra teneat verba Symboli I may say or of Scripture tamen non rectè credat sive de ipsâ Trinitate sive de Resurrectione vel aliquid aliud Neque enim parva res in ipsâ intus Catholicâ tenere integram fidem ita ut omnino non de aliquà creaturâ sed de ipso Deo nihil aliud credat quà m veritas hâ—bâ—t And in this book de Doctrinâ Christianâ l. 3. c. 2. he joines these two the clearer places of Scripture and the authority of the Church for our learning the Rule of Faith Cùm adhibita imentio saith he incertum esse providerit quomâ—do distinguendum aut pronunciâ—ndum sit consulat Regulam fiaci quam 1 de Scripturarum planioribus locis 2 Ecclesiae authoritate percepit More of this needs not Many excellent Rules this Father gives by which to understand the Scriptures i.e. for the more prudent and learned but not this exclusively to those person 's submitting their Judgments to the Church's authority who have no leisure or parts by these Rules to study the Scriptures or else to other's repairing to it where any thing in the Scriptures after their study still seems to them obscure Pag. 238. l. 12. ‖ S. Austin de Doctrin Christian l. 3. c. 16. Which words ‖ Jo. 6.53 seeming to command somthing evil must be figuratively understood of communicating in the Passion of Christ and calling to mind that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us And not imagining as the words strictly taken sound that our Lords Body and Bloud in a carnal or natural and sensible manner as other flesh is to be eaten and drunk by us as some of our Lords Auditors grossly mis-understood him and so forsook him in which sense Dominus flagitium videtur jubere saith S. Austin Not imagining thus I say but yet believing that his flesh and bloud is there really exhibited to us and fed on by us This Real so as also ineffable Presence of Christs Body and Blood though not to the Symbols yet in the Eucharist and so a reall participation thereof the Church of England and her learnedst Writers have much spoken of and contended for heretofore as well as Catholicks before that the Rubrick or Declaration about kneeling in receiving the Communion was by the importunity of some later Sects admitted a second time into the Common-Prayer Book A.D. 1660. Which Rubrick contrary to the Real Presence in that it denies that Christs substance can be both in Heaven where certainly it is and on earth at the same time was first contrived and published in the 5th year of the Reign of King Edward 6. in the new-moulding and correcting of the former Common Prayer Book published in the first yeare upon the Exceptions and complaints of some forraign Reformed Divines made against it and was then backed also with the 28th Article of Religion under the same King in
a wrong one to posterity If we do not reverence them on this manner and that our obedience be yielded only to what they shall first prove to us the Arian where he thinks nothing proved to him for of this he is to judge is as innocent in dissenting as we in assenting Ib. l. 9 Vincentius Lerinensis his words What either all the Fathers or many of them manifestly frequently and constantly as it were by a Council of them have confirmed by their receiving holding and delivering of it that ought to be held for undoubted certain and firm Vndoubted câ—rtain and firm Upon what account Surely on the Infallibility of something whatever it is 〈◊〉 and this not of Scripture the sense of which is here contested Pag. 248. l. 7 He saith we have no way to deal with them but either only by Scripture or else by plain Decrees of General Councils By these decrees then Vincentius at last hath left us to discern Heresies I would this Authour would do so too Pag. 249. l. 7. And very far from the least supposition of Infallibility Not so surely if our Author remember Vincentius his former words affirming such Infallibility to be in General Councils as that what is delivered by them ought to be held for undoubted certain and firm And we require no more Ib. l. 2 If ancient General Councils have determined it which had greater opportunities of knowing the sense of the Apostolical Church than we it is reasonable we should yield to the Which had greater opportunities of knowing the sense c. But what if latter General Councils of latter ages have determined any thing should we not yield to them also for these times also are nearer to the Apâ—stles than the present And if eight hundred or a thousand years be thought by him too great a distance for deciding such matters why may not an Eutychian think so of four hundred It is reasonable we should yield to them He saith not what Means he yield our Assent No more is desired but that this be yielded to all lawful General Councils in what age soever which Councils may be in any age necessary and in any age are of an equall authority and equally Judges of the sense of Scripture and former Tradition The Council of Nice was submitted to by the Christians of that age though a Council held in their own times He goes on Pag. 250. l. 3. But if there have been none such then the unanimous consent of Fathers is to be taken Page 197. the enquiry was about the means used by the Ancients of attaining the certain sense of Scripture in doubtful places without the supposition of an Infallible Guide the resolution here is that where after examining and comparing places of Scripture the dispute still remains concerning the certain sense thereof that we are to acquiesce in the Decree of a lawful General Council if any such have been concerning it or if not in the unanimous Consent of Fathers I ask and are not those recommended by these Ancients as Certain and Infallible in such matter that is Decreed or Consented in suppose in the matter of our Lord's Divinity wherein the sense of Scripture was disputed by the Arians and Anti-Arians But then concerning this unanimous Consent of the Fathers since the illiterate cannot examine this whom are they to rely on but on the Consent of the present Church Ib. l. 13. If all these meanes were sufficient then theâ—â— is no necessity of infallibility in the Guides of the Church One Exception is here to be put in Viz. Unless N. O. will call the Testimony of General Councils delivering a certain sense of Scripture or the unanimous Consent of Catholick Churches which the Ancient Authors this Author hath quoted do maintain to be firm certain and free from doubt an Infallibility in the Guides of the Church as he doth So that it seems to follow just contrary to our Author If these Means are prescribed by the Fathers then there is a necessity of an Infallibility in the Church-Guides Annotations on § 14. S. Austins Testimony examined Annotations on §. 14. S. Austins Testimony examined PAg. 250. l. 11 Infallibility in delivering the sense of Scripture in obscure places Add In points necessary Pag. 251. l. 12. S. Austin doth not suppose that man cannot attain to any certainty of the sense of Scripture in this matter concerning Rebaptization without the Church's Infallibility for he saith in the Chapter preceding that in this matter we follow the most certain Authority of Canonical Scriptures But S. Austin ‖ Cont. Crescon l. 1. c. 32. declares his meaning in the next words to be only this Viz. Quia hoc per universam Catholicam observari placuit quod tenemus which N. 1 he proceeds to explain further in the words following cited by N. O. Quam vis hujus rei i.e. concerning Non-Rebaptization certè de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum earundem tamen Scripturarum etiam in hâc re à nobis tenetur veritas cùm hoc facimus quod universae jam placuit Ecclesiae quam ipsarum Scripturarum commendat authorit as ut quoniam Sancta Scriptura fallere non potest quisquis falli metuit hujus obscuritate quaestionis not cleared in Scriptures eandem Ecclesiam de illâ consulat And what the Father saith here of our retaining the verity and authority of Scriptures in our obeying the Decrees and Resolutions of the Church to which Church we are referred by them the same saith he elswhere ‖ De Vnita Eccles c. 22. concerning our obeying the authority and verity of Christ when Christ also referrs us to the guidance of his Church in these words Dicat mihi nunc haereticus Quomodo nâ—eâ—suscipis Citè respondeo sicut suscipit Ecclesia cui Christus perhibet testimonium Nunquid tu meliùs potes nosse quomodo suscipiendus sis quà m Salvator noster medicus vulneris tui Hic fortè dicis Lege ergo mihi quemâ—d â—odum Christus suscipi jusserit eos qui ab haereticis transire ad Ecclesiam voâ—unt Hoc apertè atque evidenter nec ego lego nec tu i.e. in the Scriptures Here we see is neither example nor any other plain direction in the Scripture or from our Lord himself concerning this matter He goes on Nunc verò cùm in Scripturis non inveni amus aliquos ad ecclesiam transisso ab haereticis sicut ego dico aut sicut tu dicis esse susceptos puto si aliquis sapiens extitisset cui Dominus Jesus Christus testimonium perhibet de hâc quaestione consuleretur à nobis nullo modo dubitare deberemus id facere quod ille dixisset ne non tam ipsi qùam Domino Jesu Christo cujus testimonio commend ibatur repugnare judicaremur Perhibet autem testimonium Christus Ecclesia suae Quomodo ergo suscipit ista Ecclesia peromnes gentes incipientibus ab Hierusalem remotis omnibus
quo velut gradu certo innitentes attollamur ad Deum And c. 17. Quid est aliud ingratum esse opi auxilicque Divino quam praedictae authoritati velle resistere In respect of which Authority he saith that In Catholica Ecclesia there is sincerissima sapientia which also he defines adhaesio veriâ—ati And Turbam non intelligendi vivacitas sed credendi simplicitas tutissimam facit Ibid. he saith he believes the Gospel from this Authority of the Catholick Church Quâ authoritate Catholicorum infirmatâ Contra Epist Manich c. 4. jam nec Evangelio credere potero quia per eos illi credideram Of which see more in his 11. l. Cont. Faustum c. 2. c. N. 6 And the Motives he saith that induced him to credit and follow such Authority are such as these urged by N. O. ‖ p. 87. Ibid. Besides the Wisdome he observed in the Church Tenet me saith he consensio populorum atque gentium tenet authoritas miraculis inchoâ—ta spe nutrita charitate aucta vetustate firmata tenet ab ipsà Sede Petri Apostoli cui pascendas oves suas post Resurrectionem Dâ—minus commendavit usque ad praesentem Episcopatum successio Sacerdoâ—um c. Where we may observe him as also Irenaus Terâ—ullian and Cyprian giving a special Principality amongst other Churches to that of Rome for which likewise he cites that Text Jo. 21.15 of our Lord 's giving a special charge to S. Peter of feeding his Sheep which special Commission of our Lord to Peter also S. Paul seems to relate-to Gal. 2.8 where he saith the Apostleship of the Circumcision was given not to all the Apostles but to Peter and so this Father in his 162. Epistle against the Donatists naming this See amongst others with whom Caecilianus was joined in communion he saith In quâ Ecclesiâ Romanâ semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit Principatus Again in his Book De Vtilit Credendi speaking of the same Church Authority Hâc autem saith he sepositâ ratione dupliciter nos movet partim miraculis partim sequentium multitudine And Hoc ergo credidi famae celebritate c. 14. consensione vetustate roboratae And Quae ab ipso Christo per Apostolos ad nos usque manavit abhinc ad posteros manatura est c. 17. And yet more fully Dubitamus nos ejus ecclesiae condere gremio quae usque ad confessionem generis humani ab Apostolica Sede per successiones Episcoporum frustra haereticis circumlatrantibus partim plebis ipsius judicio partim Conciliorum gravitate partim etiam miraculorum majestate i. e by Miracles done in this Church after the Apostles times of several of which S. Austin himself was an eye-witness and also of some an Instrume damnatis culmen authoritatis obtinuit Whereas he observes of the Donatists ‖ Epist 48. That in their discovery of which is the true Church they declined Vniversality and appealed as Protestants do to the Marks of its true observance of the Divine Precepts and right administration of the Sacraments marks according to their different perswasions some men find in one Church some in another Vos estis saith he qui non ex tetius orbis communione sed ex observatione praeceptorum omnium divinorum atque omnium Sacramentorum tenetis Catholicam fidem And Acutum aliquid videris dicere dum Catholicae nomen non ex totius orbis communione interpretaris sed ex observatione praeceptorum omnium divinorum c. And I have thus copiously cited him the more fully to satisfy the candid Reader in this matter of the greatest consequence and that the places in him that seem more clear may prevent the mistaking glosses that may be made on some other This of S. Augustine's being no stranger to the Church's Sovereign Authority and Infallibility in her Definitions and that the obeying Her was the obeying the command of our Lord and conforming to the verity of Scripture and the knowing of her easy by the forementioned marks Pag. 252. l. 14. S. Austin was willing to bring it to that issue that what the Catholick Church after so much discussing the point had agreed upon should be received as the truth As a Truth So may that which indeed is an errour But S. Austin every where contends as was but now shewed that it must be a most certain truth which a General Conncil of the Catholick Church agreed in and determined so and in this had the Donatists no way contradicting him So Cont. Crescon l. 1. c. 28. He saith to the Donatist Vnam fidem esse Vnam incorruptam i.e. not errin Catholicam ecclesiam Haec inter nos conveniunt And De Vnit Eccl. c. 24. Doce huic Communioni tuae apertum aliquod manifestum testimonium a Scripturis Canonicis perhiberi fateor ad te esse transeundum nec aliter esse suscipiendos Haereticos quà m sicut suscipit Ecclesia in quâ es quia tali testimonio Scripturarum declarata est i.e. to be the true Church and consequently that Truth to be maintained in it which all are to follow This then whether the Catholick Church always defines a certain Truth was no Question between them but Whether their's or his were this Church Catholick which Catholick Church these Churches being divided in Communion was but one of them This therefore the Father endeavoured to prove to the Donatist And if it be not a certain truth that such Councils determine for any thing I know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also for Scriptures concerning it are still eagerly disputed on both sides and this point of Non rebaptization found in the Creed as well as it may be brought in time only to be received as a truth but not certainly concluded a Truth And all this for avoiding Church-Infallibility and maintaining an ill-grounded Principle Which Church Infallibility once cashiered what would become of the Christian Faith in so many Sects daily rising up and after a new mode still interpreting the Scriptures Ibid. l. 9. S. Austin doth not hereby intend to make the Church's Authority to resolve all doubts concerning Scriptures No but to resolve all doubts in matters necessary Pag. 253. l. 11. For neither saith S. Austin ‖ De Vnita Eccles c. 11. are we to yield to Catholick Bishops themselves if they be at any time so much deceived as to hold what is contrary to Canonical Scriptures This is most certain Certain I say though understood of a General Council of these Catholick Bishops upon the supposition that these should hold what is contrary to Canonical Scriptures but S. Austin is farr from supposing here or in any other place that these may hold so especially In manifestissimâ Voce Pastoris in voce ejus clarâ apertâ in a matter wherein the Scriptures are very clear of which he there speaks Or if these General Councils should interpret any such Scriptures in a contrary sense
doubtful and obscure a nature as Rebaptization is our Author allows this presumtion on the Church's side ought he not much more in a clearer Pag. 258. l. ult S. Austins words The custom of the Church having been confirmed by a General Council c. It may now 〈…〉 now said that we follow what Truth hath declared Doth not S. Austin here from Non-Rebaptization being confirmed by a General Council which examined Custome and Scriptures declare himself secure of this truth not to be amended by latter Councils Pag. 259. l. 13. That in a matter of so doubtful and obscure a nature c. we are to believe that to be the truth which the Church of Christ agreed in c. And afterward he faith In such a case as this and so he saith before ‖ p. 257. in a question so doubtful he agrees to what S. Austin saith and thinks a man very much relieved by following so evident a consent of the Vniversal Church but the not so relieved S. Austin declares Hereticks not by vertue of any Infallibility but the unreasonableness of believing that so many so wise so disinteressed persons should be deceived That in a matter of so doubtful and obscure a Nature What means this limitation Are we to believe that to be truth which Councils determine in matters obscure I suppose he means generally obscure but not so in matters more clear One would think the contrary rather But who is to judge when the Question or matter is obscure since on this depends our assent to the Council The Donatist for example in this matter of Rebaptization But he will say This matter is clear enough on his side And so this Author promising as to present Controversies the same submission in case of obscurity to a General Council this case here of obscurity will not be found because these points they say are clear on their side and they offer demonstration of them But if Protestants will affirm that we are to believe that to be the truth which General Councils resolve without limiting it to certain cases because it is as he saith unreasonable to believe so many so wise so disinteressed persons should be deceived and then grant that consequently in necessaries these Councils must not err for so we should be obliged to believe in necessaries something wrong and false this would be as much as we desire Ib. l. 3 Let the same evidences be produced for the consent of the Vniversal Church from the Apostolical times in the matters in dispute between our Church and that of Rome and the controversy of Infallibility may be laid aside What was the Consent of the universal Church from the Apostolical times was the Question between S. Austin and the Donatists For the Donatists also pleaded a contrary Tradition against the Catholicks See Firmilian Ep. 75. â—pud Cyprian Caeterùm nos veritati consuetudinem jungimus c. as also the same Consent is controverted now concerning Now for a sufficient and certain decision of the truth in this Question viz. what the former Tradition was or what was our Lords will in this matter S. Austin urgeth the consent of the present Church met in a General Council and there discussing the matter Where S. Austin doth not require the Donatists submission to the Consent of the universal Church from the Apostolical times first proved to them i.e. they confessing it so for this if proved to them Donatists did not nor could not decline as now neither doth the Dr. Let the Pope's Supremacy c be proved by an universal consent of Antiquity c. p. 244. and here Let the same evidence be produced for the consent of the universal Church from the Apostolical times c. that is as I understand him Let such a consent be evidenced to us But S. Austin requires their submission and belief to the latter General Council of Nice or Arles or both it matters not declaring what was the former Apostolical Tradition Which if the Infallibility of this Council needs not be stood on as to the Donatist's obedience yet it is in the Council's determination of any necessaries as to Christians believing in such necessaries a Truth of which necessaries also this Council not their Subjects is to judge And the Father's words would have weighed little with these Affricans perswading them to obey the Councils Sentence though an errour Therefore he fortifies the Councils Decree with the former expressions Christus perhibet testimonium And In hâc re tenetur Scripturarum veritas Pag. 260. l. 9. Let them never think to fob us off with the consent of some latter ages for a tradition from Apostolical times But He ought to admit and submit to any universal consent of the Apostolical Churches of any latter age concerning what is the Tradition from Apostolical times as S. Austin admitted it and declared the Donatists Hereticks for not admitting it He goes on Ib. l. 10. Nor of a packed company of Bishops for a truly General Council He hath reason But surely there will need no packing of Bishops for their voting such a matter in Council which all the Bishops of the Christian world or if it be but the much major part of them have abetted and maintained taught and practiced before such Council And so it was in the Councils held before Luther's appearance and also afterward in that of Trent that for the greatest part of the Western Bishops who could only be convened in it but the same may be said as truly of the Eastern too were in most of the controversies there decided against the Protestants so perswaded in their judgment before their meeting in that Council as they or others afterward voted in it Annotations on his §. 15. Of Church-Authority said not to be destroyed by the Dr's Principles PAg. 260. l. 15. The last thing to be considered is whether the same arguments which overthrow Infallibility do likewise destroy all church-Church-Authority N.O. sheweth some reasonings in the Dr's Principles with which he endeavoured to destroy Church Infallibility to ruine also as much or more church-Church-Authority viz. as to their office of Teaching Christs flock and expounding to them the Scriptures These particular reasonings of the Dr questioned for this N.O. expected should in an Answer to him have been resumed by the Dr and justified But in the first of these quotations that follow out of N.O. p. 50. he finds our Author mentioning N O's Consequence indeed but omitting the Argument immediately preceding from which he inferred it viz. First Observe that whatever Divine assistance is advanced here viz. in the Dr's 19. Principle against the assurance that can be received from Church-Infallibility the same is more advanced against any assurance that may be had from Church-Authority And so Church-Authority as to this matter is thrown off by him as well as Church-Infallibility To this Observation the Dr saith nothing In the 2d Quotation out of p. 70. he finds him mentioning the Charge
of Supremacy which Supremacy is therein given to the Civil Magistrate without any exception of these the Church's fundamental Rights unless the Dr with Bishop Bramhal holds the sense of this Oath to maintain only an external coactive power in such spiritual matters belonging to the Civil Magistrate which I suppose no Catholick will deny to him Or unless he will say that the Oath excludes a forreign Church-Supremacy distinct from that of the State but not so a domestick one as to some fundamental Church-Rights But then how can the Ecclesiastical Supremacy of a General Council though forreign be excluded where the Supremacy of an inferiour and subordinate Church-authority is admitted 2 Or 2ly means he that the Church hath such fundamental Rights given her by our Lord but so that she may not actually exercise them in these things whenever the Civil Power if Christian doth oppose and prohibite them But then what if such Civil Power should happen to be as possibly it may Heretical Here may the Church in such a State neither declare still such Truths nor inflict any Censures I mean of Excommunication on such as are reall Delinquents And to use the Dr's words ‖ Irenicum p. 422. Can we imagine our Blessed Saviour should institute a Society and leave it destitute of means to uphold it self unless it be sustained by the Civil Power Whenas saith he before the Church flourished in its greatest purity not only when not upheld but when most violently opposed by the Civil Power Ib. l. ult Of which Rights this is one of the chief to receive into and exclude out of the Church such persons which according to the laws of a Christian Society are fit to be taken in or shut out Then I hope that this Society may also keep Assemblies as a fundamental Right though these prohibited by the Commonwealth and that the highest Courts thereof may exercise the foresaid Jurisdiction over its members into whatever Commonwealth though opposing this Church these members be incorporated Pag. 268. l. 12. And in establishing those ancient Rites of the Christian Church which are in themselves of an indifferent nature But what if this Authority being fallible judge somthing indifferent that is not May any be forced to obedience and the practice thereof which he calls below over-ruling the practice and consequently first to assenting to the lawfulness of a thing wherein this Authority is fallible And if such Authority execute its Censures on such persons disobeying it is not this Tyranny Or if not why is that of the Roman Church so Ib. l. 5 The Church hath an authority of proposing matters of faith and directing men in Religion But so may any one more learned than others propose and direct them But what thinks he of the Church s defining or imposing any such matter of faith to be believed Surely either the Church hath by Right such an Authority or the first four General Councils usurped it And doth not such an Authority if justifiable inferr an Infallibility But then this directing and proposing is as to Necessaries needless where all is clear and plainly proposed in Scripture for every ones capacity without repairing to this Authority But if he means so plain in Scripture that men following these their Guides cannot mistake in it the plainness lies not in the Text but in their Exposition Pag. 269. l. 15. Authority to declare what the mind and will of God is contained in Scripture c. And are the people to receive what they declare as such Or have they authority to declare what they think the mind of God is and their Auditors to judge whether it be contained in Scripture every one for themselves But this latter must multiply Sects and the former includes Infallibility in Necessaries Ib. l. 6 Especially having all the ancient rights of a Patriarchal Church I suppose He here by the word Patriarchal claims no other rights or priviledges for the Church of England than those of a Primatical Church such as those of the Churches of France Spain or Affrick and that the Primate of Canterbury is no higher elevated by him than the Primate of Carthage or Toledo and that notwithstanding any such Primateship the Church of England and the Prelates thereof are subject as also those of Spain France or Africk to any Reformation of errours made by Superiour Councils whether Patriarchal of the West or General of the whole Church Catholick both which Councils also are acknowledged Superiour to National or Provincial by learned Protestants Ib. l. ult To do as much as in them lyes to reform them viz. by requiring a consent to such Propositions as are agreed upon for that end of those who are to enjoy the publick offices of teaching and instructing others N. 1 Here he allows a just authority in Anglican National Synods to agree upon declare and publish any propositions for reforming or correcting of errours in the Doctrine of Religion i.e. as I understand him only or chiefly in matters of faith though he doth not name it the care of the preservation of which faith in their several precincts is committed to the Bishops of the Church To publish and declare he saith what those errours are and to reform them it is said also in the 20th Article of the Church of England that the Church hath authority in Controversies of faith but not so as to ordain any thing contrary to God's written Word i.e. as I imagine hath authority in deciding of such Controversies For what authority else can be shewed in matters of Controversy since teaching must follow the deciding what is to be taught and the Article requiring that they do not ordain or decree any thing contrary to Gods written word or enforce the same to be believed for necessity of salvation seems to imply they may decree what they think is his Word This Author also saith such Synod may require consent to which I suppose is the same as assent or belief of the truth of such propositions as such Synod hath agreed on from those who are to enjoy the publick offices of teaching and iustructing others i.e. from all the Clergy Now to this I have these things to reply N. 2 1st In this his stating of the Church's Authority to do as much as in them lyes to reform errours in Religion or Faith here is no restraint of any who live in its Communion save only of the Clergy from erring their former errours No consent to its Decrees required of the rest but that they may be Arian Socinian Nestorian and what not yet enjoy her Communion may be partly compounded of Orthodox partly Hereticks as to the Laicks in whom all opinions are tolerated This I say follows according to his stating this Authority here for the Canons of this Church seem contrary and to require assent from all and according to what this Dr hath said also elsewhere Ration Account p. 133. where he describes the Church a Society of
them if the whole be so It follows Pag. 270. l. 3. Not to the end that all those propositions should be believed as articles of faith Not that all but doth the Church of England then require that some of her propositions in the 39. Articles should be believed and assented to by them as Articles of her Faith His saying not all seems to imply as much and see Art 8. which saith the three Creeds ought thorowly to be received and believed This and believed being added by Queen Elizabeths Divines to the former Article as it was penned in King Edwards dayes And several of the other Articles are required to be assented to as things contained in Scripture and so as infallible and these things such as the Church of Rome's errour in them is called erring in matter of faith See Art 19. and since the principal reformation of errours that belongs to Church-authority is of those that are contrary to the doctrine of faith the preservation of which faith is chiefly entrusted to the Church's care surely it would seem a piece of strange subtilty to ty her Clergy to assent to that which is matter of faith in which faith also the Roman Church hath erred and yet not to oblige them to assent to it as a matter of faith If then she doth require Assent to some of her Articles at least as of faith upon what ground may a fallible Authority do this and why may not other Churches do this as inculpably as that of England Or if she doth not require an assent to any of her Articles as of faith of which Bishop Bramhall ‖ Reply to Chalcedon p. 350. speaks thus diminutively We do use to subscribe to them the 39. Articles indeed not as Articles of faith but as Theological Verities for the preservation of unity among our selves then the Clergy of England as to faith receiving the words of the Creeds are as for all other things permitted to believe what or how little they please Ib. l. 17. We cannot help the weakness of those mens understanding who cannot apprehend that any such thing as authority should be left in a Church if we deny Infallibility other diseases may be cured but natural incapacity cannot Non prudentes apud vosmetipsos Rom. 12.16 See Note on p. 263. l. 10 and on p. â—60 l. 15. Ib. l. 4 As that it were the foundation of all the Heresies and Sects in the world See before Note on p. 263. l. 2. and on p. 271. l. 2 n. 2. Ib. l. 3 This Principle he saith makes all Ecclesiastical Authority useless All Ecclesiastical Authority N. O. saith not this frequently imposed upon him by the Dr See before p. 262. 267. thereby to shape a thing like an answer to him in shewing the Church's Authority usefull or necessary as to several other things And the words following here that are truly cited out of N. O. do limit this uselesness of Ecclesiastical Authority to the Office of Teaching and that in matter necessary according to Dr St's limitation in his Principle of the Scriptures being as to these necessaries clear the words are clear to all persons have a limitation also in N. O. which he is pleased to leave out and conceal from his Reader viz. this I mean exclusively to their repairing to these Pastors for the learning of the meaning of such Scriptures N. 1 Ses Fanaticism fanatically imputed p. 99. Pag. 271. l. 2. For since that Train of my Principles hath been laid nothing like the old Church of England hath been seen Mr. S. C. professeth himself to think more honourably of the Church of England than to follow or maintain these Principles of the Dr and that the regard Its Governours have both to the King 's and Kingdome 's safety and their own Character will not permit them to yield to an Anarchy first in the Church and presently after in the Kingdome He saith not that since the Dr's laying his train c. nothing like the old Church of England hath been seen but that upon his ground if received and practised in this Church all would be reduced into meer Fanaticisme for saith he § 91. To make every Christian soberly enquiring into Scripture to be his own Teacher in all necessary points of faith and it is no matter what becomes of unnecessary points and to be a competent Judge of the true sense of Scripture in them all this without any regard to all External Authority infallible or fallible either for an infallible one being unnecessary what necessity can there be of a fallible authority which none is or can be bound to believe can be nothing but Fanaticisme in the heigth of its Notion Thus he N. 2 And indeed 1st For matter of fact it is manifest that several Sects of late have much more multiplied in the Church of England than in former times 2ly Manifest also that since Chillingworth's taking this way of answering church-Church-Authority when much pressed on him these Principles have been more in vogue and more openly maintained viz. 1 That For points necessary and for others no matter if controversy still remains Scriptures are clear to all capacities using a due diligence therein without any expressing or explaining of themselves in this manner that they mean using a due diligence to be instructed by their Spiritual Pastor in the right sense thereof which limitation should it be added would seem to make more for Church-Infallibility than against it Again 2 That every Christian is bound to reject whatever is offered to be imposed upon his faith which hath no foundation in Scripture or is contrary thereto as Dr St. in his 29th Principle i.e. if we make any sense of it which he such persons do think hath no foundation in Scripture c. for if he means here which the Church judgeth to have no foundation in or to be contrary to Scripture so say Catholicks but when will the Church judge thus and impose the contrary Again That in the Church all men are left to judge according to the Pandects of the Divine Laws because each member of this Society is bound to take care of his soule and of all things that tend thereto ‖ Rat. Account p. 133. That men are to try the Doctrines of their Guides for that many false ones are gone out into the world c. See before the Texts urged to this purpose by the Dr p. 144. c. Manifest I say that more of late such propositions and Principles as these have been much divulged and propagated But whether such Principles or some other things have actually caused such a licentiousness in opinions as hath been of late I cannot determine only this I may affirm and do appeale to the candid Reader 's judgment therein that such Principles do much invite and encourage such a Self-guidance in Spiritual matters and diffidence in and independence on our Lord's Clergy whilst Chillingworth freely acknowledgeth ‖ c. 2. §.
and Doctors met in Oecumenical Councils in all ages I would you could prove a truly Oecumenical Council in any age He proceeds Ib. l. 17. But we cannot endure to be abused by meer names of Titular Prtriarchs with Combinations of interested Parties instead of General Councils You do well in this But not so if you charge any such things on those former Councils whereof the more universal judgment of other Metropolitan Churches cleareth them in their accepting them for lawful and obliging and conforming in their belief and practice to their Decrees which general acknowledgment of them supplies also any defect that might have been in the management of them Ib. l. 3 If we then oppose so general a consent of the Christian Church let them charge us with not submitting to all the Authority extant of the world And what then when you are so charged Then you will say as you have said ‖ p. 241 242 That the Church in any one or more ages since the Apostles times may be deceived And That universality in any one age without the Consent of Antiquity which Consent you not It shall judge of is no sufficient Rule to interpret Scripture by nor consequently to decide the Controversies arising therein Pag. 285. l. 6. And every free Church c. See Note on p. 281. l. 1. It follows Ib. l. 9. Hath a sufficient power to reform all abuses within it self when a more general consent cannot be obtained But not to reform any thing contrary to such doctrines c to which a more general consent hath already been obtained in several Councils that before the Church was divided were generally received A Metropolitan Church may have a sufficient power to reform somthing without but nothing contrary to the Decisions or Canons of a Superiour Authority Ib. l. 14. How very pitiful an advantage can from hence be made by the dissenting parties among us For the advantages dissenting parties make hence see before Note on p. 180. l. 9. p. 263. l. 2. p. 271. l. 2 It follows Ib. l. 12 Who decry that Patriarchal and ancient Government as Antichristian which we allow as prudent and Christian But doth this Author allow it as of Divine Institution and necessary I mean the Government of the Church by Bishops Ib. l. 9 N. O. saith my Principles afford no effectual way or means in this Church of suppressing or convicting any Schisme Sect or Heresy or reducing them either to submission of judgment or silâ—nce Therefore my Principles are destructive to all church-Church-Authority Destructive to all authority N. O. makes no such Consequence But the immediate words following those cited by our Author are these ‖ Princip Consid p. 98. For where both sides contend Scripture clear for themselves the clearness of such Scripture how great soever on one side can be made no instrument of conviction to the other Here therefore things must be prosecuted further than Scripture to a Dic Ecclesiae And then for the convicting and suppressing such Heresies and Schismes this Church appealed and complained to must have authority and infallibility at least as to necessaries to decide truly such contests about the sense of Scripture which may happen to be in them and justly to punish with her censures as the useth to do those that are Hereticks i. e. dissenters from her definitions and so preserve the Church in the unity of the true Faith things denied to it by the Dr. Ib. l. 2 The design of my Principles was to lay down the Foundations of faith and not the means of suppressing heresies But his Principles laying down the foundations of Faith if good must be such as consist with the foundations of Peace also and with the means of suppressing Heresies And to his Instances I say Aristotle may be justly blamed for his Logick or Hippocrates for his Aphorismes if the one be found to contain any thing contrary to Civil Government or the other to the Colledge of Physicians Pag. 286. l. 2 We are sure the meer authority of their Church hath been no more effectual means of suppressing sects than that of ours hath been N. 1 I think He hath yielded the contrary before p. 136. where being pressed that the subjects of the Roman Church however their other private opinions may differ do all submit their judgments to the determinations of her Councils which takes away all Divisions in her as to such matters this being not so in the Church of England he hath these words I do not say that the Church of Rome hath no advantage at all in point of Vnity but that all the advantage it hath comes from force and fraud viz. such force as the Council of Niee used to its subjects viz. Anathemas to Dissenters And We do not envy them the effects of tyranny and deceit It is the Vnion of Christians we contend for not of Slaves or Fools And I freely yield that they have a juster pretence to Vnity without Truth than we Where this effect a greater Vnity is granted by him but that this is without Truth is denied by us But N. 2 setting this aside we contend that where it is affirmed 1. That Scriptures are so cleare in all necessaries that none of what condition soever using their right endeavour to understand them can mistake 2. And again that there is no other Infallible Judge to determine certainly any sense of Scripture in such necessaries where it is controverted nor which may require submission of judgment from their subjects to their sentence and so the people left to their own judgment one man upon using as he thinks a just endeavour being confident of one sense of Scripture plain to him another of the contrary which judgment of particulars the Church fallible hath no power to sway or correct Nor on the other hand the Scripture doth decide to them at all on which side it is clear Here we say is left no effectual way which yet always the Church must have one or other for clearing and purging itself of Heresies and Schisms by which the opinion of either of these and so of any Sect of them erring in some necessary points or by which any Heresy may be suppressed or the persons so perswaded severed from the Church's Communion and so the Principles must be unsound that inferr such Consequences N. 3 But there is such an effectual way in the Church which is maintained to have power as it is by Catholicks to determine in all Controversies about necessaries and in this amongst others concerning the Apostolicalness of a former Tradition or the legitimacy of a former Council what doctrine is true and Apostolical and to Anathematize all Dissenters whereby she either reduceth Sectarists if submitting to her judgment or separateth them from the Church if opposing it And such way accords very well with our Lords Sit tibi sicut Ethnicus Publicanus Mat. 18.17 2 Cor. 10.6 Tit. 3.10 and with S. Paul's In
to the end of the world on purpose to expound the Scriptures and out of these to teach them all Necessaries for their salvation and to keep them stable and fixed from being tossed to and fro with every winde of doctrine that capricious fancies may imagine there or malicious pretend Necessary to inform them that are to learn of these Pastors the true sense of Gods Word according to former Church-Tradition and that they are to rest in their judgement as Dr Field hath and follow their faith as the Apostle ‖ Heb. 13.7 that they may not usurp their Office c. Lastly that supposing these Guides also should erre yet it is better for them still that all erre one errour which is the errour of their Guides because there will be at least some unity and peace in that and some excuse for the errour of Inferiours yea also in probability more verisimilitude than that every one should erre a several and his own errour to the utter ruine of Peace and a greater deviation from Truth But that which our Authour hath changed here and in stead of submission of judgement put only in general terms due obedience and submission and this due to be stated as I apprehend not by these Governours but those that owe it leaves all Sects still to enjoy their own tenents how absurd or impious soever and with these also to enjoy the Communion of the Church notwithstanding a due submission called for by it So that its subjects are still left to be tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine that blowes though the Apostle saith God hath appointed Governours to prevent it nor are tied to follow the Faith of their Guides as the Apostle requires nor to learn the sense of Scripture where this is disputed from those whom our Lord hath appointed to teach it them So that notwithstanding this latter defence made here by this Author I see no reason but that I may conclude these Notes on his Reply as N.O. doth his Considerations on his Principles That since it is the Church's Authority that must rectify such diversity of Opinions for the attaining unity and peace in the points controverted this Authority is necessary in the first place to be established in stead of leaving every fancy to perspicuity of Scripture And that the prudent may consider whether the authority of a Church must not necessarily be much debilitated and brought into contempt and daily like to wane more and more where such a new way is taken up of its Defence that he thinks himself its best Advocate and Pleader of its cause who doth most endeavour to set forth the defects and failings of all Ecclesiastical Societies Prelates and Councils in which office I appeale to the candid and equal Reader whether this Author hath not in this Discourse vigorously emploied his Pen and who best proves no Scripture-Promises made to them Nay where to the end to evacuate the Infallibility of any Society or Church in Necessaries is set up a Counter-Lay-Infallibility of private men if onely sincere endeavourers for understanding Holy Writ in all the same Necessaries Where therefore such new Maxims are still spread abroad and received with applause which were first made more current and common by Mr Chillingworth forced to it as the last refuge left to shelter him from Obedience to a just Church-Authority it is no great wonder if the broachers of new Sects and extravagant fancies in Religion the Contemners of Church-Authority and of the Clergy who first contemned and vilified themselves do daily in such parts so exceedingly multiply and increase Sed Tu Pastor Bone adduc istas oves perditas in Ovile tuum ut vocem tuaem audiant fiat unum Ovile unus Pastor Amen Pag. 290 l. ult Dr St's Conclusion I have thus far considered the main Foundations upon which N.O. proceeds in opposition to my Principles there is now very little remaining which deserves any notice and that which seems to do it as about Negative Articles of Faith and the Marks of the true Church I shall have occasion to handle them at large in the following Discourse I have perused his following Discourse in Vindication of the Protestants Grounds of faith and find nothing answered to what N.O. hath objected p. 76. concerning the Protestants Negative Articles of Faith or hath urged p. 86. concerning the Marks or evidences by which among many pretenders that Church may be known from which known we are to learn Truth But I wonder not at it since in this Discourse pretending to answer N. O's Considerations no reply is returned to a greater part of them Nor the arguings in his Principles justified where they are by N.O. questioned Which perhaps may be the reason why he saith here only that he hath thus far considered the main Foundations upon which N.O. proceeds the Structure it self remains yet unconsidered and as for his digging here at the Foundation it hath been but lost labour If the Church be a sure Foundation N. O's must stand FINIS
States to change alter improve abolish according to several Constitutions of the Civil Government things that are not essential to Christian Religion nor expresly prescribed by our Lord or his Apostles but to say nothing meanwhile how what are or are not such Essentials or so commanded shall certainly be known and decided Yet which acting the other necessarily presupposeth the stating of this But wisely little talk they have of this because such thing would inferr a Judge in these matters beside Scripture § 10 To limit the Authority of such Spiritual Guides that it obligeth not when any thing is repugnant to plain Commands of Scripture which it seems either these Governours cannot see or will dissemble or when any other way found not agreeable to Gods Word and then judging themselves when it is or is not so Or if their own judgment may seem too partial making an appeale to the judgment of Common Reason against these Guides as if both they and the Major part of the Christian World that follow them had no such faculty or that this Common Reason were only in a few Again that such authority obligeth not in any thing repugnant to the Evidence of Sense as if either such evidence were not considered by these Persons in Authority or that they had not their senses so perfect as other men To distinguish between the several Ages of the Church and allow more Authority to the Governours of the past as thinking themselves more out of their reach than of the present To annul as much as in them is the Subordinations of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy or render them arbitrary and dependent on Civil States and to level as much as may be their authority and Jurisdiction introducing such a Polyarchy into the Catholick Church as would not be endured in a Temporal Government nor is indeed suffered by wise Princes in a National Church within their own Dominions I will have one Doctrine and one Discipline one Religion in substance and in Ceremony said King sames ‖ Conference at Hampt Court § 11 To inveigh against the Immunityes and priviledges of the Church either given at first by our Lord or added by the favour of Princes when become her sons and subjects and to suggest to them an invasion of their Rights To mingle and confound the Jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical and Civil state and borrow aids from the one as need is to relieve their subjection to the other To require a joint concurrence in the Secular Power for the ratification of all Clergy-Acts though in purely Spiritual Matters whereby neither any Church-Doctrine nor Government can be established in such State which It prohibits and contrary Constitutions and Laws and Reformations are introduced into the Church as the secular Magistrate is variously inclined or informed and Ecclesiastical Controversies transferr'd into the Civil Courts they not so well observing the Consequences hereof when a Julian or a Constantius appears and that if the secular Magistrate should be of a Religion or Sect disliked by them suppose a Presbyterian or a Roman-Catholick such his Spiritual Authority turns to their disadvantage and that the same Ecclesiastical Rights of the Civil Power will destroy Protestancy elsewhere as here support it And that as S. Austin ‖ Epist 48. minded the Donatists preferring a Secular judgment in their Cause before the Church's Judicium Illius scil Principis quem Vestri elegerunt quem Judicibus Episcopis praetulerunt justissime contra vos custodictur § 12 To press much the Scriptures that may seem to relate the Corruptions and fallings away of the Clergy Matt. 24.4 5 23 24. Act. 20.29 30. 2 Thes 2.3 1 Tim. 4.1 1 Joh. 4.1 Gal. 1.8 that bid us to beware of false Prophets and to try the Spirits and to adhere to the Gospel by which they can only mean to that which in their own judgment is the sense of it though an Angel from heaven should teach the contrary to take heed of Seducers and false Guides that should appeare in Christs name applying such things to the Canonical Judicature of the Church and not to themselves rather and to tell the people of Antichrists that are to come and store of false Miracles that are to be done That they are bid to prove all things and hold that which is good i.e. what they judge so That if the blind lead the blind both must fall into the ditch That the Apostles claimed no dominion over mens Faith c. All these for a Dirumpamus vincula eorum projiciamus a nobis jugum ipsorum I mean that Yoke of Church-Authority committed to these our Ecclesiastical Superiours by our Lord Christ Jesus and for the gaining freedome of judgment and liberty of opinion and declining of Obedience All which things any way vilifying Superiours and having somthing Satyrical in them are ordinarily received with much applause by our corrupt Nature uncorrected by Grace which loves to have a Soveraignty placed in it self and to be made Judge of its Judges and relucts against nothing so much as a captivating of the Understanding § 13 But indeed the effects of such yoke thrown off and of such a Liberty established in stead thereof seem to be very sad For besides * the Sin of Disobedience to those our Lord Christ hath set ever us if indeed they be such Spiritual Guides to whom we owe Submission of Judgment * the heaviness of the Church's Censures and Anathemas if these should be justly incurred by us * the liability of the more illiterate and ignorant sort of Christians which are the most of falling into farr more and more gross and fundamental errours than can possibly come from Obedience and Submission to the Church-Governours though supposed also fallible and * the great sins both in a Christian's Practice and in the Divine Service which such errours may bring along with them Besides a continual unsettledness in a belief that is founded on our own judgment very mutable as things are differently represented to it and hastily resolving many times only because seeing few doubts and not because there are not but because we perceive not the difficulties Besides the solicitude and jealousy that such persons ought to have concerning their not having sufficiently studied the grounds of their Faith or used a competent diligence to inform themselves of the truth without which they may still miss of it Besides all these I say it happens that several judgments reading the Scripture and understanding it in a several way all assured of its Clearness in Necessaries and confident of their own Sincerity which they cannot be of another's hence Sects and variety of Opinions according to men's different capacities become infinitely multiplied Hence Censuring also and vilifying of their Spiritual Superiours whose errours they think they clearly discover which Spiritual Pride and conceitedness in Religion and Contradiction to Superiours saith Dr St. ‖ Serm. on Act. 24.14 are to be reckoned among the worst
more prone when swayed by Interest or passionately addicted to a party to embrace and believe the most absurd opinions because they can discover and are furnished with more plausible arguments and Verisimilities to maintain them They press the necessity of an Unity both in Faith and Communion and of the latter its including also the first a varying of faith varying also the publick Divine Worship and Service They defend and urge a necessity also of the Church's many Definitions in the Faith from time to time as any dangerous opinions invade it and so the Faith also by the Divine Providence is continually made more distinct clear and illustrious and the Adherents to it more united from such oppositions and they maintain the Authority of the Church in all ages the same and equall and equally assisted from Heaven to crush the one and defend the other else that the giving way to diversity of Opinions would at last leave no Fundamental of the Christian Faith unshaken and unquestioned Atheism stealing in by certain degrees from indulging too great a latitude in the Faith Rom. 12.16 2 Cor. 2.9 Heb. 13.7 17. 1 Cor. 1.10 Rom. 16.17 Phi 3.16 They press the Scriptures that recommend Humility captivating the Intellect not being wise in our own conceit and that command in all things Obedience that they should all say one thing and that there should be no Schismes among them but that they should be perfect in one sense and one knowledg That they should continue in the same Canon or Rule And Mark those that make dissensions and scandals contrary to the doctrines which they had learned and avoid them Which precepts cannot be observed unless there be in the Church some Persons whose judgment doctrine faith spirit all the rest are to follow and conform to § 19 The effects also of which Obedience to those Guides seem to be quite different from those former ones of Liberty and as happy as the other unfortunate Great unanimity peace and concord in the Members of such a Church where in stead of continual consultations concerning his Religion and that made by every laick from Generation to generation without any settlement in those matters the consideration of which belongs to the Councils of the Church is a stable Vnion in Faith and Doctrine with such a well grounded confidence of these Guides their not erring herein as there remains no expectation of having something amended nor fears of having it altered Where the main business is to believe and practise as these teach him and a great readiness to part with any opinion which may perhaps be different so soon as the Church is known by him to teach the contrary And in any storm that happens to arise in the Church and divide these Governours He suffers no distraction to whom to pay this his obedience in any opposition of Inferiours giving it always to the Superiour Ecclesiastical Persons or Councils Again in any Controversy concerning the judgment or sentiment of Antiquity or former Church acquiescing in the Sentence of the present whose authority he esteems no whit inferiour to that of past Ages and both to be guided by the same Holy Spirit § 20 Thus the humble Christian by an happy resignation of his Judgment where our Lord seems to him to demand it enjoyes a perpetual peace and rest from dispute together with all his fellow-members of the same Body as to all those matters of greater moment wherein these his Spiritual Superiours have published their judgment with much less trouble to himself and more truth not by studying the Controversies but assenting to the Church's Decisions of them and so remaining safe in his Faith without being Learned And lastly this Unity of Faith and Doctrine in such a resolved Obedience is accompanied also with a much firmer league union of Charity the latter being hardly to be attained or long continued without the former and with a blessed Vniformity also of God's Publick Service and Worship and of the External Communion of the members of such a Church entirely the same in all Nations though no one Society Communion of Christians is so universally extended and diffused as it In which Communion and Worship the Faith being once changed presently makes some alterations as it did in Luther's days and none can continue long together in their Communion who are divided in their Faith By all these effects the security of such an Obedience seems much preferrable to the perpetual instability of private men's liberty and the plea for it much more preservative of church-Church-Authority the Authentick Conservator and Expositor of Holy Scripture and more becoming a Clergy man But as it seems much more to be desired so whether it be also sufficiently maintained I leave to the equal Reader 's judgment in the perusal of the following Concertations from which therefore I shall no longer detaine him Domine illumina tenebras nostras THE CONTENTS OF THE DISCOURSE CHAP. I. Concerning Points Necessary and a Right Vnderstanding of the Scriptures in them A Pre-Concession 1 That the Holy Scriptures contain all points generally necessary for attaining Salvation and 2 That some of these Necessaries are clear therein to all or most Capacities 1. Proposition That either a Writing so clearly delivering all points necessary as that no sober Enquirer can err in them Or an Infallible Directer where such Writing is not to all in all such points clear well consists with the Wisdome and Goodness of God in manifesting his Will to Men. § 1. 2. That the Clearness of the Scripture affirmed in Necessaries to Salvation cannot rationally be restrained only to the points expresly mentioned in the Apostle's or other ancient Creeds or to those only wherein all Christian Churches are agreed § 2. Where That believing the Ancient Creeds and Leading a Good Life abstracting from one duty of it viz. yielding a due Obedience to our Spiritual Superiours is not sufficient for attaining Salvation § 3. 3. That a Controversy supposed in a necessary matter of Faith cannot be decided when two contrary parties plead Clearness of Scripture on their own side without some other Judge beside the Scriptures § 4. As the Controversy concerning the Sense of the Text Hoc est Corpus meum § 5. Where That such Answers as these maintaining the contrary seem defective and unsatisfactory viz. * That there is no necessity that some Controversies in matters of Religion be decided § 7. Or * That there are other Means of attaining the certain Sense of Scripture i.e. in some things without such a Judge For the Question is made When after the using all such means or When to Persons whose condition permits not to use such means the Sense of Scriptures remains still doubtful as to many such it doth § 8. * Or That the Sense of Scripture may be certainly learnt from the Determinations of Ancient Councils or Vnanimous Consent of Fathers For as some Controversies in some Necssaries arose and were
demonstrably certain of the contrary he ought to submit to the judgment of this Authority for the knowing what things are revealed in this Word and what are contrary to or not founded in it and to use the Dr's expression ‖ Rat. Acc. p. 375.59 to be guided by the sense of Scripture as it is interpreted by this Authority And Dr. St. himself also Rat. Account p. 539. for preventing the exorbitancies and capricious humours of any fantastical Spirits for the knowledge of ones errors when these manifest intolerable what sober enquiry soever their sincere endeavours may pretend to cals for their conformity in interpreting of Scripture to the concurrent sense of the Primitive Church the Common Reason of Mankind that supposeth Scripture the Rule of Faith the consent of Wise and Learned Men Or on the side of these sincere endeavourers who shall disbelieve this authority he requires no less with the Archbishop and others than Demonstration for that wherein they dissent And this Demonstration not some improbable argument so miscalled but which being proposed to any man and understood the minde cannot chuse but inwardly assent thereto that is that which every reasonable man understanding the terms assents to § 36 Where Protestants may do well as to this duty of Obedience seriously to consider these things 1. Whether all those do not stand still obliged to obey the general Doctrines of the Church before Luthers's Reformation who can bring no demonstration of the contrary and Whether it is upon such a demonstrative certainty as this in the points controverted that they themselves oppose this Church-authority teaching them otherwise 2ly Whether since it is to be judged no Demonstration as Protestants define it that doth not convince all rational persons to whom it is proposed which the Protestants Demonstrations manifestly do not therefore the Demonstrations pretended by them be not even in their own judgment fallacious 3ly Whether the Common Reason of Christian Mankind Consid p. 74 and the common Consent of Learned and Wise Men named but now by the Dr for regulating a private man's belief ought not to be taken where all men are not united in the same judgment for the most common suffrage and testimony of the present Universal Church And then Whether we ought not to credit this present Vniversal Church sooner than any other touching what is the concurrent testimony of the Primitive Church in case this suffers any debate And then if particular Persons are not to depart from this judgment of Authority till they have Demonstration that is their own certainty as to such point to shew against it then Whether in stead of their calling for Church Infallibility that they may believe her the Church may not rather demand their Demonstrations why they believe her not See such things agitated by N. O. p. 74 75. passed over by the Dr in silence § 37 Next That setting here aside any Command or duty of Obedience in this matter Yet that in all prudence the Plebeian and unlearned for the understanding of Scriptures ought to acquiesce in the judgment of some that are more skilful and studied in them and this the more as the points are more necessary wherein is supposed any difference in Judgments for that argues some difficulty in the thing and that the Dr's Principle seems to afford a very good Reason of the Submission of Judgment to the Church which submission it opposeth Consid p. 17 For if Scriptures be maintained so clear in Necessaries that every one using a right endeavour cannot mistake in them then shall the Church-Governours much rather by reason of this clearness obvious to every rustick not err in them and so shall the people the more clear the Rule of faith is proved to be the more securely rely on and be referred in them to their direction and that we have all reason to presume that the chief Guides of the Church even a General Council of them or if it be but a major part of this Council it is sufficient in their Consults concerning a point necessary to Salvation delivered in Scripture use at least so much endeavour for more needs not as a plain rustick doth to understand the meaning of it Or here whatever other thing is supposed necessary besides a sincere endeavour or is understood to be included in it as Freedome from Passion and Secular Interest or also a freely professing the truths which their sincere endeavour discovers to them none can rationally imagine but that these Supreme Church-Governours should be as much or more disengaged herein than private men as having in their already possessed Dignity and Preferment less ambitions or compliances and more freedom and less dependence on or subordination to others in their actions or fortunes Then concerning their integrity and sincerity in their Judicature it is said by N. O. that what they define for others they define for themselves also and that their own salvation is as much concerned as any other man's is in their mistakes I add or in their purposely falsifying Truth in their Decrees and deceiving others in what they are not mistaken or deceived themselves so as that their subjects satisfyed of their skil yet cannot trust their fidelity If any can be so uncharitable as to credit of them so great a wickedness that the Supreme Councils of the Church should with designe decree an errour contrary to their faith and that in matters necessary and then enjoin all their Subjects under Anathema to believe it wherein they most certainly do devote themselves if not believing such their Decree to Eternal Perdition § 38 To such things argued by N. O. D. St's answer p. 141. is this Granting that the Guides of the Church supposing the same sincerity shall enjoy the same priviledge as any private man hath of believing rightly in necessaries which saith he I know none ever denied them Yet what is this to their Infallibility in teaching all matters of faith supposing them to believe aright yet what is this to their teaching right matters of faith which is the only thing to be proved by N. O. So that all this discourse saith he afterward proceeds upon a very false way of reasoning from believing to teaching and from necessaries to salvation to all matters of faith which the Guides of the Church shall propose to men Thus he Where first he corrupts N. O's express words and sense who argues from particular men's not erring in Necessaries by using a sincere endeavour the Church's not erring in Necessaries if using the like See Consid p. 17.18.19 The Church-Governour's not-erring saith N.O. not their not mis-teaching But indeed the first being granted N. O. thought the other also must be believed in the Church's General Councils Again in Necessaries saith N.O. not in all matters of faith which word All is put in by the Dr. several times perhaps to relieve himself for framing some Answer ' Next the Dr. denies not that
to do any such thing if Plenaria Concilia taken in their highest capacity are in their stating matters of faith errable and amendable by others following Thus N. O to which the Reader may search what answer he finds returned by this Respondent in so copious a Reply § 76 Whatever the sense therefore of this place be of which see more in the Annotations on p. 255. l. 10. from the bott it cannot be understood of lawful General Councils amending one another as to any matters of necessary faith that such Councils when defining any thing to be by all Christians believed and assented-to when declaring Hereticks all that dissent and perhaps inserting such their Definition into the Creed yet may be amended afterward in this by other latter Councils For this would overthrow the old foundations of the Nicene and Athanasian Creed and whatever can be discovered of one such Council thus erring may well be applyed to any other This also would overthrow particularly S. Austins Veritas eliquata declarata And plenarium Concilium confirmavit consolidavit for Non-Rebaptization the chief if not the only Argument he useth for convincing the Donatist in this point whilst they might here plead somthing was still latens and clausum till more experience in a latter Council should open and disclose it and so must all before cited out of S. Austin be also reversed and all the former Heresies revive again which when pretending Scriptures for their Tenents have been quelled by the judgment of such Councils § 77 Whether then that by emendari is meant not as to dogmata fidei but in some other matters wherein the Highest Councils by being ignorant of some circumstances c are liable to errour Or that by Plenaria which seems the most probable are meant such Councils as were of the Arians many before S. Austin's time but these in several manners irregular and uncanorical that were amended by others following as by the 2d General Council of Constantinople and by that of Sardica as also S. Austin elsewhere particularly instanceth in that of Ariminum called a Plenary Council but wherein the Arian Party unjustly prevailed with the Emperour and falsifyed the sense of its Decrees amended afterward by the Councils and the Church's Judgment in the times following See lib. Contra Maximinum 3. c. 14. There Homousion saith he mult is paucorum fraude deceptis haeretica impietas sub Haeretico Imperatore labefactare caepit sed post non longum tempus liberate fidei Catholicae praevalente Homousion illud Catholicae fidei sanitate i.e. in the Constan inopoluan and Sardinican Council longè lateque defensum est defensum not against the Decree of a former plenary Council but the misinterpretation and tyranny of a minor but then prevalent Party in it sub Haeretico Imperatore I say in whichsoever of the forenamed wayes this passage may be understood as probably it is to be so in the latter this is certain that it cannot be understood of Lawful General Councils amending one another as to any matters of necessary Faith for the reasons but now given Besides the proving of nothing less to them than that Non-rebaptization was a truth could satisfy the Donatist or invalidate the judgment of the Affrican Council under Cyprian as to its determining the Truth The Dr also saying here that S. Austin urgeth this Plenaria priora posterioribus emendâ—ri to take off the great plea the Donatists made from the authority of S Cyprian and his Council which Council of Cyprian was not Plenariam ex universo orbe Christiano shews that S. Austin needed not for confuting them to take Plenatium in any higher-sense than that of S Cyprian's Whereas taking Plenaria in the largest sense and without any limitations will make nothing at all for the Father in his present controversy with the Donatist about Rebaptization Nay more against him For there were no two such Councils that were both General whereof the latter had amended the former concerning Rebaptization at all and had there the same uncertainty of truth would have been in the Decree of the latter as of the former and in this case the Donatist would not have failed to have taken the advantage of the former Council These things I hope the equal Reader will consider though the Dr hath not and will not admit such a sense of this place as if true contradicts what S. Austin saith so often elsewhere and quite ruines this Father's Plea and Cause § 78 Pag. 256.257 I find several places produced wherein S. Austin preferrs clear Scriptures before humane though never so learned authority varying from them but find in him no comparison or opposition between these and the Judgment of a General Council as running counter to one another How could this be when in the Controversy for which he urgeth Scripture he requireth the Donatists to submit to the exposition of the Council § 79 Ibid. He saith The utmost by a careful consideration of S. Austin's mind in this matter that I can find is that in a Question of so doubtful and obscure a nature as that of Rebaptization was it was a reasonable thing to presume that what the whole Christian world did consent in was the truth not upon the account of Infallibility but the reasonable supposition that all the Churches of the Christian World would not consent in a thing repugnant to any Apostolical doctrine or Tradition Consid p. 86 But N.O. presseth that S. Austin's mind was clearly otherwise not that it was only a reasonable thing to presume but a thing most certain that what the whole Christian world did consent in was the Truth as appears in those places cited before § 55. and. 71. else it could not be true what he saith Earundem Scripturarum etiam in hâc re i.e. in Non-rebaptization tenetur veritas cùm id facimus quod universae placuit Ecclesia if the Church may possibly decide it amiss And S. Austin's Siquis falli metuit hujus obscuritate quaestionis Ecclesiam de illâ consulat would no way relieve his being deceived still if the Church consulted might also be mistaken in it Nor especially such Article only upon a reasonable supposition that they erred not in it be inserted in the Creed Before that the Dr therefore should have concluded such to have been S. Austin's mind he should in answering these things alledged by N.O. have shewed such his mind to have agreed with his words § 80 Lastly he concludes thus p. 259 In such a case as this I agree to what S. Augustine saith and think a man very much relieved by following so evident a consent of the Vniversal Church not by vertue of any Infallibility but the unreasonableness of believing so many so wise so disinteressed persons should be deceived Though N.O. hath shewed S. Austin requiring submission of the Donatists upon the General Council's determining a most certain truth Yet this were somewhat well if this
study of his notions to the underâ—tanding Reader I shall only add these notes after it though the same hath been said already by N. O. and not taken notice of if they may serve to remedy any of his scruples and difficulties found herein N. 2 1. That a Christian hath always for the Object of his Faith and that whereon it formally relies and finally rests Divine Revelation or God's own Word Which Word of God is most absolutely infallible and so to which as infallible after whatever manner declared to him the believer may most firmly adhere N. 3 2ly That such things as are proposed to him for Divine Revelation or God's Word are so indeed and among the rest that of Church-Infallibility as assisted by the Holy Ghost and the Canon of Scripture both here believed infallible the Believer is or may be antecedently as to these sufficiently assured from the Tradition thus commonly discribed viz. the Testimony of a multitude in all ages of illustrious Persons qualified with the many Motives of Credibility their Wisdome Sanctity Martyrdomes their being honoured with Miracles relating things contrary to carnal appetites and their secular-interests unanimous consent in so many ages c which Tradition carries a sufficient self-evidence in it And that any further external and rational evidence of or introductive to his faith than that Certainty whatever it be stiled which this Tradition affords no Christian needs to have or also can have antecedently to all the Articles of his Faith unless God to attest them should send a Voice from Heaven or Miracles and these so as to be seen by every particular person For else Tradition also must witness these Miracles to others As likewise in the Apostle's dayes it is most credible that the major part believed upon Tradition without seeing Miracles As for the Certainty which such a Tradition yields us if it be urged that it is not such as the Christian Faith necessarily requires for the suffering all manner of deaths and Martyrdomes in attestation of the truth thereof namely an assurance or certainty cui non potest subesse falsum as this is taken in the most rigid sense we may here consider that neither such would our certainty be if we all had it like to that of S. Thomas quia vidisti credidisti and believed only that which we first saw with our eyes For the Certainty of our Senses even when all things naturally required to a true sensation are present and where no Divine Revelation discovers to us their mis-apprehension or mis-arguing collection as it hath in the Angles their coming to Sodom is not such cui non potest subesse falsum if taken in the highest sense For if not by the ordinary power of Angels God's permission supposed yet by the supernatural effects of the Divine Power all the senses of the whole world at once possibly may be deceived either by thinking they see those colours or other proper object of them which they do not or by collecting from these truly seen somthing to be joined with or the subject of them that is not so As the men of Sodom were and all the world might have been deceived in the sight of the truly Angels their appearing as Men in their entring Sodom Since then none desires or needs a greater evidence of his faith for example concerning our Lord crucified or risen again than Sense may afford us or S. Thomas by his Sense had consequently must we not say either that an evidence cui potest subesse falsum as this is taken in the strictest sense is abundantly sufficient for a ground or Reason of faith Or that a ground of faith cui non potest subesse falsum ought not to be taken in any higher notion than it is verifiable of our Senses And such a Ground is the Tradition we speak of a ground cui non potest subesse falsum considering the Nature of Man which Nature in such a Tradition improved with such circumstances cannot have the least inclination or inducement to deliver or propagate to posterity so general an Vntruth N. 4 3ly That an infallible assent is said in a Divine Faith to be yielded to Divine Revelation or Gods word as well by Protestants as Catholicks See Archbishop Lawd p. 360. where he saith That A. C. concludes well that an infallible certainty is necessary for that one faith which is necessary to salvation And of that faith saith he amost infallible certainty we have already in the Scripture the Creeds c And again see p. 330. where he saith I believe the entire Scripture infallibly and by a Divine infallibility am sure of my object and below that he is infallibly assured of his Creed So that if hence any difficulties press the Catholicks in the Resolution of Faith how they come to yield an infallible assent thereto the same do the Protestants Now by such infallible assent asserted by both I say may either be meant N. 5 1. An Assent grounded on the Infallibility that the forenamed Tradition affords being the greatest self-evident testimony of a thing past as of that which our Lord and his Apostles did said or writ that can be had except Miracles Of the infallibility of which Tradition thus the Archbishop ‖ p. 124. A man may be assured nay infallibly assured by Ecclesiastical and Humane proof Men that never saw Rome may be sure and infallibly believe that such a City there is by Historical and acquired faith And in the next page Certain it is saith he that by humane authority consent and proof a man may be assured infallibly that Scripture is the word of God N. 6 2. Or by infallible Assent is meant an Assent yielded to an Object that as being Gods owne word is believed to be most supremely Infallible and immutable As the Archbishops words seem to explain themselves where he saith †p. 86. That Faith is an evidence as well as knowledge and the belief is firmer than any knowledge can be because it rests upon Divine authority which cannot deceive And so Dr Potter ‖ p. 199. The assent of Faith is more certain if it be possible than that of Sense or Science or Demonstration because it rests on Divine Authority which cannot possibly deceive And as some Catholicks also explain themselves when they say that no Divine Faith without an infallible assent i.e. an assent to an object that is most infallible Gods Word not without a Proponent or Expositor of the sense of this Word where ambiguous that is also really infallible And thus they say the illiterate and vulgar sort among Catholicks are infallible in the assent they give to the Articles of their Faith not formally by an infallible knowledge or certainty that the thing or person they believe is so true or infallible but materially by their adherence to that which is a reall truth who therefore from the Object of their Faith Gods Word and the Proponent of the sense of
infallible assistance to the Guides of the Church in all ages of it for the direction of those who live in it Add here as to all Necessaries For it is thus frequently limited by N. O but such limitation every where omitted by Dr St. Pag. 96. l. 1.2 That without this infallible assistance there can be no certainty of the sense of Scripture No certainty add as to all Christians many of whom are unlearned yong or of small capacity Of the sense of Scripture add as to several points of faith Necessary not as to all For N.O. doth not deny the sense of Scripture as to several points of faith clear enough and amongst rational men not disputed Adde I say these and N.O. will own the Proposition Ibid l. 3.3 That all the arguments which overthrow the Church's Infallibility do destroy the Church's Authority There is no such thing said by N.O. Nay the contrary is often said by him that Church-Infallibility being destroyed yet the Church's Authority though fallible may upon many reasons justly challenge submission of judgement to her Decrees from her Subjects See N.O. p. 18. 26. 48. 50. and in the former Discourse § 35.37.39 But this is said by N.O. and must be still till the Dr better clears himself That some Arguments used by the Dr against Church Infallibility are as strong and stronger against Church-Authority as namely that made in his 19th Principle if any one please to read there Authority instead of Infallibility Ib. l. 16. If God hath not given an infallible assistance to the Guides of the Church the Principles laid down by me must hold No. For private judgments ought to submit to Church-Authority though fallible in all such points wherein such private persons have not demonstration against it much more if commanded to obey this authority and to follow its faith So where no infallible assistance yet we prudently submit our judgment to the advice of a more knowing friend and Children to the precepts and injunctions of their Parents though these fallible and that by the Divine command not enjoining them hereby to believe a lye or practise things unlawful but only to believe that to be most credibly true or just which their Parents and Superiours much wiser than themselves inform them to be so And where if there be some incertainty in following their Judgments this is not lesse but more in following their own Men rightly submit their Judgments to persons and things most credible as well as to the absolutely infallible Ib. l. 9 We do not dispute concerning the best helps for a person to make use of in a matter of this nature Whereas our Author here calls for the best helps a man can get naming these the directions of his Pastor the decrees of Councils the sense of the Primitive Church for the right understanding the Scriptures if he means in necessaries I appeal to the candid Reader whether the Reason given by him in his Principles for which he saith the sober enquirer cannot mistake in Necessaries doth not argue such helps needless namely this Princip 15. Because the whole will of God is in the Scriptures so plainly revealed that no sober enquirer can â—iss of what is necessary to salvation so that there can be no necessity supposed of any infallible I add much less of any fallible society of men either to attest or explain these writings So he then Which argues either no need of such Helps or if these usefull such Scriptures without them not clear And therefore if 1 such Helps are to be repaired-to for the true meaning of such Scriptures in Necessaries they ought to have been included in his Principle 2 But then the Quality or Profession and Condition of the farr greater part of Christians seems no way capable of using all such Helps 3 Or if they were yet all these helps being held by him fallible they will still after these be liable to errour in necessary faith All Christians then as to all necessaries to salvation are not free from erring without an infallibility in these points of their Guides neither the Scriptures being clear in these without Helps nor the Helps in them unliable to mistakes Pag. 97. l. 6. The decrees of Councils the sense of the primitive Church Surely such are not only helps for instruction of Christians but laws for Obedience Ib. l. 11. The foundation of this person's faith can be nothing else but a trembling quicksand The Foundation laid by the Dr thus expressed in his preface by N.O. viz. An Errability in Necessaries of the Guides of God's Church an Inerrability in the same by him attributed indefinitly to all sober Christians who without any necessary consulting and depending on their Teachers instituted for thâ—â— by God shall use their sincere endeavors to find out such Truths is rightly affirmed by N.O. Pref. p. 4. to be but a tottering and trembling foundation of their Faith N. O's words Ib. l. 17. The only certain way not to be mis-led I add where the sense of Scripture or Tradition is to any ambiguous will be the submitting our internal assent and belief to church-Church-Authority This is asserted Ib. l. 9 Here then two Questions necessarily arise 1. Whether there can be no certainty of faith i. e in several points of Faith where the sense of Scripture or Tradition is to any ambiguous and disputed without this Church-Infallibility 2. What certainty there is of this Church Infallibility The 1st is affirmed The 2d is spoken to below in Annot. on p. 113. l. 14. Pag. 89. l. 3. Every man hath in him a faculty of discerning truth and falshood What in all things of faith by his own sole ability No. Some helps I hope he must have in several things as Directions of his Pastor the sense of the Primitive Church Decrees of Councils as our Author saith p. 96. Annotations on his §. 5. N. O's Exceptions answered PAg. 98. l. 6 The Question now is whether a person not relying on the Infallibility of a Church may not be certain of those things which are contained in the Scriptures in order to Salvation Of some of these he may because there contained plainly enough of others not where rational Judgments dispute the sense Ib. l. 3 Our enquiry is not about the sense of the more difficult c But N. O's is Several points Necessary are difficult to many and controverted witness those contained in the Athanasian Creed Pag. 99. l. ult I desire to know whether things simply necessary ought not to be delivered with greater plainness than things which are not so No. But so as God pleaseth so he provide other ways for the explaining of what is obscure Pag. 100. l. 6. Whether our Saviours own Sermons were capable of being understood by those who heard them How capable soever of being understood they were not understood he said by all his Auditors in every thing nor by his own Diciples Ib. l. 5 Or can we have now
certainty of faith can be had of the meaning of those decrees for we see they are as liable to many interpretations as any other writings If the Scriptures cannot put an end to controversies on that account how can General Councils do it when their decrees are as liable to a private sense and wrong interpretation as the Scriptures are Nay much more for we have many other places to compare the help of Original tongues and the consent of the primitive Church to understand Scriptures by when the decrees of Councils are many times purposely framed in general terms with ambiguous expressions to give satisfaction to some dissenting parties then in the Council Which words limited only as he saith here to some decrees of some Councils framed in general terms with ambiguous expressions serve nothing to the purpose of that discourse and would make his words run thus for example If the Scriptures cannot put an end to controversies on that account how can General Councils do it when some of their decrees in some Councils that are in general terms and ambiguous expressions are as liable c. Yes very well say I because other decrees in that and other Councils may be clear enough Pag. 134. l. 17. They Councils ought never to be liable to the same ambiguity True but if it mis-happen that Councils be so in some things some of them are they therefore no more serviceable in any other things for deciding controversies where the sense of the Scriptures to some at least is ambiguous and their Decision clear Ibid. l. 18. Vpon the account of which obscurity Scripture is rejected from being a certain Rule of faith Contrary Scripture is received by Catholicks for a certain Rule and also in many things for a clear Pag. 135. l. 8 In answer to my Lord of Canterbury's adversary c. To the reason given for the Vnity of Catholicks viz. their being ready to submit their judgments to the determinations of the Church in her Councils our Author returns this reason as good or better he saith for the Vnity of Protestants viz. their being all ready to submit their judgments to Scripture Which Reason since it must needs fail on the Protestants side if the sense of Scripture which serves to unite them be more ambiguous in several things than that of Councils is which unites the other Therefore he labours to make this good that the sense of Scriptures is not more ambiguous than that of Councils For which see his next page ‖ p. 136. where he saith The meaning of the decrees of Councils whâ—n they are made raise as many divisions as were before them as it appears by the decrees of the Council of Trent Where in his using indefinite terms as frequently he doth if he means some of its decrees only such as he saith are purposely framed in general terms c this serves not his purpose for so there will still remain a greater union amongst Catholicks because of their union in the rest of its decrees which how true soever they be are plain enough But if he means all its decrees then this is apparently false that there are such divisions raised about them Now his addition or reply to this conceding here which had he done in his Rational Account he had faved N.O. p. 136. some pains in making it good that the Roman Church hath some advantage in point of unity but that all the advantage it hath comes from force and fraud of which frequent Maledicency to ward his Superiors and those in so sacred an Assembly I could wish this Author would make more Conscience this Concession I say is deserting his former Answer to my Lord of Canterbury's Adversary as faulty and passing to another viz. That their Union is indeed greater but is compassed by force and by fraud I suppose he means of these Councils But then since Roman Catholicks are united not only in the Definitions of the Council of Trent but of all or be it many of those that 〈◊〉 been within these thousand years most if not all of which are 〈◊〉 bâ—â— Protestants dares he fasten his Force and Frâ—â—d onâ—â—â—â— thâ—â—◠〈◊〉 so why not a Socinian or Arian extend 〈◊〉 to the foâ—◠〈…〉 â—hose whom their cause constrains to disobey 〈…〉 speak well of it Aâ—â—â—â—â—â—ions on §. 9. The Argument from Parity of Reason Ag. 139. l. 9. After N. O's words And are we not here again â—â—â—rrived at Church-infallibility i.e. its not erring in matters of Nicessary Faith If not from extruordinary divine assistance add what is left out by the Dr Yet from the clâ—arness of the Rule Only we must suppose such sincere endeavour in the Church as the Dr allows may be in every private man Pag. 140 l. 12. How doth it hence follow that the Guides of the Church must be infallible in teaching matters of faith From the Guides not erring or not being deceived in matters of faith it follows not that they must be infallible or not deceive in teaching matters of faith Nor are any such words or consequence in N.O. But it follows well from the clearness of the same Scriptures to these Governours as much as to private men and from their endeavours as well as private mens to understand them these two supposed that the Church-Governors cannot erre in all necessary matters of faith of which necessaries only N.O. speaketh if private men cannot the thing maintained in the Drs 13th Prineiple And then I hope the Drs charity will allow these Governours in a General Council of them at least not to teach contrary to what they know and are certain of And this Reason too these Holy Fathers have to do this beecause otherwise in their inserting such things as they thus falsifie in the Creeds and in their anathematizing all dissenters they shall make a publick profession of their faith just contrary to their Faith and anathematize themselves Pag. 141. l. 8. The Guides of the Church supposing the same sincerity shall enjoy the same priviledge which I know none ever denied them but what is this to their Infallibility in teaching all matters of faith which is the only thing to be proved by him If he can prove this as necessary for the salvation of mankinde as the other is then he would do something to his purpose but not otherwise So that all this discourse proceeds upon a very false way of reasoning from believing to teaching and from Necessaries to salvation to all matters of faith which the Guides of the Church shall propose to men Thus he Where after I have acquainted the Reader that N. O's express words and sense are here corrupted for he argues from particular men's not erring in Necessaries by using a sincere endeavour the Church's not erring in Necessaries if using the like in Necessaries saith N. O not in all matters of faith as here the Dr It seems the Infallibility of the Church he now opposes is not an Infallibility
wicked doctrines Here what should I trouble my self or the Reader in debating this controversy concerning Honorius with the Dr whose cause the Reader may see pleaded very plausibly by Cardinal Bellarmine i. 4. de Romano Pontifice c. 12. as to this freedome from Heresy being condemned hereof after his death before any Council had defined this matter upon some words of his which compared with others are capable of a sound meaning as arguing not against two but two contrary or repugnant Wills of our Lord and whenas there is some matter of fact in which may be mistakes contained in the Council's thus declaring him an heretick which thing occurs not in the declaring of Heresy I say what need I review this debate wherein the Dr only contends that is which the common opinion among Catholicks grants may be See Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 30. § Resp Sunt Pighius contendit Papam non posse esse Haereticum proinde nec deponi in ullo casu qua sententia probabilis est facilè defendi potest tamen non est certa communis opinio est in contrarium Where he quotes also the Canon Si Papa Distinct 40. Papa a nemine judicandus nisi deprehendatur a fide devius Pag. 167. l. 4. Pope Agatho did himself consent to the condemnation of Honorius Suppose this be granted why may not a Pope and a General Council judge a Pope See for this again Bellarm. de Concil l. 2. c. 19. Potest Concilium discutere causam Pontificis si inveniat reverâ esse infidelem potest declarare eum esse extra Ecclesiam sic damnare And the same he saith If the Council should discover him an Heretick De Conc. l. 1. c. 9. Quarta causa celebrandi Generalis Concilii est suspicio Haresis in Romano Pontifice c. Pag. 168. l. 19. The greatest strength he adds to Baronius is only saying without doubt it is so Let the Reader view Bellarmin de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 11. whether this hath not more drollery in it than Truth Pag. 170. l. 18. I desire therefore again to know whether he was rightly condemned or not Suppose I answer rightly what then Then the Pope is not infallible And what then What is this to N. O or his Considerations Ib. l. 8 In either case there was no Infallibility in the Guides Yes in one case if Honorius rightly condemned there was Infallibility in the Pope and Council Pag. 171. l. 8. The ingenuous concession of Mr White A great friend to Popes But by this he sees there are that confess Popes liable to Heresy Ib. l. 6. Councils against Councils Not lawful General Councils one against another Ib. l. 4 Church again Church especially after the Breach between the Greek and the Roman Not one of these Churches against the other in most of those things for which the Reformation hath left the Roman But supposing in some points they be so the Infallibility we contend for here as requiring our Obedience is only that of a General Council joined with and confirmed by the Bishop of the See Apostolick In the intervals of which Councils to matters clearly determined formerly by them the present Church Governours if no way supposed infallible may exact from the Church's subjects such an assent as the Councils have required Or in new Controversies arising and not formerly determined by any such Councils yet may justly impose silence till such Controversy shal be so decided Ib. l. 2 But a man who is bound to rely only on the authority of his Guides must suppose them to be agreed and in case of difference among them he must first chuse his Religion and by that his Guide bound to rely only Who saith it He may rely on the Holy Scripture very safely in all points whereever it is clear but in his application to it when he meets with Scriptures the sense whereof is ambiguous to him as surely either it is or should be in case he sees a major part of the Church or of Christianity to differ from him in the sense of it he is to rely on his Guides And next in any difference among them he is not presently left to our Author's way to chuse his Religion or his opinion first and by that his Guides as they sit it for so in some places that our Author knows there is scarce any opinion so gross but some Guides may be found complying with it But in these Guide's differing and their just authority consisting in a most exact Subordination he is to rely on the Superiour as in England on a Provincial or National Synod rather than on the Rector of his Parish or a single Bishop and whereever its judgment can be had on the Supreme a lawful General Council confirmed by the Bishop of the See Apostolick Pag. 172. l. 8. Now the Question proposed is whether it be not fitter for me to submit to the Guides of the Catholick Church than to trust my own judgment I should make no scruple in all doubtful matters to resolve the affirmative supposing that all the Guides of the Catholick Church were agreed Will he submit his judgment then to lawful General Councils and the matters they have or shall agree in Since he hath great reason to doubt in all things where they judge contrary to his tenent He goes on Ib. l. ult For I should think it arrogance and presumptiâ—n in me to set up my own private opinion in opposition to the unanimous consent of all the Guides of the Catholick Church in such a case To the unanimous consent of all the Guides But will he submit to such a consent as hath been had in former lawful General Councils I mean such as in the four first for deciding Controversies viz. to that of a much major part For else if but one Bishop in the world shall oppose all the rest He is released from such his submission And 2ly Will he yield this for all matters whatever such Councils shall define For to repeat his words ought he not to think it arrogance and presumption in him to set up his own private opinion in opposition to such Councils in any thing for which they have the same evidence as himself And here observe also that in whatever times these Councils be held whether in the present or past ancient or latter times so as not contradicting one another in their definitions their Authority is exactly the same and so ought his Obedience to be and their Definitions also to be in all times after obliging those of Nice obliging now N. 1 Pag. 173. l. 5. We find the Christian world divided into very different Communions It is so But the forementioned ‖ Note on p. 172. l. 2. subordination of Church-Governours is still to be observed And our obedience in any clashing of these Church-Governours in several parts to be performed to the Superiours As for example The African Bishops and their Councils
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-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-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
comprehension amended by the 2d General Council of Constantinople and that at Sardica For as is said if we understand saepè here of legal plenary Councils we find none at all before his times either as to Rebaptization or any other points of faith amending one another These things then being left to the Reader 's consideration which may best fit the place I add N. 4 4. Lastly That whatever the sense be this place can never be understood of Lawful General Councils amending one another as to any matters of necessary faith that such Councils when defining any thing to be by all Christians believed and assented to when declaring Hereticks all that dissent and perhaps inserting such their Definitions into the Creed yet may be amended after this by latter For this would overthrow the old foundations of the Nicene and Athanasian Creed and whatever could be shewn of one such Council thus erring Hereticks at their pleasure would apply to any other This also would overthrow particularly S. Austin's Veritas eliquaata declarata And plenarium Concilium confirmavit consolidavit for Non-rebaptization the chief if not the only argument he useth for convincing the Donatists whilst they might here plead this was still latens and clausum till more experience in a latter Council should open and disclose it and so must all before cited out of S. Austin be also reversed and all the former Heresies revive again which pretending Scriptures for their Tenents have been quelled by the judgment of such Councils Pag. 256. l. 4. Would he assert that all Councils how General soever may be amended by following Councils and yet bind men to believe that the decrees of the former Councils do contain the unalterable will of God i.e. Supposing S. Austin here to speak of absolutely General and Legal Conncils would he assert that in some things as in matters of fact a Council may possibly erre and so may be amended by others following which Council in some other things its Definitions of faith delivers the unalterable will of God cannot be amended Yes This may well be But I conceive this Father not to speak here of absolutely General and legal Councils their being amended by others The Council of Nice preceded the Arian Councils which pretended to amend it Did not S. Austin bind men to believe the Decree of Nice which Decree he saith ‖ Contra Maximin l. 3. c. 13. In Concilio Nicaeno adversus Haereticos Arianos a Catholicis Patribus veritatis authoritate authoritatis veritate firmatum est How is that so confirmed that is still liable to amendment Or if all decrees are not how know we when they are so Or are those Decrees that are so liable universally to be believed Dissenters anathematized the Creeds enlarged with them till such time as they be amended Ib. l. 11. Which words of his cannot be understood of unlawful Councils of matters of fact or practice but do refer to the great Question then in debate about rebaptizing Hereticks If S. Austins words touching former General Councils erring and being amended by latter do reser as our Author here saith to the point of Rebaptization the Father hath destroyed his great Argument of the Donatists their certainly erring in it because a General Council had defined the contrary to it the Decree of which Council might err and be repeal'd by another And this after that his former words namely that Provincial Councils are to yield without dispute to those which are General if he had stopped there had clearly confuted them 2ly S. Austins words also as applied to this point would be false for never was any former General Council concerning this point of Rebaptization corrected by a latter the first decreeing for it the latter against it Ib. l. 11 He S. Austin grants that the arguments drawn from the Church's authority are but humane Humane authority saith Archbishop Lawd ‖ p. 124. may be infallible enough and an argument drawn from it convincing Especially from that of General Councils which are divinely assisted not to err in necessaries But this Authority meanwhile is no hindrance that S. Austin may not also urge with and rather than it but he never doth as contrary to it the Divine Authority in Scriptures where he thinks them to all Rational men cleare and manifest Pag. 257. l. 6. And elswhere he appeals not to the judgment of men but to the Lords ballance None of these instances imply any comparison or opposition made by S. Austin between the Scriptures and the judgment of a General Council as if these Scriptures might be cleare where the Judgment of the Council contrary but imply that these Scriptures where cleare may be disceded from by some private though learned mens judgments and in any such case are doubtless to be preferred before them But whither tend these quotations To the liberty of private men to judge of the definitions of General Councils That is of Donatists to judge of that of Nice made against them in Rebaptization This destroys S. Austins whole designe which was to have them to acquiesce in the Decree of a General Council Ib. l. 12 The utmost by a careful consideration of his mind in this matter that I can find is that in a question of so doubtful and obscure a nature as that was which had been so long bandied in the Churches of Africa and from thence spred over all the Churches of the Christian world it was a reasonable thing to presume that what the whole Christian world did consent in was the truth not upon the account of an infallibility but the reasonable supposition that all the Churches of the Christian world would not consent in a thing repugnant to any Apostolical doctrine or tradition Here our Author saith that in a Question of so doubtful obscure a nature and that had been first so much discussed it is a reasonable thing to presume a reasonable supposition not then a certain Position that all the Churches in the world will not consent in a thing repugnant to any Apostolical Doctrine or Tradition so Non-rebaptization put in the Creed may be a presumed Truth and the Donatist's a presumed Heresy Where I think he will not say we do presume things that we are certain of Is then S. Austin's In hac re tenetur à nobis veritas Scripturarum and Christus perhibet testimonium Ecclesiae suae Columna firmamentum veritatis And veritas eliquata consolidata come to this a reasonable supposition and a fair presumption of Truth But yet will He stand to this that whatever the Church in her General Councils shall consent to it is a reasonable supposition that she consents to nothing repugnant to any Apostolical Doctrine or Tradition and that such may be presumed a Truth If so will not this inferr a duty of Assent also to all her Decrees at least as presumed truths And if in a Question of so