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
Judge leave his Seat Pag. 196. l. 18. I say the places of Scripture which are alledged for such an infallible Judge are the most doubtful and controverted of any 1. What then If I may be certain of the Infallibility of this Interpreter another way than by these Scriptures that are urged for it viz. by Tradition Is it any news to our Author that Catholicks say this 2ly I may be certain of the Infallibility of this interpreter from those Scriptures not as expounded by this Interpreter but by Tradition I say Tradition both hath declared such Judge Infallible in necessaries and hath also declared the true Sense of these Scriptures to affirm this Which Tradition hath not so clearly delivered the sense of all other doubtful Scriptures Nor if it had is the sense of Tradition in all other Scriptures so easily to be known at least to the meaner sort of Christians as this concerning the Infallibility of the Supreme Church-Guides in necessaries by reason of the Church's more evident practice herein See Note on p. 113. l. 15. Pag. 197. l. 7. I come therefore to the 2d enquiry which is about the means of attaining the certain sense of Scripture in doubtful places without the supposition of an infallible Guide N. 1 The Dr here from this p. 197. to p. 250. makes a long Digression about the means used in the Primitive times of attaining the certain sense of Scripture in doubtful places without the supposing of an Infallible Guide Of these Means he names two One means he saith ‖ See his p. 249. was by examining and comparing places of Scripture with all the care and judgment that may be Where he gathers out of the Ancients such Rules as these That the Scope and designe of Scripture chiefly be regarded and the Connexion well considered that nothing be interpreted contrary to the Coherents that the sense of no plâ—ce is to be so interpreted that it hath repugnancy with others that plain places be not interpreted by obscure nor a many by a few bat the contrary that figurative expressions are not to be understood literally nor thâ—se intended in a plain sense figuratively that examples are to be drawn from plain places to illustrate difficult and from those which are certain to clear the doubtful that in matters of doubt recourse is to be had to the Original Tongues that for understanding Scriptures we are to come with minds duly prepared to it by humility prayer purity of heart love of God and our Neighbour c. and many more N. 2 But if after all this comparing Scriptures the dispute about the sense of them still continues the other Means he saith the Ancients speak of was the examining the Tradition of the Apost lical Churches from the beginning concerning the sense of them delivered from the Apostles ‖ p. 213. For that any one's setting up other expositions of Scripture than the Christian Church hath received from the Apostles times this without any further proof discovers their imposture For as he gives us it out of Tertullian ‖ p. 212. it is unreasonable to suppose that the Apostles should not know the doctrine of Christ or that they did not deliver to the Churches planted by them the things which they knew or that the Churches misunderstood their doctrine because all the Churches were agreed in one common faith and in an exposition of Scriptures contrary to theirs and therefore there is all the reason to believe that so universal consent must arise from some common cause which can be supposed to be no other than the common delivery of it by all the Apostles Again p. 249. He speaks on this manner If after all this i.e. the examining and comparing Scriptures the dispute still continues then if it be against the ancient Rule of Faith universally received perhaps he means the Apostles Creed that is a sufficient prescription against any opinion if not against the rule of faith in express words but about the sense of it then if ancient General Councils have determined it which had greater opportunities of knowing the sense of the Apostolical Church than we it is reasonable we should yield to them but if there have been none such then the unanimous consent of Fathers is to be taken c. N. 3 For the first of these means the attaining the certain sense of Scripture by comparing Texts c. 1. First the Reader may observe that if this proves the non-necessity of an Infallible Guide so it doth the non-necessity of any Guide at all as to teaching us the meaning of the Scriptures For in this first means no repairing at all to our Spiritual Guides fallible or infallible for the sense is mentioned 2ly I grant that there is a means of attaining a sufficient certainty of the sense of some obscure places of Scripture from others more clear without the necessity of any other infallible Guide therein and that the Fathers also have laid down many excellent Rules concerning this and practised them in disputing against Hereticks 3ly The more and the more certain these means are for knowing the sense of Scripture the more they seem to inferr the Infallibility and non-erring of the Supreme Governours of the Church met in Council herein and the more security of their Subject's as to all necessary faith relying on their Judgment Nor do I see any thing that can be replied here but That these Governours well knowing the right sense of Scriptures yet by ambition interest and several other passions may be corrupted from teaching it and also may be induced to define as an Article of their Faith to all posterity the contrary falshoods and themselves also first take their Oath of their belief of the truth thereof which though a very strange charge yet might pass for a more tolerable exception if those who will judge of this swerving and erring of Councils were themselves exempt from any such passions or interests or could well know when they are biass'd with them but otherwise it seems a very poor subterfuge yet the only one they can alledge for disobedience to Councils 4ly It is here to be remembred that if this means by comparing Scriptures c. named before be not such as all men those of weaker judgments and secular emploiments void of literature can use and practise this Infallible Guide for the certain sense of Scripture will still remain necessary to such where useless to some others 5ly That If any others of more liberal education more leisure for study of better capacity after such means used shall remain still in doubt concerning any such Texts in matters necessary as suppose in the Trinity or Deity of our Lord Christ our Lords Satisfaction Justification here also will be need of an Infallible Guide or Judge to decide these things to him Or if all well capable by their parts or condition of life of using this means yet otherwise employed de facto do not use it
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 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-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
so adoring iâ— as they ought should it be so how come they I say to commit such gross Idolatry as the Dr. in his Book charges them with and so all without Repentance of it if Idolatry be a Mortal Sin miscarry in their salvation And if from a Major part of the present Church interpreting Scripture an Appeal be made to a Major part of the Ancient Church pretended to interpret them on the Protestant side Consid p. â—â— neither will this relieve the Dr because since this also 〈◊〉 what side Antiquity stands is a thing in Controversy foâ—â—d â—â—â—râ—omg of it we are to presume here like wise that a sincere â—nâ—â—â—â—owr being allowed to all parties to understand the sense of the former Church this also stands on that side as the Major part apprâ—â—â—e 〈◊〉 it Now the present much Major part of Christianity preâ—e â—â—oth 〈…〉 the sense of the Ancient Church inâ—â—â— pâ—â—â—ing this Scripture 〈◊〉 a Corporal Presence § 7 To this Query of N. O How the Controversy shall bedecided when in a matter of Necessary Faith two contrary Pâ—â—ties say the Scripture is â—lear on their own undeâ—â— I and this Author answering first p. â—92 〈…〉 of determinine Controversies in Religion by a Living Judge is not built on any sufficient Foundation of Scripture or Reason i.e. as I understand him there is no necessity of it Mr Chillingworth made such an Answer before him but more clearly in these words ‖ p. 59. That those places of Scripture which contain things necessary and wherein errour were dangerous need no infallible Judge or Interpreter because they are plain and thâ—se that are obscure need none because they contain not things necessary neither is errour in them dangerous But the Reader may observe here that the Dr. saith only of determining Controvdrsies in Religion leaving this term Controversies indefinite as is usual with him when as N. O. speaks not of Controversies in general many of which he grants not necessary to be decided but expresly of controversies in points necessary that it is requisite the true sense of Scripture herein be some way or other cleared else Christians cannot know what to believe in them Upon which reason the Dr. himself also in his Principles ‖ Princ. 13. pleads a necessity that the Scriptures be clear in them § 8 2ly He tels us p. 197. That there are means ef attaining the certain sense of Scripture in doubtful places without the supposition of an Infallible Guide and so makes a long discourse from p. 197. to p. 260. concerning the Means used in the Primitive times and the many good Rules given by the Ancients for this As a diligent comparing of Scriptures Considering the scope designe connexion whether the sentence be literal on figurative illustrating the difficult by places more plain few by many recurring to the Original Tongues c. Where 〈◊〉 N. O. eâ—quiâ—eâ— how necessaries may be decided for those persons who after all these means used remain still in some suspense or also for those whose low and mechanick condition or weak judgment cannot examine these things can neither compare Scriptures nor search the Testimony of Antiquity Whether 1. 〈◊〉 q. for such it is not much safer to adhere to their Guides though fallible who also have used all those other helps the Dr mentions for deciding these than to be committed to their own judgment much likelier to erre herein than the others § 9 Next I find him when some twenty leaves have been spent in shewing thiâ—â—â—riety of means p. 249. delivering this as the sâ—â—se of the Fathers formerly pâ—toted by him and so also I suppose his own That If after examining and comâ—ering Scriptures c. the dispute still continues and that it be not against the Rule of Faith in express words but about the sense of it then if ancient General Councils have determined it which had greater opportunities of knowing the sense of the Apâ—stolical Church than we it is reasonable we should yield to them but if there have been none such then that the unanimous consent of Fathers is to be taken so it be in some new and upstart Heresies And so saith he There is no necessity of Infallibility in the Guides of the Church to give us a certain sense of Scripture which was the thing to be proved § 11 But here are several things that leave us still without a Determination of such Controversies so as in them to have any settlement of our Faith For 1st he saith If Ancient General Councils have determined it c. But I ask When may Antiquity and such obliging authority expire and What if such ancient General Councils have not and some latter General Councils have determined it whether is it not reasonable we should yield to them and Whether the Church in all ages since the Apostles hath not the same and equal Authority Otherwise if a certain distance from the Apostle's times doth alter this Authority why may not the Arrians put in such an exception against that of Nice not held till after 300. years and so much more against other Councils later than Nice Again since new Controversies in Necessaries may arise in latter times which such ancient Councils have not considered or decided as there did after 300 years several such as had not been discussed or so resolved before thus we shall have no Judge left for deciding them lastly when any Controversy ariseth concerning the Determinations of ancient Councils or Consent of Fathers in any such Point surely some Judge we must have for determining this before the Controversy can be determined 2ly The Terms he useth It is reasonable we should yield to them are general and ambiguous Doth he mean It is reasonable to yield our assent unto them Else how do such Decisions direct our faith or belief at all in these necessaries 3ly He saith So it be in some new and upstart Heresies But why may not this unanimous consent of Fathers be taken against whatever opinions Elder or newer that contradict them But if this Authour means reasonable to yield our assent unto them and if to lawful General Councils of whatever times he allows the same and equal authority and will admit the authority of the latter to resolve any disputes touching the consent or statings of the former what other thing is this but to come home to N. O's Infallible Guide which is lawful General Councils or other known unanimous consent of the Church-Governours Ancient or Modern Which Councils also for the matters they do decide are a standing Guide not only to those present times when they sit or wherein they live but to all Posterity And so this Author at last hath pitched upon that very means of ending Controversies in Necessaries where the sense of Scripture is disputed and other means the comparing of Scriptures c. as to many are either not practicable or effectless which he had endeavoured to avoid the truth of which
I leave to the Readers examination § 11 This to the Dr's Principle as restraining the clearness of Scripture to Necessaries to salvation Next In its affirming the Scriptures in such necessaries clear to men only on this condition viz. their using a sincere endeavour for knowing the right meaning of them wherein also I suppose he includes the divesting themselves of all passion and Interest that may any way blinde them in the search of Truth N.O. hence observes that no private person can be secure of their right understanding them till they are first assured of having used a just endeavour and reduced themselves to a clear indifference and disengagement And by what means may they be certain of this Or are not the simple or illiterate obliged to use much greater industry herein than others And thus one being left to himself all things will be still in suspense For Example The Socinians esteemed as great Scripturists as any it is by all of them erring to this day in a necessary point of Faith very manifest that according to this Principle they have not used a sincere and upright endeavour to underâ—tand them Nor yet the Major part of the Christian World in some other Necessaries to have used their endeavours aright if the Dr. have so used his for these differ from him in this sense of Scripture How then shall any be assured of his having used a just diligence herein Or will not all be driven for the want of this assurance notwithstanding the truth of such a Principle to their Obedience and submission of judgment herein to the Church And the same may be said of ones duty of using also other helps besides his own industry as their repairing to the instruction of Church-men or others more learned which helps for their understanding of matters that are doubtful and require skill to resolve them ‖ p. 267.269 the Dr. owns and recommends in his Answer to N.O. though in his Principles speaking of Necessaries he forbears to mind the sincere endeavourer or sober enquirer of them at all One would think because the consulting such helps if recommended by him would have seemed to imply as indeed it doth some non-clearness of Scripture at least to such persons contrary to the Dr's Thesis Here I say how shall one know when he hath sufficiently used such helps also herein But if a person may be certain when he hath done so so may he be when he hath not namely when upon searching he is not certain that he hath and so all those that erre in necessaries suppose the Socinians and Roman-Catholicks must be affirmed if they examine it conscious to themselves of a defect herein § 12 But after this the Dr. allowing the same effect of such sincere endeavour to all sorts of persons to the unlearned and Plebeians as well as the Divines and Doctors Consid p. 16 this sincere seems to mean not all possible endeavour such as is learning the languages perusing Commentators c. but Chillingw Answ to Prefac §. 26 as Mr. Chillingworth who anchored his whole Religion upon it states this point such a measure thereof as humane prudence and ordinary discretion their abilities and opportunities and all other things considered shall advise And thus such a clearness in necessaries must the Scriptures be affirmed to have as sutes with the very lowest capacities Such a clearness I say even as to all the Articles of the Athanasian Creed if these be esteemed necessaries and even as to the Consubstantiality of the Son with God the Father In which notwithstanding the whole Body of Socinians dares to oppose all Antiquity upon pretence of clear Scripture to the contrary But then such a sincere endeavour put as the meanest persons are well capable of using how can we deny it to be used also by the Church Governors and so by it them also well to discern all necessary Truth and then may not the simpler sort with all safety â—ely on their judgment and rather in a due humility suspect a defect in their own than in their endeavours But of this more by and by CHAP. II. Concerning a Necessity of Church-Guides for the instruction of Christians in Necessaries § 13 II. SEcondly Wheras this Principle of the Scripture's being so clear as that every one who sincerely endeavours it may understand their sense in all things necessary to their salvation is advanced by the Dr. as he often saith thence to inferr no necessity of any infallible Society of men to instruct and guide Christians in such necessaries N. O. in the second place observes Consid p. 24. that from such a Principle seems to follow something more than haply the Dr. would willingly admit viz. the non-necessiry of any Society at all fallible or infallible to explain these Writings Consid p. 24 as to Necessaries unless perhaps these Teachers may be said to be left by our Lord either for others to supersede their endeavours or else only for instructing them in non necessaries And again p. 49. upon the Dr's assertion Princip Consid p. 49 19. That the Assistance which God hath promised to those who sincerely desire to know his will 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 N. O. observes that whatever Divine Assistance is there advanced by the Dr. against the assurance that can be received from Church-Infallibility the same is more against any assurance that may be had from the same Church fallible and that thus it happens more than once in these Principles that in too forward a zeal of demolishing the one the other also was dangerously that is as to this particular the need of the Clergy for instructing the people in necessaries undermined by him And again p. 83. upon the first Consequence drawn by Dr. St. from his own Principles Consid 83. That there it no necessity at all or use of an infallible society of men to assure men of the truth of those things of which they may be certain without them c. observes that this concludes the uselesness as well of any Ecclesiastical Authority to teach men as of an Infallible to assure men of the truth of those things which by using only their own sincere endeavour they may know without them So that as by this Principle he takes away Infallibility so doth he also the Office of Gods Ministry though not as to every thing in the proof of which Church-Authority and Office as to many other things the troubled Dr. would relieve himself in his Answer Or as to this of Teaching the people if he will as to non-necessaries Yet as to this the need that there is of any such Clergy for teaching the people in the Necessaries to their salvation § 14 The Reader may see for this his Reply in his Answer to N. O. from p. 260. to
President thereof to have been hitherto so divinely assisted as never to have erred in necessaries neither in believing nor declaring them notwithstanding all the by-ends of interest and reputation of which he accuseth them the Force and Fraud he chargeth on them And this I gather from his words Rat. Account p. 54. That the Church of England makes no Articles of Faith but such as have the testimony and approbation of the whole Christian World of all ages and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self Therefore the Roman Church holds all those which the Church of England doth and so all necessaries unless that of England also be defective herein And all this the Dr. seems necessitated to maintain for else the Roman failing and the Oriental Churches being then no whit better than it there would have been no Catholick Church at least as to the Hierarchy thereof extant immediatly before Luther's time And hence though I grant it cogently follows not that the Governours of the Church-Catholick shall never erre in necessaries for the future Yet is there a strong presumption that by the same Divine Assistance as they have been hitherto preserved from it so they shall be ever and it is a rational Motive of private mens submitting their judgment to the Church that hitherto she never hath but private men by departing from this obedience as several Hereticks often have erred in necessaries This here for our Lord's promises revealed in Scripture Of which a further Account is given below in Annot. on p. 113. l. 15. for the experience the World hath had of their accomplishment hitherto § 54 For justifying the same Infallibility N.O. ‖ Consid p. 85. c. 1. further presseth that noted Plea of S. Austin against the Donatists 1st That whereas some Divine Revelations may be so obscurely expressed in Scriptures or involved only in their Principles as that some weak capacities cannot discern them Yet that in the same Scriptures such persons may alwaies discover the Church distinctly which is It amongst never so many pretenders by certain Notes marks belonging to it I mean not those named by this Author ‖ Rat. Acc. p. 7. and other Protestant's though these true Marks also viz. True Doctrine and a Right Administration of the Sacraments a Quest or Trial by such marks that can never be made an end of being a task to know all the truths in Christianity what they are first before we can know which is the Church whenas the Enquirer seeks after the Church that by it he may come to know these Truths but by these other Tests and marks following as in several places he gives account of them ‖ Contra Fundament c. 4. De utilit Credend c. 8.16 17. De Vnita Eccles c. 25. Successione Episcoporum ab Apostolicâ Sede Or as Contra Fundamentum ib ipsa Sede Petri Apostoli frustra Haereticâ—s circumlatrantibus Authoritate vetustate firmatâ Conciliorum gravitate Miraculorum majestate Sequentium multitudine i.e. as to the coherence in one Communion no other Society or Party being ever so great Populorum atque Gentium consensu famâ admodum celeberrimâ Ecclesia ubique diffusa non in aliqua parte terrarum sed ubique notissima Lastly Ipso nomine Catholicae quod non sine causâ inter tam multas Haereses sola obtinuit which being the Marks of the Catholick Church by the Scripture-description of it in S. Austins time must be so for ever for that Consid p. 88 if any should apply these Scriptures more to S. Austin's days as indeed several Protestants do than to any other or than to the present by the same reason the Donatists might here have counter applied them to some other and not to S. Austin's times Thus then S Austin affirms from the Scriptures such persons may easily discover the Church which it is § 55 And then 2ly may discover there that it is a Judge in other Controversies which are not so clearly delivered in Scriptures always to be consulted and stood to Of which thus this Father writes in his dispute with the Donatists concerning the obscure Point of Rebaptization Quoniam Sacra Scriptura fallere non potest Consid p. 85 quisquis falli metuit hujus obscuritate quaestionis eandem Ecclesiam de illâ consulat quam sine ullâ ambiguitate sacra Scriptura demonstrat And before Proinde quamvis hujus rei certè de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum earundem tamen Scripturarum etiam in hâc re i.e. in the point of Non-rebaptization a nobis tenetur veritas cùm hoc facimus quod universae placuit Ecclesiae i. e which hath been stated concerning that Point by the Church quam ipsarum Scripturarum commendat authoritas Vt quoniam c. Thus S. Austin After which N.O. goes on that all this said by this Father is false and said to no purpose if the Scripture be not clear in this That this Church can determine nothing in such important contests contrary to the verity of the Scriptures and so in this that we ought to give credit to what she decides for then it would not be true what he says Earundem Scripturarum in hâc re in Non-rebaptization tenetur veritas when we do in this point what the Church decides if the Church may possibly decide it amiss And again Quisquis falli metuit hujus obscuritate quaestionis Ecclesiam de illâ consulat would no way relieve his being deceived still if the Church consulted might also be mistaken in it Nor would the same S. Austin have had any reason to presume as he doth De Baptismo 1. l. 4. c. that S. Cyprian would have corrected his opinion concerning this Point and yielded to the Council's judgment or any reason to charge the Donatists with Heresy for dissenting from it after the Determination of such a Council Nor the 2d General Council have had any just ground to put it in the Creed Credo unum Baptisma in remissionem peccatorum if such Universal Councils in their stating matters of Faith are errable and amendable Which are N. O's words ‖ Addit to p. 86. l. 11. by prevention relating to that known passage in S. Austin Ipsaque plenaria Concilia saepè priora posterioribus emendari and declaring they can have no such sense as the Dr. ‖ Answ to N.O. p. 255. and others impose upon them § 56 Again p. 58. he urgeth That in the belief and profession of this Church-Infallibility and submission of private mens Judgments to her sentence passed in her Synods Consid p. 58 the Tenet of the Greek Church seems no way varying from the Roman That Jeremias the Constantinopolitan Patriarch in his Contest with the Lutheran Protestants is much in this as a sure Retreat for ending Controversies establishing Peace †Resp 1. p. 139. where he tells them ‖ Quae Synodicè legitimâ Conciliorumratione mandata sunt
being thus granted by these persons Next as for the Vniversal Acceptation the conditi on of this Infallibility or of our assurance thereof they allow the first four General Councils to have been so accepted and therefore profess to them all obedience and that which these Councils required we know was Assent And concerning this Obedience and submission of Judgment to these Consid p. 32. upon such an universal acceptation of the Church Diffusive Dr. St. writes thus ‖ Rat. Account p. 375. The Church of England looks upon the keeping the Decrees of the four first General Councils as her Duty and professeth to be guided by the sense of Scripture as interpreted by the unanimous consent of the Fathers and the four first General Councils that is she professeth to take that which such Councils deliver for the sense of Scripture Not then to admit that which they deliver if she first judgeth it to be the true sense of Scripture So also elsewhere he saith ‖ Ib. p. 59. The Church of England doth not admit any thing to be delivered as the sense of Scripture which is contrary to the consent of the Catholick Church of the four first Ages that is in their Oecumenical Councils as he expresseth it in the preceding Page And here also he gives the ground of such Submission viz. a strong presumption he might have said an absolute necessity for what he urgeth provesit that nothing contrary to the necessary Articles of faith should be held by the Catholick Church whose very being depends upon the belief of those things that are necessary to Salvation These first Councils therefore being as they allow universally accepted the Universal Acceptation necessary to render any General Councils infallible can be exacted no greater or larger than that which these first Councils actually had upon this account the same title of Infallibility must be allowed by them to several others yet whose Definitions in matters of Faith they to several others yet whose Definitions in matters of Faith they oppose § 60 Lastly to that which this Author presseth against such pretended Infallibility in His Reply to the Cousiderations p. 150. †Conseq 4. and in his Principles and frequently elswhere ‖ See Rat. p. 117.567 Rom. Idol p. 540. That in Opinions absurd and repugnant to the first Principles of Sense and Reason which any Church obtrudes upon the faith of men men have the greatest Reason to reject the pretence of this Infallibility as a grand Imposture N. O. answers clearly to it thus †Consid p. 92 93. 1. That where the Divine Power supernaturally worketh any thing that is contrary to our senses as no doubt it may here we are not to believe them And that this he thinks none can deny 2. And next That we are to believe this Divine power doth so so often as certain Divine Revelation tells us so because we have no Divine Revelation herein not to believe them and yet we are not to believe the same Senses in the thing wherein they inform us contrary to what this Revelation tells us For otherwise Lot and his Daughters or the men of Sodom were not to credit the Divine Revelation supposing that Divine History then written and extant that the seeming Men who came to Sodom were Angels because this was against their Senses Now here would he argue well as Dr. St. †See Stillingst Rom. Idol p. 540. Rat. Account p. 117 567. and Dr. Tillotson ‖ Rule of Faith p. 275 do against Transubstantiation who because Lot's sight was actually deceived upon this supernatural accident in taking the Angels to be Men as certainly it was from hence would inferr that the Apostles had no sufficient certainty or ground from their seeing and handling our Lord to believe him risen from the dead Or that no belief could ever be certainly grounded upon our Senses which Senses are appointed by God the ordinary instruments of conveying faith and his revelations to us viz. by our hearing or reading them and do afford a sufficient certainty whereon to ground our belief in all things subject to them excepting only those wherein we have some Divine-Revelation of the Divine Power interposing and working somthing above Nature that in such particular matter we are not to believe them 3ly Which Divine Revelation we are to learn that is where the sense of the Scriptures Gods word is any way controverted from Gods Church infallibly assisted in necessary Faith I add or also by Tradition evidently from age to age conveying to us such a sense ' of such Scripture to be the true Thus N. O. to that obstacle much urged of late That no pretence of Church-Infallibility may be admitted in any thing that is repugnant to our Senses § 61 And thus since no truly Divine Revelation can be false whether it stand with or against our Senses or seeming Reason the dispute here as to any particular point of our saith suppose Transubstantiation is clearly removed from what is the evidence of sense or seeming Reason in such a matter to what certainty there is of the Revelation its being Divine Neither can we conclude any thing from the former evidence of our Senses where Divine Revelation is pretended contrary till the latter evidence that of the certain truth of the Revelation is first disproved The evidence therefore of Tradition an evidence sufficient as for proving the Scriptures to be Gods Word so for such or such sense of any part of Scripture to be Divine Revelation not of our Senses is first to be enquired after Which Primitive Tradition interpreting Scripture this Author also I think elsewhere saith he will stand to And §. 62. n. 1. if these things be so his arguing in his Rational Account p. 567. if he pleaseth to reflect upon it cannot stand good where he saith the Testimony of the Fathers carries not so great an evidence as that of our Senses The question saith he there in short is Whether there be greater evidence that I am bound to believe the Fathers in a matter contrary to sense and reason or else to adhere to the judgment of them though in opposition to the Fathers And afterward Supposing saith he the Fathers were as clear for you as they are against you in this subject yet that would not be enough to perswade us to believe so many contradictions as Transubstantiation involves in it meerly because the Fathers i.e. thus interpreting the Scriptures delivered it to us For nothing but a stronger evidence than that of sense and Reason can be judged sufficient to oversway the clear dictates of both So that suppose Catholicks could prove for example for the literal sense of Hoc est Corpus meum an universal consent of Fathers or of Tradition yet what shall we be the nearer in dealing with such men who say they must rather believe the evidence of Sense as being the foundation of the Christian Faith But if the
not err in such Decrees where they pronounce Anathema so he seems to give to these Provincial Councils also an infallibility more than which Catholicks do not desire to be allowed to General viz. the certainty that these Fathers met in a General Councils have whether by the evidence of Scripture or of Tradition or of a necessary Consequence from something Traditional or at least of our Lord 's promised Assistance that they do not err in those things they decree though in many other things they be fallible § 67 To the Answer he makes out of Dr. Field mentioned before ‖ §. â—4 and perplexed enough I say 1. That a Council cannot justly pronounce an Anathema on any of whom some are thought by them not to deserve it 2. That it is clear these Councils do not anathematize obstinate Resisters whose obstinacy may ly in contradicting but any Dissenters inserting also their Decrees sometimes into the Creeds 3. That no Council only perswaded i.e. so as to have no doubt of the truth of what they propose which full perswasion may well consist with erring and not certain and infallible therein can justly require from others the belief of it and anathematize dissenters Unless such Judge perhaps knows that none other can be certain of the contrary to his perswasion or that all others are commanded to follow his Judgment Which things cannot be applied to Provincial Councils and this Author maintains that the power exacting an internal assent requires infallibility This to Dr. Field That a full perswasion is no just Ground for an Anathema § 68 To that which follows out of S. Paul I answer That S. Paul or a Galatian must be not only perswaded but certain of his not erring in that for the meer dissent in which he can justly anathematize Angel or Man or esteem him as an Anathema Nor may any one do this for any particular point in the Gospel controverted of the truth of which point he is perswaded only nor yet in general for the truth of the Gospel it self but as he is certain thereof which all either are or may be from the certainty of Tradition or the Galatians to whom S. Paul writ further from Miracles § 69 This to his Replies But now the Reader may observe that that to which the Dr. hath replyed is only a piece divided from the rest of what N.O. presseth to a principal part of his Plea no answer is returned As this he omits to speak to urged by N.O. That General Councils have not only Anathematized Dissenters but sometimes inserted their Decisions in the Church's Creeds and so required an internal assent and belief of them as of matters of necessary Faith Again Omits to answer to N. O's urging against him ‖ See before §. 57 58. both Archbishop Lawd's and sometimes his own asserting not only the Church in its Being but Teaching and in its General Councils if these be universally accepted to be infallible in all Necessaries his asserting also †See before §. 50. That none can justly require an internal assent as I hope the sour first Councils did but an authority that first proves it self infallible where N.O. also objects That Councils fallible according to the tenents of Protestants can justly require no more than an external obedience or silence and non-contradiction From which it follows that such Councils are infallible as do justly require more as did the four first Councils with the voluntary acknowledgment also and submission of their Subjects to such an authority assumed by them To which I add that therefore Protestants say that the Church of England requires no more than this non-Contradiction to her 39. Articles for which Dr. St. ‖ Rat. Acc. p. 55. quotes these works of Bishop Bramhal Neither do we oblige any man to believe them but only not to contradict them By which saith Dr. St. we see what a vast difference there is between these things which are required by the Church of England in order to peace not belief and those which are imposed by the Church of Rome as part of that faith extra quam non est salus And Protestants on this account condemn the Council of Trent that being a Council fallible yet it required more and made as they call it a new Creed but so say I must they condemn the first four Councils if not infallible He omits this also urged That the whole Catholick Church hath admitted the Decrees of Councils made in this stile and held the Dissenters from them Hereticks where we have the judgment of the whole Church agreeing with that of General Councils concerning their Infallibility in such Decrees § 70 Now if neither Anathematizing Dissenters nor the Councils putting their Decrees in the Church's Creeds nor the Church Catholick's afterward esteeming those Hereticks that dissented from these Councils are a sufficient evidence or proof that these Councils the Church also in accepting them accounted them infallible in these their Decrees I ask what could the most infallible Judge do or exact more Doth not the Dr. below †See p. 182 183. blame the Roman Church for assuming such an Infallibility to herself such then it is in Her though not in General Councils in requiring such a belief of her additional Articles defined in Trent as of the most fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith And here in what hath been urged out of him but now doth not the Dr grant the just requiring of an internal assent to inferr Infallibility And so must he not either hold the first Councils infallible or that they injustly required such assent unjustly put their Definitions in the Creeds lastly erroneously the Church diffusive accepted of their Definitions as such and esteemed the contrary Tenents Heresies against the faith Must he not either hold that these Councils knew not this he saith that unless infallible they might not do such things nor else took themselves for infallible when they were not But whom shall we believe herein them or the Dr rather And if holding themselves fallible why used they such language In Spiritu Sancto congregati and Hac est Fides Catholica relating partly to their own Definition And after all if fallible they were what assurance hath any Christian that he hath not erred in his Creed Can any one prepare a better Plea for the Socinians than this man hath done Or here since I hope He will not with Mr. Chillingworth and against the judgment of the whole Catholick Church deny that the four first General Councils did these things justly will he deserting his former opinion justly the lawfulness of a Council that grants it self fallible in such its decrees notwithstanding to do all these things And then may not the Council of Trent rightly do so And lastly for what good reason then may the Church of England be said to forbear the using such authority I say a Solution of such difficulties urged by N.O. I finde not
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
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
seek to pervert the Catholick doctrine and to wrest the plain places of Scripture which deliver it so far from their proper meaning that very few ordinary capacities may be able to clear themselves of such mists as are cast before their eyes the sense of the Catholick Church in succeeding ages may be a very useful way for us to embrace the true sense of Scriptures especially in the great Articles of the Christian Faith As for instance in the doctrine of the Deity of Christ or the Trinity After which N.O. adds there that the Dr instead of saying the sense of the Catholick Church in succeeding ages may be a very useful way for us might have said is very necessary for us if his cause would permit him and that the Socinian would thank him for this his mitigation Ib. l. 11. The fraud and imposture of the confident pretenders to infallibility Viz. Of lawful General Councils Ib. l. 12. Which is the reason c. They speak evil of Dignities Jude v. 8. Ib. l. 5 I confess I have seen nothing like the first evidence yet It is set down in the precedent page in these words ‖ Princ. Consid p. 38 We may learn first this supernatural divine assistance and Infallibility of these Governours which is made known by Divine Revelation to those first persons who communicate it to posterity from Tradition descending from age to age in such manner at the Protestant saith he learns his Canon of Scripture from Tradition To which Tradition also may be committed by our Lord or his Apostles whatever is to Scripture Perhaps His falling into a Fit of drollery here made him oversee it Pag. 127. l. 5. What are its weapons See before Note on p. 113. l. 14. n. 4. Pag. 128. l. 3. It is I suppose agreed on both sides that the Tradition on which we receive and believe the Scriptures to be the word of God was universal as to all ages and times No. Not so universal as to all parts of the Canon Ib. l. 14. Let any thing like this be produced for the infallibility of the Guides of their Church i.e. for the Infallibility of lawful General Councils for N.O. the Considerator treats of no other and often mentions this and we will yield up the cause to them See then what is produced concerning this before Note on p. 113. l. 14. N. 1 Ib.l. 7 The only argument c. That which our Author alledgeth here the Councils anathematizing dissenters and the Church's stiling them Hereticks upon it is only a piece divided from the rest of what N.O. pressed N. O's words are these urged by him with application to the Dr's 17. Principle and without designing any set Discourse on Church-Infallibility ‖ Prineip Consid p. 39 That the Governours of the Church who having an apparent succession from our Lord and his Commission known by Tradition their testimony must have been unquestionably believed by Christians in what they taught in case there had been no Scripture always reputed and held themselves divinely assisted and infallible for all necessaries and that this was the traditive faith of the Church grounded on our Lord's Promise in all ages sufficiently appears by their inserting from time to time as they thought fit their Decisions in the Creeds and by their anathematizing dissenters and the Church's stiling them Hereticks ever after upon it For that no authority if we believe the Dr but that which proves it self infallible and therefore which is infallible can justly require our internal assent or submission of judgment And that the Protestants their allowing only an external obedience or silence due to Councils fallible inferrs 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 their subjects to such an authority assumed by them N. 2 After which it follows to prevent this reply here of the Dr's We find indeed subordinate Councils also stating somtimes matteâ—s of Faith censuring Hereticks and requiring assent to their Decrees but still with relation to the same Infallibility residing in the General Body of Church-Governours and their concurrence therein They not passing such Acts without consulting the Tradition and Judgment of other Churches and especially of the Apostolick See and a general acceptation rendring such their Decisions authentick and valid To which may be added what N.O. said before Consid p. 32. where the words of the Dr mentioned here are quoted more at large We see saith N.O. what kind of Obedience it was that the first four General Councils exacted in the Athanasian Creed which contains the sum of their Decrees viz. no less than assent and belief and submission of judgment and all this upon penalty of damnation And this if justly required by them inferrs upon the Dr's arguing their Infallibility For saith he ‖ Rat. Account 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 Here the Dr passeth by several things urged by N.O. of which see the former Disc § 69. and invades only this part General Councils their anathematizing dissenters and pronouncing them Hereticks as he expresseth it though N.O. spoke of the Church always afterwards stiling such Dissenters from the Councils Decrees Hereticks The Doctors words here are The only argument he insists upon is so weak that I wonder he had not considered how often it had been answered by their own Writers For it is certain that Provincial Councils as well as General have anathematized dissenters and pronounced them Hereticks which is his only argument to prove this Tradition of the Church's Infallibility and they the Catholicks had no way to answer it but by saying this doth not imply their Infallibility Where he quotes in the margin Bellarm de Coucil l. 2. c. 10. N. 3 To which I have replyed in the former Disc § 65. c. and I think fit here to repeat at least some part thereof to give the Reader the lesse trouble by making frequent References First in general that I do not understand what it is that our Authour would maintain here against N.O. Is it this that neither anathematizing Dissenters nor the Councils putting their Decrees in the Churches Creeds nor the Church Catholick's afterward esteeming those Hereticks that dissented from these Councils are a sufficient evidence or proof that these Councils at least and also the Church accounted themselves Infallible in these their Decrees What could the most Infallible Judge do or exact more Doth not he below †See p. 113. blame the Roman Church for assuming such an Infallibility to her self in requiring such a belief of her Additional Articles defined in Trent as of the most fundamental Articles
of the Christian Faith And here in what hath been urged out of him but now doth not he grant the just requiring of an internal assent to inferr Infallibility Or will he justify it lawful for a Council that grants it self fallible in such its decrees notwithstanding to do all these things And then may not the Council of Trent rightly do so And lastly why doth the Church of England as themselves say forbear such things I say I see not clearly what here the Dr would have N. 4 2ly Coming to that which he presseth concerning the practice of Provincial Councils anathematizing Dissenters and yet these Councils granted by Catholicks not Infallible which Concession of Catholicks and particularly of Bellarmine de Concil l. 2. c. 10. is produced as ruining this weak argument of N.O. that would prove from Anathematizing Dissenters Infallibility First here N.O. consulting Bellarmin he is found De Concil l. 2. c. 3. where he maintains the Infallibility of General Councils to urge together with N.O. this very Argument for it See his words recited in the former Discourse § 65. Next for the objection concerning Provincial Councils N.O. had considered and answered it thus ‖ Consid p. 40. We finde indeed subordinate Councils also stating somtimes matters of faith censuring hereticks and requiring assent to their decrees but still with relation to the same Infallibility residing in the general Body of Church-Governours and to their concurrence therein They not passing such Acts without consulting the Tradition and Judgment of other Churches and especially of the Apostolick See and a general Acceptation rendring such their Decisions anthentick and valid so as those of General Councils are And Bellarmin's answer ‖ l. 2. c. 16. is shewed to be in substance much-what the same Dr St. replies to this †p. 125. l. 6. That the Anathemas of Provincial Councils did not relate to the acceptation of their Decrees either by the Pope or the whole Church as N.O. supposes but did preceed upon their own assurance of the truth of what they decreed otherwise their anathemas would have been only conditional and not absolute and peremptory as we see they were Thus He. To which I Answer that though such Anathemas of Provincial Councils do relate to the general approbation of their Decrees yet their Anathemas are rightly made not conditional but absolute either because such a sufficient concurrence with them of the Catholick Church is known to them before the composing their Decree as it may be when yet the confirmation of their Act is only received after it Or because such post-confirmation and acceptation after the penning of the Decree yet precedes the promulgation and just force or obligation of it It being penned absolute upon such a consent presupposed as we see the Affrican Anathemas were and as it is the ordinary custome in all laws the establishment wherof depends on many successively yet in their first stile to run absolutely because such ratification is presupposed to their having the due force of Laws And so in General Councils the Anathemas are penned absolute though these Councils and their Decrees have not their full strength till the Confirmation thereof by the See Apostolick and also such an admittance and acceptation of them by the Church-Catholick diffusive as is thought necessary Neither is the transaction of these Moral things to be exacted according to the Rules in Mathematicks Pag. 129. l. 10. But did proceed upon their own assurance of the truth of what they decreed Here Doth our Author allow fallible Councils upon a perswasion they have of the truth of what they decree to anathe matize dissenters and pronounce them hereticks Then why may not the Council of Trent do so Or if he means by their assurance that Provincial Councils are certain without relation to any consent of the whole that they do not err in such Decrees where they pronounce Anathema so he seems to give to these Provincial Councils also an Infallibility more than which Catholicks do not desire to be allowed to General viz. the certainty that these Fathers met in a General Council have whether by the evidence of Scripture or of Tradition or of a necessary Consequence from something Traditive or at least of our Lords promised Assistance that they do not err in those things they decree though in many other things they be sallible Ib. l. 14. He goes on thus But I need give no other answer to this argument than in the words of Dr Field whom N.O. appealed to ‖ Fieid of the Church l. 4. c. 4. but in another matter not this before viz. That Councils denounce anathema not because they think every one that disobey the decree of the Council to be accursed but because they are perswadâ—â— in particular that this is the eternal truth of God which they proâ—se therefore they accurse them that obstinately shall resist as S. Paul willeth every Christian man to anathematize an Angel coming from heaven if he shall teach them any other doctrine than he hath already learned yet is not every particular Christian free from possibility of erring If the argument then were good from anathematizing dissenters and calling them hereticks every particular person must by it be proved infallible who are bound to anathematize even Angel from heaven in case of delivering any other doctrine from the Gospel N. 1 Where it is said first that these General Councils do not denounce anathema to dissenters because they think every one that disobeys the decree of the Council i.e. by dissenting to be or to incurr their Anathema I answer to this that then they must hold their Anathema universally pronounced to be as to such persons unjust Which I suppose the General Councils did not It is said again that because these General Councils are perswaded in particular that this is the eternal truth of God that they propose therefore they anathematize them that obstinately shall resist But 1st N.O. presseth not these General Councils their anathematizing them that shall obstinatly resist that which they propose but them that shall dissent from it and he presseth their putting it also into the Creed and under anathema requiring from all the belief of it and that as a matter of faith 2. I contend that no Council that only is perswaded but not certain that that which it proposeth suppose the Consubstantiality or Divinity of our Lord is the eternal truth of God can justly insert such point in the Creed or anathematize Dissenters But it is agreed that the four first Councils did justly these things and therefore they were not only perswaded but certain that those were truths and that in them they were infallible and then much more did hold themselves so since one may think himself to be and yet not be infallible N. 2 To that which follows out of S. Paul It is answered that S. Paul or a Galatian must be certain of his not erring in that for the meer
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
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
infallible Judge it is a plain demonstration they thought there was none appointed Such thing was then heard of viz. the consenting Testimony however had of the present Apostolical Churches concerning former Traditive Doctrines or necessary Deductions from them was accepted and submitted-to by all save Hereticks as infallible And after the Church's liberty obtained of assembling General Councils that of Nice was in those times repaired to as an Infallible Judge by the whole Body of Christianity for deciding that great Controversy concerning our Lord's Divinity and the Decision thereof afterward accepted by the whole Church Catholick as Infallible Annotations on §. 13. Of the way used in the Primitive Church for finding the sense of Scripture PAg. 201. l. 5. What course now doth Irenaeus take to clear the sense of Scripture in these controverted places Doth he tell them that God hath appointed infallible Guides in his Church to whom appeal was to be made in all such cases Nothing like it through his whole Book Though the Dr here only urgeth a Negative Argument which often fails and though as to Hereticks utterly denying Church-Infallibility the Fathers had their liberty to chuse rather to convince them upon some other Principles by both sides agreed on Yet Irenaus we find against these Hereticks frequently pleaded this Church-Infallibility as not reasonably rejectible by them viz. Urged the consenting Testimony of the present Apostolical Churches as no way fallible in relating and delivering to posterity the former Apostolical Tradition For which see his l. 1. c. 3. Hanc praedicationem hanc fidem Ecclesia velut dixi adepta quanquam per totum mundum dispersa diligenter conservat quasi unam domum inhabitans similiter his credit velut unan animan idem cor habens consonè haec praedicat docet ac tradit velut uno ore praedita Nam linguae in mundo dissimiles sunt verùm virtus Traditionis una eadem est Praedicatio veritatis ubique lucet illuminat omnes homines ad cognitionem veritatis venire volentes And see the four first Chapters of lib. 3. where he hath much to this purpose There he saith in the Preface Resistens eis pro solâ vivifica fide quam ab Apostolis Ecclesia percepit distribuâ—t filiâ—s suis Ecclesia i.e. Patres ecclesiae that instruct the others And Ibid. c. 2. he saith Ad eam Traditionem quae est ab Apostolis quae per successiones Presbyterorum in Eccleseis cust ditur provocamus eos i.e. Haereticos And afterward accuseth them Neque Scripturis neque Traditioni of the sense the Church gives to the Scriptures consentire eos c. 3. Traditionem itaque saith he Apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam in Ecclesiâ i.e. in the unanimous consent of the present Church adest perspicere omnibus qui vera velint audire And then appealing to the preeminent authority of the Roman Church he thus goes on Maximae antiquissimae omnibus cognitae a gloriosissimis Apostolis Petro Paulo Romae fundatae constitutae Ecclesiae eam quam habet ab Apostolis traditionem annunciatam hominibus fidem per successiones Episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos indicantes confundimis omnes cos qui quoquo modo vel per sui placentiam malam vel vanam gloriam vel per coecitatem malam sententiam praeterquam oportet colligunt Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam propter poteâ—tiorem principalitatem because a Petro Paulo fundata hence frequent Appeals from thither all parts necesse est omnibus convenire ecclesiam bee est eos qui sunt undique fideles in quâ senper ab his qui sunt undique conservata est ea quae est ab Apostolis Traditio somwhat like that of S. Cyprian Ep. 55. Post ista adhue saith he speaking of two Schismaticks navigare andent ad Petri Cathedram atque ad Ecclesiam principalem unde unitas Sacerdotalis exorta est a Schismaticis profanis literas ferre nec cogitare cos esse Romanos quorum fides Apostolo praedicante laudata est ad quos perfidia habere non potest accessum And c. 4. Tantae igitur ostensiones cùm sint haec non oportet adhuc quaerere apud alios veritatem quam facile est ab Ecclesiâ sumere And see what was quoted before Note on p. 197. l. 7. Quid enim si quibus de aliquâ modicâ quaestione disceptatio esset c. In which places suppose a fallibility of the consenting-Testimony of the present Church-Governours when consulting concerning the Traditive faith that hath descended to them and all this Father saith falls to the ground Pag. 204. l. 13. And surely then he did not imagine that God had appointed an infallible Judge on purpose to prevent the being of Heresies by giving an infallible sense of Scripture Yes such an infallible Judge hence the more necessary to cure and remedy the Heresies which Tertullian saith the Scriptures were so framed as not to prevent Neither hath God in providing such a Judge constrained also all mens free wills to believe his Infallibility and acquiesce in his judgment And so the Oportet esse Haereses may be verified still Pag. 207. l. 4. The sense they the Hereticks gave of Scripture was contrary to the Doctrine of faith c. Which he Irenaeus calls the unmoveable rule of faith received in B. pt sm and which the Church dispersed over the earth did equally receive in all places with a wonderful consent If the Dr here would restrain the Father's urging the Testimony of the Apostolical Churches against Hereticks only to the Tradition of the Canon of Scriptures or the Rule of Faith the Creed Prosessed in their Baptisme we must know that they urged not the concurrent Testimony of the present Churches only for those against some gross Hereticks that denied the Text and Letter of them but also against others more subtile perverting such a sense of them as these consenting Churches pretend d was Apostolical See Jrenaeus l. 3. c. 2. Cùm ex Scripturis arguuntur in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scripturarum where amongst other their accusations he alledgeth this quia variè sint dictae ambiguous in their sense quia non possit ex his inventri veritas ab his qui nesciant traditionem Cùm autem ad eam iterùm traditionem i.e. concerning the right sense of these Scriptures quae est ab Apostolis quae per successiones presbyterorum in Ecclestis custoditur provocamus eos qui adversantur traditioni i e. Ecclesiae dicent se c. Evenit itaque neque Scripturis jam neque tradiâ—â—oni consentire eos And the words c. 4. cited before Quid enim 〈…〉 si quibus de aliquâ modicâ quaestione c. shew he holds such concurrent Testimony valid concerning any such Tradition though there had been no Scriptures and indeed there seems no reason why these Churches should be more credited in
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
Heresies both ways are used but not necessary therefore that all writings against them use both Or that Councils condemning them register the reason of their condemnation But so it is that this Council of Antioch in their Epistle to Paulus Samosatenus do use both as they urge the Scriptures so also the Church's consentient Tradition in these words Decrevimus fidem scripto edere exponere quam a principio aceepimus habemus traditam servatam in Catholicâ Sanctâ Ecclesitâ usque in hodiernum diem And Qui Filium Dei non esse Deum praedicat hunc alienum esse ab Ecclesiastica regula arbitramur omnes Ecclesiae Catholicae nobiscum consentiunt Pag. 228. l. 1. I would advise them to be conversant in the Divine Oracles ‖ Athanas cont Arian S. Athanasius in all th gives very good advice for in the Father's confuting Heresies by Scriptures and by Councils Scriptures have the prime place with Athanasius's limitation there writing to Bishops and those quibus gratia data est ut discernant spiritualia whilst he saith there Contra Arian Orat. 1. simplex non firmiter institutus dum solummodo verba Scripturae considerat statim illorum astutiis seducitur Especially these Scripture-proofs are necessary to Bishops when dealing with Adversaries that contemn Councils as now also Scriptures are urged by Catholicks to Protestants declining Church-Authority Ib. l. 7. But did not the Arians plead Scripture as well as they how then could the Scripture end this Controversy which did arise about the sense of Scripture This Objection was never so much as thought of in those days What thinks He of Tertullian's Prescription against Hereticks quoting Scriptures from Church-authority declaring Apostolical Tradition concerning the sense of such Scriptures c. 15. Scripturas saith he obtendunt hac suâ audacià statim quosdam movent in ipso verò congressu firmos quidem fatigant infirmos capiunt medios cum scrupulo dimittunt And Quid promovebis exercitatissime Scripturarum cùm si quid defenderis negetur ex diverso si quid negaveris defendatur Hunc igitur potissimum gradum obstruimus non admittendi eos ad ullam de Scripturis disputationem i.e. by transferring the Controversy to be tried by the consentient Doctrine and Tradition of the Church Catholick Or what thinks he of the words of Athanasius in the same Oration that is here quoted advising those he writ to thus Zelum Domino zelate retentâ Patrum fide quam Fatres qui Nicaeae convenerant scripto professi sunt Ne sustinueritis eos qui contra eam novis rebus student etiamsi dictiones ex sacris literis scribant Ib. l. 9. They did not in the least desert the proofs of Scripture because their adversaries made use of it too No why should they the true sense of which was on their side and this also evident enough to some mens reason But to those not by this way convinced they pressed also the universal Tradition of the Church and the Definitions of its General Councils as infallible and to be submitted to by all private judgments For which to view this Author he speaks of Athanasius See the beginning of his Epistle to Epictetus Bishop of Corinth Ego arbitrabar saith he omnium quotquot unquam fucre haereticorum inanem garrulitatem Nicaeno Concilio sedatam esse Nam Fides quae inibi a Patribus secundum sacras Scripturas tradita confessionibus confirmata est sat is mihi idonea efficaxque videbatur ad omnem impictatem evertendam c. And therefore he saith the Bishops thereof afterward divesis Conciliis istos lucifugas quae Arii sunt sapientes communi calculo unius spiritus incitatu anaethemate percusserunt Quâ igitur audaciâ fit ut post tanti Concilii authoritatem disceptationes aut quaestiones instituantur And Quae ita manifestò prava pervâ—rsaque sunt ea euriosiùs tractare non oportet ne contentiosis hominibus ambigua videantur sed tantummodò ad ea respondendum est quod ipsum per se sufficit ea orthodoxae Ecclesiae non esse neque majores nostros ita senfisse And Si vultis filii Patrum esse non debetis sentire diversa ab iis quae Patres ipsi conscritserunt Again in the beginning of his Epistle to the Affrican Bishops Sufficiunt ea quae Niceae confessa fuere satisque per se virium habent quemadmodum superiùs diximus tum ad subversionem impii dogmatis tum ad tutelam utilitatemque Ecclesiasticae doctrinae And Neque Deum metuerunt ita dicentem Ne transmoveas terminos aeternos quos posuerunt Patres tuiâ— Qâ—â—accusat Patrem aut Matrem morte moriatur neque patres nostros quicquam reveriti sunt denunciantes anathema si quis contraria suae ipsorum confessioni sentiret Plusquam decem Synodos jam instituerant c. Verbum autem illud Domini per Occumenicam Niceae Synodum in aeternum manet And in the close of that Epstile after citing the Apostle 1 Cor. 11.2 Laudo vos quod quemadmodum tradidi vobis traditiones ita eas servatis he goes on Ipsa enim Nicaena Synodus reverâ trophaeum columnaque est ubi omnes haereses inscriptae ostentui sunt alluding to Col. 2. 15. then declaring how this Council established the Faith he saith Quam Patres statuissent de fide in Filium id statim adjectum voluere Credimus in Spiritum Sanctum And in his Epistle de Synodis he saith of these Fathers shewing their just authority in matters of faith that In negotio Paschatis placuit ut adderetur Visum est ut omnes obtemperarent De fide verò non scripserunt Visum est sed Ad istum modum credit Catholica Ecclesia statim confessio ipsa credendi adjuncta est ut ostenderent eam non novam esse sententiam sed Apostolicam quae ipsi scripsissent non esse sua inventaâ— sed Apostolorum documenta Pag 223. l. 11 So Athanasius saw no necessity at all of calling in the assistance of any infallible Guides to give the certain sense of Scripture in these doubtful places Of any infallible Guides or of any Guides at all he may say for here are none mentioned fallible or infallible No necessity then of the Council of Nice in Athanasius's judgment Review the places but now mentioned and see more in Note on p. 245. l. 1. This Author hath need of very credulous Readers Pag. 230. l. 15. Yet he no where saith that without the help of that Tradition it had been impossible to have known the certain sense of Scripture Nor do Catholicks say so They say only that the Church Governours met in a General Council are infallible in their decisions of necessary faith by reason of an evident Tradition of such an Apostolical Doctrine or sense of Scripture descending to them Or by some necessary Deduction of theirs made from such traditive doctrine in the same
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
Methodius and others and of the other qui substaatiam Dogmatis of the Trinity tenentes in consectarius quibusdam non nihil a Regulâ deflectunt he numbers only three Justin Martyr Athenagoras and Theophylus Antiochenus Praefat. c. 3. he saith also Longè plures extiterunt quibus aut scripto comprehensa aut sine scripto praedicata fidei verit as permanavit ad postâ—ros All is represented here contrary what trust may his Reader repose upon this Author's Citations Or what great regard seems he to have of the Credit of the Fathers or of the security of Tradition on which the Ancient Writers cited before lay so great weight for conviction of Hereticks even in the Delivering the Doctrine of the Trinity Whilst he writes here on this manner to weaken both The usefulness of Tradition I am told is for explaining the sense of Scripture But there begins a great Controversy in the Church about the explication of the Doctrine of the Trinity I desire to know whether Vincentius his Rules will help us here It is pleaded by S. Hierome and others That the Writers of the Church might err in this matter or speak unwarily in it before the matter came to be throughly discussed if so how comes the Testimony of erroneous or unwary Writers to be the certain means of giving the sense of Scripture And in most of the Controversies of the Church this way hath been used to take off the testimony of persons who writ before the Controversy began and spake differently of the matter in debate I do not deny the truth of the allegation in behalf of those persons but to my understanding it plainly shews the incompetency of Tradition for giving a certain sense of Scripture when that Tradition is to be taken from the Writers of the foregoing Ages and if this had been the only way of confuting Arius it is a great Question how he could ever have been condemned if Petavius or S. Hierom say true Thus this Dr. Ib. l. 2. It is pleaded by S. Hierome and others that the Writers of the Church might err in this matter or speak unwarily c. The Writers Our Author deals much in indefinite i.e. doubtfu terms S. Ierome speaks only of those few Ancients quoted by Ruffinus Of which Ancients too Origen is cited by S. Athanasius †De Synod Nicaen Decret is for the orthodox opinion and apologized for that Quae disputandi certandique gratiâ scripsit ea non quasi ipsius sint verba aut quasi ipse it a sentiat sed corum qui cum eo contentiosiùs disputarunt accipienda sunt And also the most considerable of them Dionysius Alexandrinus is amply vindicated by him writing a Treatise of it And some of the rest possibly may be defended on the same account as Dionysius who then opposing Sabellianisme a contrary Heresy to Arianisme had occasion to speak in vindication of our Lord's Humanity and might have their sense mistaken But however the errour of some may well consist with the Notion of Vniversality as taken by Vincentius and whilst some ancient Writers happen to be either unwary in their expression or also faulty in their opinion the certain sense of the Scriptures may be learnt from others more numerous and not only from the Writers which in the three first Ages were but few but from the general Doctrine of the other Church-Prelates And so it was learnt by the Council of Nice which pleaded the constant Tradition of the former times for the doctrine they defined See Athanasius in his Epistle to the Africans for the very expressions used by the Council Neque saith he hâc in parte sibi ista vocabula finxerunt sed a Patribus qui ante fuerunt ea didicerunt quemadmodum diximus and a little before mentions Eusebius Nicomediensis the ring-leader of the Arians confessing it Again Ibid Sufficit Nicaena quae cum veteribus Episcopis consentit And Si post tot documenta postque testimonia veterum Episcoporum c. Again in his Tract de Synod Nic. Decretis Est ibi saith he ut Patres tradiderunt verae disciplinae magisteriâ— urgumentum ubi eadem confitentur nec a se invicem nec a majoribus dissentiunt Qui saith he shewing the constancy of Tradition tametsi diversis temporibus vixerint aequè tamen simul eodem tendunt ut unius Dei prophetae ejusdem sermonis interpretes Quae enim Moses docuit eadem ab Abrahamo observata sunt quae porrò Abraham observavit eadem Noe Enoch agnoverunt urging Gal. 1.8 Si quis vobis evangelizaverit praeter hoc quod accopistis anathema sit And afterward contends Patres qui Nicâ—ae convenerunt non a se haec vocabula finxisse sed ab aliis olim accepisse quoting there several of the Ancients and among the rest Origen and Dionysius Alexandrinus concluding thus Ecce nos demonstramus istiusmodi sententiam a Patribus ad Patres quasi per manus traditam esse But lastly in a Tradition any way less evident as to the universality thereof in former Writers yet we are secure of these Supreme Church-Gover nours assembled their not defining an errour in Faith necessary both from the light they may have from Scriptures always principally consulted by them as the chief of Traditions and where their learning and practice therein may discern that clear which is obscure to others and from our Lords promised assistance of them with his Holy Spirit of which we have a most clear and evident Tradition Meanwhile is not Vincentius his Rule by this Authors discourse here made unserviceable in one of the chief points wherein Vincentius against the Hereticks relied on the evidence of former Tradition i.e. in the Divinity of our Lord And is not the Dr for strengthening the Protestant cause in some manner become an Advocate for the Arian Let the Reader review it Pag 246. l. 17. And if this The Tradition of foregoing ages had been the only way of confuting Arius it is a great question how he could ever have been condemned if Petavius or S. Hierome say true I think the Reader hath seen what little countenance our Author hath had from these two whilst he would here insinuate to his Reader that the former written Church Tradition was either on Arius his side or not against him What stone will not a contrary interest turn to unfix or dishonour our Holy Mother the Church Pag. 247. l. 5. And in this regard we acknowledge a great reverence due to the decrees of such General Councils as that was Acknowledge a great Reverence due But Quaere Whether yield assent and Submission of Judgment to all that all such lawful General Councils do or shall define And if so upon what account can this be save on the evidence that Scripture and Tradition yields of their perpetual assistance from our Lord in necessaries not to mistake either the sense of Scripture or truth of Tradition so as to convey
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
ambagibus tergiversationibus sic suscipiendus es Quod si non vis non mihi aut cuiquam hominum qui vult ita suscipere sed ipsi Salvatori contra salutem tuam perniciosissimè reluctaris cui te sic suscipiendum esse non vic credere quemadmodum suscipit illa Ecclesia quam testimonio suo commendat ille cui fateris nefarium esse non eredere Here this Father plainly saith in believing and doing as the Church commands and directs us we believe and do that which our Lord and the Scriptures command us which Lord and Scriptures have commended and given a Testimony to us of his Church N. 2 Which recommendation and Testimony let it be meant as the Dr will have it namely of the shewing and pointing ouâ— which of several pretending to be it is this Catholick Church for indeed this thing only needed a proof to the Donatists who allowed the same Infallibility in this Catholick Church as S. Austin and so an Infallibility in themselves conceiving themselves only to be this Catholick Church and that which our Lord and the Scriptures so recommended Yet this Church thus demonstrated which it is it is manifest S. Austin in the former passages affirms that in all things we are to follow and believe to be truth that which it tells us is so as if Christ or the Scriptures that recommended this Church to us had told us so Otherwise if this Church so demonstrated by our Lord and Scripture be fallible after its Resolution we may still be deceived in our Question about Rebaptization whereas the Father saith Quisquis falli metuit c. Ecclesiam consulat and Scripturarum a nobis tenetur veritas cùm hoc facimus quod universaeplacuit Ecclesiae And so after such Resolution we may disbelieve the Church without disbelieving our Lord. Nor can S Austin justly say as he doth to a Donatist refusing to receive Hereticks so as the Church doth without Rebaptization Nunquid Tu meliùs potes nosse quomodo suscipiendus sis qùà m Saltor noster And here it would be a great mistake to rely on the Church for that which it delivers to us as a truth upon our Lord 's recommending it which Church our Lord recommends not for this but some other thing consistent with that which it delivers its being an errour N. 3 But to put this further out of doubt If S. Austin did nâ—t suppose our Lord and the Scriptures to recommend this Church in such doubtful cases as in its Resolutions of them Infallible how comes this Father to require Assent and belief of what this Church defines and doing of what she commands How makes he all Hereticks that dissent from her Definitions even those Donatists to be Hereticks after the Church's Decree for holding Rebaptization who were not so before it Now Haeresis quae in vitio est as he saith ‖ De Haeresibus sine errore aliquo Haeresis esse non potest But if General Councils might erre in such points something thus might be Heresy in opposing them that were no errour If he held not Non rebaptization defined by the Church as a most certain truth how came it to be put in the Creed May something be a part of the Christian Faith that is not truth S. Austin every where expresseth his belief touching the not erring of General Councils otherwise See concerning Non-rebaptization De Baptismo 2. l. 4. c. where he questions not S. Cyprian's yielding to the consenting authority of the universal Church on this account Si jam illo tempore quaestionis hujus veritas eliquatae declarata per plenarium Concilium solidaretur Therefore S. Austin held it was so consolidated afterward So he saith of him Ib. c. 8. Vt quod postea plenario Concilio visum est id verum esse perspiceret doceret But how this his discerning it and teaching it for truth if this Council might err in their definition of it He might indeed have expected S. Cyprian's conserving the Church's peace but not conforming to its opinion He cals the Council's Decree verum liquidum eliquatum sincerum And 2. l. 1. c. he calls it after defined regula veritatis quam tota ecclesia tenuit L. 1. c. 18. he saith Restat ut hoc credamus quod universa ecclesia custodit And Quod in hâc re sentiendum est plenioris Concilii sententiâ totius Ecclesiae consensio confirmat Lib. de Haeresibus he saith of the Donatists Audent etiam rebaptizare Catholicos ubi se ampliùs Haereticos esse firmarunt cum ecclesiae Catholicae universae placuerit nec in ipsis Haereticis Baptisma communc rescindere And Ibid. he saith that Sufficit Ecclesiam contra aliquid sentire ut illud non recipiamus in fidem Why so if something in matters of Faith contrary to what the Church believes may be Truth And if the Father saith thus of this Church cui testimonium perhibet Christus Scriptura it s not erring in Quaestione obscurissimâ as he calls it and having no clear evidence of Scripture what would he do in its defining any other points wherein the Scriptures afford the same Church more light N. 4 To this Church he applies that Text 1. Tim. 3.15 16. Vt scias quomodo oporteat te in domo Dei conversari quae est Ecclesia Dei vivi columna firmamentum veritatis ‖ De Vnit Eccles c. 2. And Magnum est pietatis sacramentum praedicatum est in gentibus creditum est in mundo And †De Verbis Apostoli Serm. 14. speaking against the Pelagians concerning another point already defined by the Church Ecclesiae sanctae saith he pro remissione peccati Orginalis parvulorum quotidiè laboranti non contradicant Fundata ista res est i.e. the benefit of Baptisme to Infants Ferendus est disputator errans in alt is quaestionibus non diligenter digestis nondum plenâ Ecclesiae authoritate firmatis ibi ferendus est error non tantum progredi debet ut etiam fundamentum ipsum Ecclesiae quatere moliatur So saith he Contra Parmenian l. 2. c. 13. De iis qui ab Ecclesiae unitate separati sunt nulla jam quaestio est quin habeant verum Baptismum dare possint Hoc enim in ipso totius orbis unitate discussum consideratum perfectum atque firmatum est And to this might be added all those Testimonies out of him wherein he saith that there can never be any just cause of separating from the Communion of the Catholick Church from which I conceive it follows that she can never commit such an errour in her Decrees that to avoid the subscription thereof exacted by her any shall be justly necessitated to leave her external Communion N. 5 Concerning the same Church's Authority he saith in his Book De Vtilitate Credendi c. 16. Homini non valenti verum intueri Authoritas ab ipso Deo constituta praesto est
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
to S. Austin he is far from calling his sense vox aperta against them or from not believing theirs and not his to be the true sense of this Voice of the Pastor Concerning whom united in such a Body he saith ‖ lib. de Haeres Sufficit Ecclesiam contra aliquid sentire ut illud non recipiamus in fidem But the Father evidently speaks of some Catholick Bishops holding something contrary to Scripture but also to the other Bishops as appears by the words following Sed qui custodito Vnitatis Charitatis Vinculo i.e. with the rest from whom they differ in opinion in hoc incidunt c. Nor have we any so sure Judge when some Catholick Bishops do so as this whole Body of them dissenting He proceeds Ib. l. 14. By which it is evident that he supposed no Infallibility in the Guides of the Church i.e. single or a few contradicted by the more and superiour Ib. l. 16. And in termes he asserts ‖ De Vnita Eccles c. 19. that the Church is to be proved by nothing but plain Scriptures neither by the authority of Optatus or S. Ambrose or innumcrable Bishops nor Councils nor Miracles Intermes he asserts No. These are not S. Austins words truly translated or quoted After S. Austin Ib. c. 18. had thus spoken to the Donatist Remotis omnibus talibus Ecclesiam suam demonstrent si possunt non in sermonibus rumâ—ribus Afrorum non in Conciliis Episcoporum suorum non in literis quorumlibet disputatorum non in signis prodigiis fallacibus c. sed in praescripto Legis c. And again ‖ Ecclesiam in Scripturis Canonicis debemus agnoscere non in vanis hominum rumoribus opinionibus factis dictis visis inquirere things the Donatists pleaded against him I say After this he proceeds in these words which are translated by the Dr Sed utrum ipsi Ecclesiam teneant non nisi de divinarum Scripturarum canonicis libris ostendant quia nec nos propterea dicimus nobis credi oportere quòd in Ecclesiâ Christi sumus quia ipsam quam tenemus commendavit Milevitanus Optatus vel Mediolanensis Ambrosius vel alii innumerabiles nostrae communionis Episcopi aut quia nostrorum collegarum Conciliis ipsa praedicata est aut quia per totum in locis sanctis quae frequentat nostra communio tanta mirabilia vel exauditionum vel sanitatum fiunt c. Where S. Austin saith not that the Church can be proved by nothing but plain Scripture Or denies that General Councils or true Miracles or Vniversal Tradition are no sufficient proof thereof Of which General Councils he speaks nothing here but of those of the two Parties Concilia Episcoporum suorum on one side and Concilia nostrorum Cellegarum on the other And we may see in the quotations before Note on p. 251. l. 12. S. Austin knowing the Scriptures from the Church and the Church from other marks amongst which true Miracles surely are the highest proof of any Truth and so were of the Apostles their being Gods true Church and Ministers But the Father to the Donatists allowing with him the Scriptures urgeth the Church as demonstrable by their clear testimony not as the only testimony but the chief and such as more than this needed not and exacts of them that he waving these other proofs on his side wherein he had much the advantage of them by his innumerabiles Episcopi which surely ought to carry it against theirs and vera Miracula so they would the urging of their Councils far inferior and their Miracles fallacious on their side and bring in their defence Anti-Scriptures to his Scriptures In these things I referr my self to the candid Examiner of the place Ib. l. 6. He endeavours to bring them to a resolution in the other point the Church for the clearing of this non-Rebaptization But how doth proving such a Society as defines Non-rebaptization to be the true Church clear Non-rebaptization to be the right practise which S. Austin inferrs from it if this Church proved yet may err in defining it so Pag. 255. l. 10 ‖ S. Austin de Baptisnâ— l. 2. c. 3. And of these General Councils the former are often anâ—â—nded by the latter As this place is often urged by Protestants so it is answered to by Catholicks that taking the Fathers words plenaria Concilia or General Councils as relating to the words immediatly preceding quae fiunt ex universo orbe Christiano which is not necessary N. 1 such General Councils may correct and amend one another the latter the former as to several things though never as to Dogmata Fidei For as Cardinal Bellarmine ‖ De Concil l. 2. c. 12. In Conciliis maxima pars actorum ad fidem non pertinet sed tantùm ipsa nuda decreta ea non omnia sed tantùm quae proponuntur tanquam de fide Interdum enim Concilia aliquid definiunt non ut certum sed ut probabile He grants Ibid. that Concilia in judiciis particularibus i.e. ubi non affirmatur aliquid generale toti ecclesiae commune errare possunt So he grants 2. l. 7. c. Quad aliqua praecepta morum Concilia plenaria priora emendari per posteriora upon S. Austin's reason quando experimento aliquo aperitur quod clausum erat c. If S. Austins words mean this so Catholicks grant it N. 2 But 2ly If S. Austins words must be understood of such plenary and absolutely General Councils without any remitting of the highest sense of the word whenas indeed these words Vniversale Generale Plenarium were applied to Councils of a smaller Collection of Bishops when this from several partss and a little after this quotation the Father saith concerning Rebapization that Diutiùs per orbis terrarum regiones multis hinc atque hinc disputationibuus collationibus Episcoporum pertractata est And several Synods were for it held in the East as well as in Affrick ‖ See Euseb l. 7. c. 4. thus what the Father saith here will make nothing for him as to his present Controversy with the Donatist about Rebaptization Nay more against him For there were no two such Councils that were both General whereof the latter had amended the former concerning Rebaptization at all and had there the same uncertainty of truth would have been in the decree of the latter as of the former and in this case the Donatist would not have failed to have taken the advantage of the Former General Councils N. 3 But 3ly applying S. Austins words Ipsa plenaria sapè priora posterioribus emendari as in reason we ought to the times preceding his as also considering those other words he adds sine ullo typho sacrilegae superbiae c. he seems to speak ‖ See contra Maximinum l. 3. c. 14. of the plenary but illegal Arian Councils that were not plenary in the largest
17. if no infallible then no Ecclesiastical Judge Pag. 273. l. 3. I no where in the least exclude the use of all means and due helps of Guides and others for the understanding the sense of Scripture Yes for the understanding the sense of Scripture in all necessary Faith For you both in your Principles and in this Book ground the sober Enquirer's not erring in necessaries upon the plainness of the delivery of not some or many for this will be granted to you at least for persons of a good capacity but all such points in Scripture which plainness in Scripture where it is renders an Expositor of such Scripture needless upon such diligence used Or if you mean a plainness by using the help of the Clergy the plainness now is had not in the Text but from the Clergy the mentioning therefore of which by you would have prejudiced such plainness in the Text. Ib. l. 14. To what purpose in an account of the Principles of Faith should I mention those things which we do not build our faith upon I mean the Authority of our Guides I hope in your Principles or Foundations of Faith that you intended to set down all things necessâ—ry to a Christian's having a true Faith as in your 13th Principle that you intended to set down all things that were necessary that a sober requirer might not err in necessary Faith without leaving any of them out Now a most exact and perfect Rule of our Faith if it be not also clear to us requires somthing besides for our belief of its true sense namely an Expositor where this Rule is obscure and then that we may not err in this our belief an Infallible One. For the Scripture or Principle here when obscure abstracted from this Expositor is of it self indifferent between the sense which we receive and which we reject In obscure Scripture we resolve our faith into God's Word indeed but as this is related or expounded to us by the Church And this Church therefore is necessary to be mentioned where we speak of the Resolution of any such part of our Faith Pag. 274. l. 2 Doth this make the whole Profession of Physick useless No. But If Hippocrates his Aphorismes are set down so plainly as that every one that will take the pains to read and compare them may understand them I may safely say an Expositor of these is useless to so many as will take this pains The same is said of Expositors as to plain Scriptures What followes here in him is very true but nothing to our business Pag. 276. l. 11. How comes it now to pass c. Mr. S. C. pitcheth here that as to the knowledge of all necessary faith the guidance of Church-Governours is by Dr St. rendred useless For other matters how great soever Dr St. may make or prove the authority of these Church-Governours to be he troubles not himself Pag. 277. l. 7. S. Austin in his books of Christian Doctrine already mentioned See before Note on p. 236. l. 1. Ib. l. 9. And S. Chrysostom in as plain words as may be c. ‖ Hom. 3. in 2 Thess S. Chrysostome's words in that place reprehending the peoples neglect in the hearing the Scriptures read if there were no Sermon a great fault which the present times are still subject-to are these Cur inquit ingredior si non audio aliquem verba facientem saith he that stayes from Church Hoc saith the Father omnia perdidit corrupit Quid enim opus est aliquo qui verba faciat sermonem habeat Ex nostrâ socordiâ hoc usu venit Quid enim opus est sermone Omnia sunt dilucida recta quae sunt in divinis Scripturis manifesta sunt quaecunque sunt necessaria Sed quoniam estis auditores delectationis propterea haec etiam quaeritis i.e. Sermons Which words taken in a rigid sense prove more than Dr St. doth pretend to make good out of them making such a plainness in the Scriptures as that there is no need of any Sermons But the Eather seems here as Sixtus Senensis on this place hath observed not to speak so much of Dogmata fidei wherein it were strange if in all the things that are controverted and Scriptures urged on both sides nothing should be a necessary or that any simple person needed therein no teacher as of praecepta Morum historiae sacrae formandis moribus utiles his Sermons chiefly aiming at the forming of Manners not stating points of Faith And so in another place where the Father speaks much what the same things he seems to explain himself in Concio 3. de Lazaro Luc. 16. Cui enim saith he there non sunt manifesta quaecunque in Evangelio scripta sunt Quis autem audiens beatos esse mites beatos misericordes beatos mundicordes caeteraque hujusmodi desiderabit praeceptorem ut aliquid eorum discat quae dicuntur Quinetiam signa miracula historiae nonne cuivis nota manifestaque sunt Praetextus iste est causatio pigritiaeque velamentum Yet there he supposeth they may meet with difficulties such wherein it is necessary they should be instructed also and so adviseth them to repair to a Doctor Quod si non peteris saith he assiduitato lectiâ—nis invenire quod dicitur accede ad sapientiorem vade ad doctorâ—â— coâ—â—unica cum his ea quae scripta sunt giving them the example of the Ethiopian Eunuch Nay in this very place cited by the Dr the Father seems to explain himself chiefly of the clearness of Scripture-Stories from whence they might learn instruction of manners in the words following where replying to those who pretended obscurity in the Scriptures read to them Quaenam ea obscuâ—itus saith he Dic quaeso annon sunt historiae Nostine i.e. have you already sufficiently learnt those things quae sunt clara dilucida i.e. that you cannot deny to be so ut de iis quae sunt obscura perconteris i.e. afterward Historiae innumerabiles sunt in Scripturis i.e. very plain Dic mihi unam ex illis c. Ib. l. ult And for the finding out the sense of Scripture without the help of Infallibility I have produced more out of Antiquity in this Discourse He might also as truly say or without the help of Church-Authority He proceeds Pag. 278. l. 2. Than he or his whole party will be able to answer Of this let the Reader judge Mean while let us remember the Apostle's advice Phil. 2.3 Nihil per inanem gloriam Pag. 279. l. 10. I dare appeale to any person whether the Bishops deriving their authority from Christ or from the Pope be the better way of defending their power These two do well consist as also doth an English Bishop's deriving his authority from Christ and from the Metropolitan and his Synod Pag. 280. l. 1. If there be any other Power beside the Pope's in the Church the denying the Pope's Authority cannot in the least diminish