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
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
to these also this Infallible Guide is necessary to supply the effect of such studies N. 4 As for the 2d means viz. The Ancients urging the general Exposition and sense of Scriptures testified in the Apostolical Churches to be conformed to Catholicks affirm that this viz. the Apostolick Churches their unanimously delivering such a doctrine or sense of Scripture as received first from the Apostles was always held to be infallible and not liable to errour and all Chri tians held oblâ—ged to believe or embrace such a doctrine or sense of Scripture so generally consented in and the dissenters and opposers thereof always held by the same united and consenting Apostolical Churches for Hereticks in the Faith To which Traditive Doctrine I add here or any necâ—ssary and evident Deduction made by them from such a tradiâ—ive doctrine In both which the Tradition or the Deduction the Câ—urch was con tantly believed to be so preserved by God's providence over it and his Holy Spirit abiding with it as not to err in any necessaries And the unanimous consent of these Churches concerning any doctrine to be Apostolical however their minds were made known whether by Communicatory Letters or Provinciâ—l Synods for it could not be in these times of persecution by a Council General had then the self same authority as afterwards the Decrees and Definitions of Councils And thus is the Dr in urging the 2d means of knowing the true sense of Scripture fallen upon the Infallibility herein of the Church And this was the Infallible Guide in the first times whose Tradition and Ordination for matters of our faith Irenaeus saith ‖ l. 3. c. 4. Chriâ—tians muâ—t have followed and believed had the Apostles lest us no Scriptures and consequently Dissenters had been held no less Hereticks Siquibus saith he speaking of the present Churches de aliquâ modicâ quaestione how much more in greater disceptatio esset nonne oporteret in an iquissinas i.e. by succession recurrere ecclesias in quibus Apostoli conversati sunt ab eis de praesente quaestione suâ—ere quâ—d certum re liquidum est what was the certain and cleare tâ—uth to which he was to adhere Quid autem si neque Apostoli quidem Scripturas reliquissent nobis nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis quam tradiderunt iis quibus committebant Ecclesias cui ordinationi assentiunt multae gentes Barbarorum corum qui in Christum creâ—unt sine charactere vel atramento scriptam habentes per spiritum in cordibus suis salutem veterem traditionem diligenter custodientes c. N. 5 Neither was this general Consent of Churches then consulted or repaired-to only concerning their conserving of the Written Rule of Faith the Canon of Scripture or the Creed that they received from the Apostles the perpetual conservation of which in the Church the Fathers urged against some grosser kind of Hereticks denying the same Creed and some part at least of this Canon but also was consulted and repaired-to concerning the sense wherein the Scriptures and this Creed were understood by these Churches so often as disputes in those times were raised about it by other Hereticks more refined and who admitted the Scriptures and the Creed but varied concerning the sense of them in several points Against both which Hereticks the Fathers urged the prescription of the present testimony of these Churches to those who would consult them concerning the Tradition descending to them from the times of the Apostles And Tertullian frequently complains as of some Hereticks not reâ—eiving the Scriptures so of others misinterpreting them ‖ De praescript adv haeres c. 17. c. Ista Haeresis non recipit quasdam Scripturas siquas recipit adjectio ibus detractionibus ad dispositionem instituti sui intervertit si recipit non recipit integras si aliquatenùs integras praestâ—t nihilâ—minùs â—iversas expositiones commentata convertit Tantum veritati obstrepit adulter sensus quantum corruptor stilus And afterward Dicunt a nobis potius adulteria Scripturarum expositionum mendâ—cia inferri And ubi apparu rit esse veritatem disciplinae fidei Coristianae illic erit veritas Scripturarum omnium traditionum Christianarum Where I note his urging the Church's consenting Exposition of Scriptures as well as reception of Scriptures as prescribing against Hereticks Ib l. 11. It will not I hope be denied that the Primitive Christian Church had a cercain way of understanding the sense of doubtful places as far as it was necessary to be understood and that they wanted nâ— means which Christ had appointed for the ending of controversies This is willingly granted and it is contended that this inerrability in Necessaries accompanied the Clergy and preserved the Church in the unity of a true faith in all even the Primitive times being annexed to the whole Body or much major part of this Clergy not only when met in a General Council but out of it also whenever and however they manifested a concurrence in their judgment and agreement in their doctrine whether it were by several Provincial Councils assembled or perhaps only by some one convened in the place more infested with some new and dangerous errour and ratified by the Apostolick See and other coordinate Churches or not opposed and censured but taciâ—ly admitted by them Or by their Communicatory and Synodical Letters Or whether in their publick Liturgies and Offices Or in a general Consent in their publick Writings and explications of Christian Doctrine In none of which as to the Doctrine Necessary the whole Body of the Clergy or that which in any dissent is to be accepted for the whole did ever erre Of which times before Constantine and the first General Council of Nice thus Mr Thorndike in his Epilogue l. 1. c. 8. The daily intercourse intelligence and correspondence between Churches without those Assemblies of Representatives we call Councils was a thing so visibly practised by the Catholick Church from the beginning that thereupon I conceive it may be called a standing Council in regard of the continual settling of troubles arising in some part and tending to question the peace of the whole by the consent of other Churches concerned which settlement was had and obtained by means of this mutual intelligence and correspondence The holding of Councils being a way of far greater dispatch but the express consent of Churches obtained upon the place being a more certain foundation of peace And afterward he affirms That the succession of Pastors alledged by Irenaeus and Tertullian to convince the Hereticks of their time by S. Augustine and Optatus to convince the Donatists to be Schismaticks proceeded wholly upon supposition of daily intercourse and correspondence between Churches as of force to conclude particular Churches by consent of the whole And this agreement in all times hath kept the Faith of the Church steady and uniform Ib. l. 4 If no such thing was then heard of as an
their testimony when pretending one thing Tradition Apostolical than when another though these things perhaps be not of an equal importance Pag. 208. l. 1. Which Tradition they the Hereticks accounted the key to unlock all the difficulties of Scripture Hereticks indeed so accounted their false tradition but so the Churches also their true Tradition Ib. l. 12. Irenaeus appeals to the most eminent Churches And especially that of Rome because of the great resort of Christians thither where he omits the Necesse est No. Propter potentiorem principalitatem saith the Father which Pricipalitas potentior a Petro Paulo fundata caused the great resort of Christians thither propter quam ad hanc necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam c see the words at large cited before Annot. on p. 201. l. 5. Ib. l. 17. And knew of no such tradition as the Valentinians pretended to But this was not all the Fathers pleaded also in the Churches an Anti-tradition true and Apostolical witnessed by the unanimous testimony of the present Apostolical Churches as the others did a false and untestifyed Ib. l. 9 And supposing no Scriptures we must then have followed the Traditien of the most ancient and Apostolical Churches Thus said Irenaeus I add and this Tradition witnessed by the present Churches must be in necessaries infallible else Christian Religion would be liable to errour in such necessaries Pag. 209. l. 14. But Irenaeus knew nothing of any infallible Judge to determine the sense of Scripture For the contraty see Note on p. 197. l. 7. and l. 11. Pag. 210. l. 2. There must be a certain unalterable Rule of faith c. Now this Author removes his discourse from Irenaeus to Tertullian Who also as Irenaeus speaks not only of the Creed professed in Baptism nor of some chief Articles but of the whole doctrine of faith and manners necessary to salvation as also of the right sense of Scriptures controverted that it was delivered to and deposited in the Christian Churches by our Lord and his Apostles and from the unanimous agreement of the same Churches therein in any controversy made concerning it might be certainly learnt and known What hath been said of Irenaeus needs not be repeated concerning him both do tread in the same steps and Tertullian had perused the works of Irenaeus ‖ See contra Valentin c. 5. both referr Christians to the consentient Testimony of the Apostolical Churches in any doubting in matters of faith or disputed sense of Scripture a these Churches firmly conserving and rightly delivering the Tradition Apostolical and as not liable to errour herein Of these Churches thus he De praescript c. 19. Vbi or apud quos apparuerit esse veritatem disciplinae fidei Christianae delivered to them by the Apostles illic erit veritas Scripturarum expositionum omnium traditionum Christianarum And how this if these consentient Churches not held infallible in rightly delivering such Tradition c. 21. And Quid Apostolis Christus revelaverit hic praescribam non aliter probari debere nisi per easdem Ecclesias Proinde constare omnem doctrinam quae cum illis Ecclesiis Apostolicis matricsbus originalibus fidei conspiret veritati deputandam id sine dubio tenentem quod ecclesiae ab Apostolis Apostoli a Christo Christus a Deo suscepit These Churches therefore in no age are errable in conserving or delivering such such doctrine for else how any certain that not in Tertnllian's Superest ergo uti demonstremus an haec nostra doctrina cujus regulam supra edidimus de Apostolorum traditione censeatur Which he demonstrates thus Communicamus cum Ecclesiis Apostolicis quod nulla doctrina diversa facit hoc est testimonium veritatis And after c. 36. speaking of the Apostolical Churches in any diversity of doctrine to be consulted he goes on thus Proxima est tibi Achaia habes Corinthum Si non longè es a Macedoniâ habes Philippos c. Si autem Italiae adjaces habes Roman unde nobis Affricanis authoritas praesto est where he advanceth this Church above the rest as also Irenaeus Faelix ecclesia saith he cui totam doctrinam Apostoli cum sanguine suo profuderunt Videamus quid didicerit i.e. haec ecclesia quid docuerit cùm Affricanis quoque ecclesiis contesserarit Then naming some part of Its Faith and doctrine against the contrary of the Hereticks of those days adversus hanc institutionem saith he neminem recipit into its communion Then concludes Si haec ita se habent ut veritas nobis adjudicetur c non esse admittendos haereticos ad candem de Scripturis provocationem quos sine Scripturis i.e. by the infallible Testimony of the Church discovering their faith not right Probamus ad Scripturas non pertinere And Illic or apud cos igitur Scripturarum expositionum adulteratio deputanda est ubi diversitas invenitur doctrinae from the consentient Churches This occurrs in his Book of Prescriptions against Hereticks In his Books against Marcion are found like things From which authority also of the Apostolical Churches he saith there ‖ l. 4. c. 5. we receive the Canon of Scripture Eadem authoritas ecclesiâ—rum Apostolicarum cateris quoque patrocinabitur Evangeliis quae Evangelia proinde per illas secundum illas habemus Ib. l. 9 He Tertullian shews this Rule of Faith is by repeating the Articles of the Ancient Creed See Note on p. 207. l. 4. I hope He will not confine the consentient Church's authority and testimony only to the express Articles of the Creed used in Tertullian's time for then its testimony will not or may not have the same verity in those of the Athanasian Pag. 213. l. 11. Discovers their imposture Let the Reader well consider whether the Dr's translation in this and the precedent page doth not also make Tertullian clearly enough affirm Church-infallibility and whether he brings not witnesses against himself Pag. 214. l. 14. Thus Tertullian lays down the rules of finding out the sense of controverted places of Scripture without the least insinuation of an infallibility placed in the Guides of the Church for determining the certain sense of them Contrary If we Review what hath been said Tertullian lays down a certain Rule of finding out the sense of controverted places of Scripture viz. a general Consent of the Apostolical Churches touching such sense traditional and descending from the Apostles which Consent ought to determine such sense unto them Ib. l. 5 Prescription or just exception against their pleading for so prescription signifies in him The Plea Tertullian useth against the novelty of ancient Hereticks as also Roman-Catholicks do still against the Protestants namely this Mea est possessio olim possideo prior possideo c. 38. And this ‖ c. 31. Id est dominicum verum quod est prius tradtum id autem extraneum falsum quod est posteriùs immissum I say
necessaries In the Declaration of both which they are always preserved from error by the super-intending of the Divine Providence and the assistance of the Holy Spirit And that supposing the sense of Scripture without recurrence to such Tradition be cleare enough to some yet that it is not so to all who therefore in their faith of such necessaries must depend on the authority direction infallibility of their Guides Unless our Author will say the Condition of all Christians is well capable of using all means possible Pag. 232. l. 5. The same course is taken by Epiphanius c. S. Hilary and S. Epiphanius it seems do endeavour to confute Hereticks out of the Seriptures What then Ib. l. 18. After the Guides of the Church had in the Council of Nice declared what was the Catholick faith yet still the controversy was managed about the sense of Scripture and no other ways made use of for finding it than such as we plead for at this day Was not the Decree of this Council after it held perpetually by the Catholicks urged against them And if not submitted to by them the more to blame the Hereticks of those days as now also the Proâ—estans after the 2d Nicene Laterane Florentine and Trent Councils who did not acquiesce in such a just authority as that of Nice and though I think Mr Chillingworth would not yet will not Dr St. as to the Nicene Council say the same with me These then though denying submission to Councils yet not to Holy Scriptures the Fathers did in those daies as Catholick Doctors do now out of Principles coneeded by them and common to both endeavour to convince them Ib. l. 4 That none of the Catholick Bishops should once suggest this admirable expedient of Infallibility Did not these Bishops continually press to them the consentient Tradition of the Churches and the Definition of the Council of Nice To what end this if it acknowledged by them fallible Might an Authority not infallible put their definitions in the Creed and so it remains to this day in the Dr's Creed upon that account Could it exact belief and anathematize all Dissenters and not profess itself Infallible Pag. 233. l. 7. When they so frequently in Councils contradicted each other See this great Friend of Councils Before ‖ p. 149. the charge was Ancient Church and Councils contradicting those of latter times but now it is grown higher to the Ancient contradicting Ancient without any qualification of Councils held by Hercticks contradicting Councils Catholick for then the sense had been lost But I hope our Adversary is not yet gone so far as to affirm any Council equal in authority with that of Nice contradicting it but if unequal that of Nice only will stand in force Ib. l. 13. If the sense of Scripture were in this time to be taken from the Guides of the Church what security could any man have against Arianism since the Councils which favoured it were more numerous than those which opposed and condemned it i.e. If the sense of the Scripture concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were to be taken from the Guides of the Church met in the Council of Nice what security from thence could we have against Arianisme since the Arian Councils were more numerous than that of Nice and therefore more obligatory than it Doth not our Author here a litle too sar unmask himself Doth he hold then Christians to owe no obedience to the Definition of the Council of Nice against Arianisme Time was when he said ‖ Rat. Account p. 375. We profess to be guided by the sense of Scripture as interpreted by the unanimotes consent of the Fathers and the four first General Councils will he say here If these Councils interpret the Scriptures in the right sense i.e. in his And That the Church of England looks on it as her duty to keep to the Decrees of the four General Councils and so of Nice the first of them Then either the Arian Councils must not be more numerous as here he affirms they were or the more numerous I mean as to the persons present in it not always the more valid which is true But if we are now to defend the authority of the Council of Nice againâ—t the Dr. we muâ—t know that if he there speaks of the plurality of the Arian Councils they many and that of Nice only one this number is no prejudice to any one Council that is of greater authority if he speaks of the plurality of Bishops in some one Arian Council then though there were present in the Nicene Council not above four or five Bishops from all the West Yet that the whole West and all its Bishops accepted it which they never did any of the Arian Councils Therefore Athanasius ‖ Epist ad Episcop Affrican after those Arian Councils held speaks thus of that of Nice Huic certè concilio universus orbis assensum praebuit And Verbum illud Domini per Occumenicam Niceae Synodum in aeternum manet Sive enim quis numerum cum numero comparet tanto major est Nicena Synodus particularibus Conciliâ—s quantum totum sui aliqua parte And 2ly That had the Arian Bishops throughout the whole world at some time outnumbred the Catholick yet these after once pronounced Heretical by the lawful General Council of Nice were invalidated hereby whilst such from having any lawful Vote in a future Council the Catholick Clergy and Bishops remaining a distinct Body from them to whom and not to them the Christian world owed its obedience Ib. l. 9 S. Gregory Nazianzen ‖ Epist 55. declares he had not seen a good issue of any one of them c. He spake this of the many Arian Councils of his time ful of faction and ambition the chief leaders being great Favorites to Constantius an Heretical Emperor Or perhaps of some Council also held at Constantinople wherein he by such contention amongst the Bishops there suffered much but this he said exclusively doubtless both to the first General Council that of Nice Of which he saith ‖ Orat. in laud. Hiero. that Paâ—res nostri pinsque ille hominum mundus qui Nicaeam perrexerunt certis finibus ac verbis Divinitatis doctrinam circumscripserunt And †Orat. in laud. Athanas Sanctum Concilium Niceae habitum at que illum lectissimorum virorum numerum Spiritum Sanctum in unum coegisse and exclusively again to the 2d General Council that of Constantinople which he was a member of and subscribed What need I now trouble my self or the Reader with vindicating Bellarmine on this matter Meanwhile would not the Dr here have his Reader believe that this Father had a mean esteem of the first and second General Councils Pag. 234. l. 7 S. Augustine ‖ Cont. Maximin l. 3. c. 14. in dealing with Maximin as the Arian expresly sets aside all authority of the Guides of the Church as to the sense of Scripture
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
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
evidence of our Senses then is to be preferred before that of Tradition concerning the Revelation hence it follows that so often as Tradition delivers God to have done any thing contrary to the evidence of our Senses as in the former Instance God's sending Angels that appeared to Lot and the men of Sodom to be Men so often the Tradition or Revelation is not to be credited for Divine or any Text in God's Word concerning this not to be taken in its literal as that Gen. 19 1. implying them to be Angels but in some figurative sense And is not this cum ratione or sensu if you will insanire And §. 62. n. 2. here may we not use the same words as this Author doth in his Roman Idolatry p. 540 against Transubstantiation against such a sense of the 19th chapter of Gen. that these to-Sense-appearing Men should be really Angels I desire to know saith he there how the Sense he means in the Eucharist concerning the Bread suppose we of Lot and the men of Sodom here concerning the Angels comes to be deceived supposing a Revelation contrary to it Viz. that those whom they saw to be Men were indeed Angels Doth God impose upon their senses at that time then he plainly deceives them Is it by telling them they ought to believe more than they see that they deny not but they desire only to believe according to their senses in what they do see as saith he in what they see to be bread that that is Bread so I in what they see to be Men that those are Men. c. Besides if this Revelation is to be believed by them against sense then either that revelation is conveyed immediately to their minds c or mediately by their senses which we affirm as in those words This is my Body saith he and I as in those words Gen. 19.1 And there came two Angels to Sodom If so then they are to believe this revelation by their senses and believing this revelation they are not to believe their senses which is an excellent way of making faith certain Try we the same arguing again §. 62. n. 3. in his Dispute against Transubstantiation Rat. Account p. 117 by this Instance That these Persons being seen to be Men the Divine Revelation was not to be so understood as that they were Angels There he pleads thus If this Principle be true here that the judgment of the senses suppose here of the men of Sodom that those persons they saw were really Men which he speaks of the Eucharist being really Bread was not to be relied â—n in matters which sense is capable of judging of it will be impossible for any one to give any satisfactory account of the grand foundations of Christian Faith For if we carefully examine the grounds of Christianity in Christian Religion we find the great appeal made to the judgment of Sense That which we have seen and heard and handled If then the judgment of Sense must not be taken in a proper object at due distance and in such a thing whorein all mens Senses are equally judges I pray tell me what assurance the Apostles could have or any from them of any Miracles which Christ wrought c. In things which are the continual objects of Sense if men are not bound to rely on the judgment of Sense you must say that our faculties are so made that they may be imposed upon in the proper objects of them and if so farewell all certainty not only in Religion but in all things else in the world And so all the rest of his discourse there if any please to view that place will pass as currently against understanding the Text in Genesis literally that those persons were Angels whom Lot and all the inhabitants of Sodom saw to be Men as against the General sense of Hoc est Corpus meun that that is Christs Body we see to be Bread or rather collect from the Accidents we see that it is so To what is said by N. O. in this matter §. 62. n. 3. I find no answer returned by him Nor can I imagine how he can shape any but by removing the Controversy from what is the evidence of Sense concerning the thing to what is the evidence of Tradition concerning the Revelation till which cleared against the truth of any such Revelation any evidence of or from Sense or seeming-Reason must be laid aside Several of the other things that are here pressed by N.O. for Infallibility are also by the Dr in his Answer passed-over in silence whether neglected by him for the slightness of them or avoided for the difficulty is left to the Reader 's judgment and some others spoken to with what successe is now to be weighed § 63 To that mentioned before § 51. of the necessity of a perpetuall Infallibility in the Church-Governors for preserving a stability and Certainty in the Christian faith especially supposing there had been no Scriptures as for some time there was not nor in every place the presence of an infallible Apostle or supposing the sense of them in several such points doubtfull he answers p. 124. to this purpose That mens Faith and Religion may be well grounded stable and certain either without Scriptures or Church-Infallibility viz. by vertue of common and Universal Tradition instancing in the Religion of the Patriarchs received by Tradition without any such Infallibility and in Christian's receiving the Scriptures or the Roman party maintaining Church-Infallibility upon Tradition as a sufficient ground thereof But N.O. speaks of a stability and certainty of the Christian Faith not as to some one of a few parts or points thereof which as instanced in by the Dr so are here willingly granted by N. O to receive a sufficient evidence and firmness from Tradition antecedently to any Infallibility of the Church for neither doth N.O. require Church-Infallibility for the proof or assurance of Church Infallibility but as to all the necessary parts and Credends thereof to the believing of which being not all of them especially as to all sorts of Christians delivered with the same evidence of Tradition as the Canon of Scriptures or Church-Infallibility are he affirms this Infallibility necessary for the establishing a certainty in their faith when such persons are left either without Scriptures or with Scriptures in such points of an ambiguous sense in which necessary matters surely it is necessary that all men believe aright though not that they have an infallible certainty that they do so Where as N. O. observes such an Infallibility signifies much Consid p. 54. for men's having a right and saving faith in all these matters proposed by the Church then when perhaps it may signify nothing as to their infallible assurance of that which it proposeth § 64 Again to the proof of Church-Infallibility from the practice Councils allowed and submitted to by the whole Church Catholick diffusive in their requiring assent to their
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
in general is full of ambiguities Whether infallibility be necessary means he Whether Church-Infallibility be necessary at all Notwithstanding that a sufficient certainty from Tradition sufficeth for our being assured of such Infallibility in the Church See this Question I think sufficiently solved in the Note on pag. 84. l. ult n 4. Or means he Whether an absolutely infallible Testimony be antecedently necessary for knowing or rightly believing the Infallibility of the Church If so such infallible Testimony is affirmed not necessary unless he will allow Tradition such Ib. l. ult If sufficiently certain evidence will serve for the Church's infallibility why may it not for the Scriptures or any matters of faith contained therein It may where it can be had See N. O's Concess 6. in the Dr's p. 89. Pag. 89. l. 3. If they mean no more by infallibility than sufficient certainty c. Catholicks by Church-Infallibility as assisted with Gods Spirit mean more than a Moral Certainty such Church-infallibility being affirmed a Divine Revelation and so believed to be absolutely infallible And affirm Christians in such Necessary Points of Faith where neither the sense of Scripture nor of Tradition is clear and doth afford sufficient certainty without this Church-Infallibility to be no way secure from errour Ibid. l. 7. We all say matters of faith have sufficient certainty What that all matters of faith have sufficient certainty as to us if Church-Infallibility be excluded as it is by Protestants I ask from what have we this certainty From the Scripture How this where its Sense is doubtful and controverted as in the Text Hoc est Corpus meum From Tradition But all Necessary Points of Faith are not in such clear and express terms delivered by It that no Christian can have any reasonable doubt therein Ibid. l. 12. I only desire to know why a like right and saving faith may not be had concerning the Scriptures without their Church's infallibility A Catholick may have a right and saving Faith concerning the Scriptures I suppose their being the Word of God or concerning any other Article of Faith clearly delivered in them without such a person 's being infallibly assured of Church-Infallibility but without Church-Infallibility cannot have a certain and unerring faith as to those points that are not so clearly set down in Scripture but that some persons may mistake or also as to those Books of Scripture that are not so clearly attested by Tradition or this Tradition not easily knowable to such person Ib. l. 9. From hence it follows that an infallible assent is not requisite to saving faith directly contrary to my former adversary E.W. Whatever difference may be amongst Catholicks concerning What assurance of their faith in some Catholicks is necessary to salvation yet all agree that all Catholicks may have a sufficient certainty of their faith from Church-Infallibility which sufficient certainty for this serves our turn as to this Author's Principles Protestants cannot have in many points thereof as â—elying on their own Judgment in the Sense of dubt us Scriptures and not on the Definitions of the Church See before Note on pag. 84. l. ult Pag. 90. l. 7. He yields That the utmost assurance c. N. O's words p. 56. that he referrs to are Any person may be and that antecedently to the testimony of Scripture at least with a morally-infallible certainty or whatever certainty that may be called which Vniversal Tradition can afford assured of this Divine Revelation the Church's Infallibility from such Tradition and other Motives of Credibility as Protestants allow for a sufficiently or morally infallible and certain means of believing the Scriptures to be the word of God Here is no mention of utmost Ib. l. 5. It moral Infallibility is joining two words together which destroy each other Surely the Author in such passages as these studies some recreation for his Reader or some relief of the Stationer in an age given so much to jeâ—ts even in the most grave and serious subjects N O before he writ these Considerations on his Principles found him in this merry Critical humour in his Rational Account Where pag. 154. the Replier to the Archbishop saying that the Church's infallibility must come from the Holy Ghost and so be more than humane and moral He falls on descanting thus upon it You tell us very wisely that this infallibility is not a thing that is not infallible And It is well you tell us of such a rare distinction of infallibility for else I assure you we had never thought of it viz. of an infallibility that may be deceived Thus He. But forgetting the like language in the Archbishop whom he defends The Archbishops words p. 124. are If you speak of assurance only in the general I must then tell you and it is the great advantage which the Church of Christ hath against Infidels a man may be assured nay infallibly assured by Ecclesiastical and humane proof Men that never saw Rome may be sure and infallibly believe that such a City there is by Historical and acquired Faith And if consent of humane Story can assure me this why should not consent of Church-Story assure me the other Now what is this but Moral Infallibility And so Mr Chillingworth ‖ p. 330. We are and may be infallibly certain that we are to believe the Christian Religion i.e. from the more reasonable Grounds we have for it than for any other and I find our author himself in the same Rational Account p. 96. where this Critical humour was not so violent and where he had some inducement to advance the credit of a Moral Certainty treating this term Infallible a little more gently If by infallible certainty saith he there you mean only such as excludes all possibility of reasonable doubting upon the consideration of the validity and sufficiency of that testimony I am to believe the Canon of Scripture upon then I assert c. And p. 197. Thus we see how impossible it is to avoid a Circle in the supposition of a supernatural Infallibility in the Church's Tradition But if no more be meant but a kind of rational Infallibility though those terms be not very proper i.e. so great evidâ—nce as if I question it I may upon equal grounds question every thing which mankind yields the firmest assent to because I cannot imagine that so great a part of the wisest and most considerative part of the world should be so grosly deceived in a matter of such moment especially supposing a Divine Providence then I freely and heartily assert We have such a kind of rational infallibility or rather the highest degree of actual certainty concerning the truth of the Canon of Scripture and that the Catholick Church hath not de facto erred in defining it But without all this defence our Author knowing N. O's meaning what needs he quarrel about his words unless it were to gain this poor victory that N.O. hath in somthing spoken improperly But
one material thing here may be observed by the Reader that this moral Infallibility where mentioned by N.O. is always applied to the said Tradition viz. the Testimony of so great a multicude of learned and pious men but never to Church Infallibility as a Body assisted with the Holy Ghost which Church is always believed not non-morally only but non-possibly fallible as also other Articles of the Christian Faith are as being all Divine Revelations but these certainly known or proved by a rational evidence to be Divine Revelations only from Tradition And Lastly that N.O. in his applying Moral Infallibility to Tradition leaving every one to express it otherwise adds or whatever certainty that may be called which Tradition affords ‖ Consi p. 56. Pag. 91. l. 6. This were well enough If in the precedent page he had not said c. An infallible assent in the former page and a morally-Infallible assent whereby in the latter it is explained do not contradict Ib. l. 7. Had not said That a particular person may be infallible in his assent That is sufficiently infallible as N.O. explains himself afterward and the Dr confesseth it Ib. l. 14. I would fain understand if the Evidence be only sufficiently or morally infallible How the assent which is built upon it comes to be more than so Any assent that is built only upon a sufficiently or morally infallible evidence never comes to be more than so Assensus cognoscitious non excedit Certitudinem Principii quo nititur See Note on p. 84. l. ult n. 2. Ib. l. 17. Late Writers of their Church are perplexed about this word Infallibility Our Author frames to himself strange Chimera's of Infallibility notwithstanding the pains taken by Catholicks to undeceive him and others therein whenas the Infallibility maintained by Catholicks is only that of the Church Catholick in a General Council in the defining of necessaries For the proving of which Infallibility they urge the Practice of former General Councils approved by the whole Catholick Church defining such points and putting them into the Creeds and anathematizing any Dissenters Behold now this terrible monster of Infallibility which this Author saith Mr Cr. and other late Roman Writers retain like a wolf by the ears cannot tell how to hold it and are affraid to let it go and N.O. at last quitting the thing contents himself with the sound of it And yet a few pages hence p. 95. the Dr tells you that the first Principle N.O. sets up in opposition to his is this Infallibility viz. That God hath given an infallible assistance to the Guides of the Church in all ages of it for the direction of those who live in it Ib. l. 10. Loth to part with the sound of Infallibility See Note on p. 90. l. 5 Ib. l. 6. He yields that moral certainty is a sufficient foundation for Faith Such terms neither occur in the Dr's 27th Proposition here referred to as conceded by N.O. nor in any words of N.O. nor any thing equivalent to them without some qualifications annexed The proper Foundation of a Christian's Faith or that on which it mainly relies is Gods word or Divine Revelation But if it be asked concerning the rational Certainty that Christians have or may have that such as they believe to be truly are Divine Revelations this is affirmed to be the Certainty which the Tradition so often forementioned affords call this Certainty by what name any one will This Tradition as the Reader may find in the Dr's next page is said by N.O. for which citation N.O. is obliged to the Dr that his Reader may sometimes at least find N. O.'s tenents in his own words to be the first rational introductive of our Faith And is so acknowledged not only by N.O. but generally I think by the whole Christian world at least by all Catholick Controvertists And yet our Author gazeth upon it as a new coined Position and frequently also calls it yielding the cause It is necessary to mistake or misrepresent the Catholicks Tenents thus to have somthing to say against them Pag. 93. l. 11. By which he fairly gives up the cause of Infallibility as to the necessity of it in order to faith I ask of what Infallibility Church-Infallibility N. O.'s next words following those quoted here by the Dr out of p. 67. are these But notwithstanding this Christians may be deficient in a right belief of several necessary Articles of this Christian Faith if destitute of that External Infallible Guide therein And the perpetual Divine Assistance and so Infallibility in necessaries of this Guide being declared in the Scriptures a Catholick having once learnt this point of Faith from its definitions and expositions becomes secure and settled in the belief of all those controverted Articles of his faith wherein others steered only by themselves do fluctuate totter and vary one from another whilst the Scriptures in such points at least to persons unlearned or of weaker judgments which are the greatest part of Christians are ambiguous in their sense and drawn with much art to several Interests See before Note on p. 84. l. ult n 4. And I ask Will it follow from Dr St's holding a moral certainty of Tradition to be a sufficient introductive to believing the Canon or Infallibility of Scriptures that he therefore gives up the Canon or the Infallibility of Scripture as to any necessity of it in order to matters of faith If not neither doth N.O. give up Church-Infallibility Or means he gives up the cause of an absolute Infallibility its being necessary ex parte subjecti to the having a right faith N.O. doth so yields it up as not being the Catholicks cause and stands to it but so doth he also yield up this of a moral infallibility ex parte subjecti its being necessary to every one for having a right faith Pag. 94. l. 12. I desire N.O. and E.W. to agree better c. Perhaps what is said before in Note on p. 84. n. 3. may satisfy our Author in this matter If not the Reverend Person E.W. if it be though fit is able to give a much better account of himself than N. O to whom therefore with all respect he leaves it But this I say and let the Reader judge that if this Author gives no fairer account of E. W's propositions than he doth of N. O's his Reader hath little reason to credit other mens Positions upon his Relation who by his first changing N. O's notions and then confuting them puts him to the trouble of these reflections Ib. l. 6. N.O. here makes moral certainty a sufficient ground for Divine Faith See Note on p. 91. l. 6. Pag. 95. l. 11. By these Concessions it appears that the Cause of Infallibility is clearly given up c. No. See Note on p. 93. l. 11. Annotations on his §. 4. Touching N. O's Principles PAg. 95. l. 4. The Doctor represents N. O.'s Principles thus 1. That God hath given an
infallible assistance to the Guides of the Church in all ages of it for the direction of those who live in it Add here as to all Necessaries For it is thus frequently limited by N. O but such limitation every where omitted by Dr St. Pag. 96. l. 1.2 That without this infallible assistance there can be no certainty of the sense of Scripture No certainty add as to all Christians many of whom are unlearned yong or of small capacity Of the sense of Scripture add as to several points of faith Necessary not as to all For N.O. doth not deny the sense of Scripture as to several points of faith clear enough and amongst rational men not disputed Adde I say these and N.O. will own the Proposition Ibid l. 3.3 That all the arguments which overthrow the Church's Infallibility do destroy the Church's Authority There is no such thing said by N.O. Nay the contrary is often said by him that Church-Infallibility being destroyed yet the Church's Authority though fallible may upon many reasons justly challenge submission of judgement to her Decrees from her Subjects See N.O. p. 18. 26. 48. 50. and in the former Discourse § 35.37.39 But this is said by N.O. and must be still till the Dr better clears himself That some Arguments used by the Dr against Church Infallibility are as strong and stronger against Church-Authority as namely that made in his 19th Principle if any one please to read there Authority instead of Infallibility Ib. l. 16. If God hath not given an infallible assistance to the Guides of the Church the Principles laid down by me must hold No. For private judgments ought to submit to Church-Authority though fallible in all such points wherein such private persons have not demonstration against it much more if commanded to obey this authority and to follow its faith So where no infallible assistance yet we prudently submit our judgment to the advice of a more knowing friend and Children to the precepts and injunctions of their Parents though these fallible and that by the Divine command not enjoining them hereby to believe a lye or practise things unlawful but only to believe that to be most credibly true or just which their Parents and Superiours much wiser than themselves inform them to be so And where if there be some incertainty in following their Judgments this is not lesse but more in following their own Men rightly submit their Judgments to persons and things most credible as well as to the absolutely infallible Ib. l. 9 We do not dispute concerning the best helps for a person to make use of in a matter of this nature Whereas our Author here calls for the best helps a man can get naming these the directions of his Pastor the decrees of Councils the sense of the Primitive Church for the right understanding the Scriptures if he means in necessaries I appeal to the candid Reader whether the Reason given by him in his Principles for which he saith the sober enquirer cannot mistake in Necessaries doth not argue such helps needless namely this Princip 15. Because the whole will of God is in the Scriptures so plainly revealed that no sober enquirer can â—iss of what is necessary to salvation so that there can be no necessity supposed of any infallible I add much less of any fallible society of men either to attest or explain these writings So he then Which argues either no need of such Helps or if these usefull such Scriptures without them not clear And therefore if 1 such Helps are to be repaired-to for the true meaning of such Scriptures in Necessaries they ought to have been included in his Principle 2 But then the Quality or Profession and Condition of the farr greater part of Christians seems no way capable of using all such Helps 3 Or if they were yet all these helps being held by him fallible they will still after these be liable to errour in necessary faith All Christians then as to all necessaries to salvation are not free from erring without an infallibility in these points of their Guides neither the Scriptures being clear in these without Helps nor the Helps in them unliable to mistakes Pag. 97. l. 6. The decrees of Councils the sense of the primitive Church Surely such are not only helps for instruction of Christians but laws for Obedience Ib. l. 11. The foundation of this person's faith can be nothing else but a trembling quicksand The Foundation laid by the Dr thus expressed in his preface by N.O. viz. An Errability in Necessaries of the Guides of God's Church an Inerrability in the same by him attributed indefinitly to all sober Christians who without any necessary consulting and depending on their Teachers instituted for thâ—â— by God shall use their sincere endeavors to find out such Truths is rightly affirmed by N.O. Pref. p. 4. to be but a tottering and trembling foundation of their Faith N. O's words Ib. l. 17. The only certain way not to be mis-led I add where the sense of Scripture or Tradition is to any ambiguous will be the submitting our internal assent and belief to Church-Authority This is asserted Ib. l. 9 Here then two Questions necessarily arise 1. Whether there can be no certainty of faith i. e in several points of Faith where the sense of Scripture or Tradition is to any ambiguous and disputed without this Church-Infallibility 2. What certainty there is of this Church Infallibility The 1st is affirmed The 2d is spoken to below in Annot. on p. 113. l. 14. Pag. 89. l. 3. Every man hath in him a faculty of discerning truth and falshood What in all things of faith by his own sole ability No. Some helps I hope he must have in several things as Directions of his Pastor the sense of the Primitive Church Decrees of Councils as our Author saith p. 96. Annotations on his §. 5. N. O's Exceptions answered PAg. 98. l. 6 The Question now is whether a person not relying on the Infallibility of a Church may not be certain of those things which are contained in the Scriptures in order to Salvation Of some of these he may because there contained plainly enough of others not where rational Judgments dispute the sense Ib. l. 3 Our enquiry is not about the sense of the more difficult c But N. O's is Several points Necessary are difficult to many and controverted witness those contained in the Athanasian Creed Pag. 99. l. ult I desire to know whether things simply necessary ought not to be delivered with greater plainness than things which are not so No. But so as God pleaseth so he provide other ways for the explaining of what is obscure Pag. 100. l. 6. Whether our Saviours own Sermons were capable of being understood by those who heard them How capable soever of being understood they were not understood he said by all his Auditors in every thing nor by his own Diciples Ib. l. 5 Or can we have now
Church Catholick always in one Faith and one Body And by these unfailing Guides the Church hath ever understood the Supreme Governours and Pastors of the Church assembled in a lawful General Council or otherwise unanimously agreeing Of which Councils the first was that convened Act. 15. about stating the Controversy concerning Mosaical Ceremonies when S. Austin saith ‖ Contra Cresconinm l. 1. c. 3. Inter Apostolos de Circumcisione quaestio sicut postea de Baptismo inter Episcopos non parvâ difficultate nutabat And these Fathers of the Church also so assembled as acknowledging and owning the same their Infallibility in Necessaries from the same Divine Promises have accordingly from time to time determined and stated Controversies even in the highest and most necessary points concerning the B. Trinity and concerning the Humanity of our Lord and some of these Decisions that were thought more necessary to be of all men more explicitly known they have inserted into the common Creed and have enjoined to all the members of Christ the belief of them as matters of Faith and as themselves declaring the true and genuine Sense of the Scriptures therein Witness the points inserted by these Councils in the Athanasian Creed and that with an Haec est fides Catholica quam nisi quisque fideliter firmiterque crediderit salvus esse non poterit Nay added this also in the Creed concerning themselves and the faithful joined with them that he Catholick Church continues always Apostolica preserâ—ing the Apostles Rules Traditions and Doctrines and Vna indivisa in se divisa ab omnibus aliis viz. such Churches or Congregations as are Heretical or Schismatical As also before in the Apostles Creed it is stiled Sancta i.e. so farr as not to teach any Doctrine in Faith or Manners destructive to Sâ—lvation and therefore among others not to teach Idolatry And accordingly the doctrine of these Fathers and Councils the Church hath generally alledged as certain and infallible against Hereticks N. 2 This Use and Practice of the Church from the beginning is apparent and notoriously known And therefore this apparent also that both the Church Diffusive and these her Councils have thus understood our Lords Promises the thing we here speak of as securing for ever the Infallibility as to Necessaries of these Highest Ecclesiastical Courts and any obscurity in the letter of any of these Scriptures were there any in this matter this Tradition hath cleared to us as to the Sense of them And this Practice of Councils and the Church-Diffusive N. O. hath pressed to any who demand it as a most incontrollable Evidence both of the constant Tradition of such Church-Infallibility as evident as that of the Canon of Scriptures is or more than it for some parts of the Canon since by these Councils also hath this Canon been settled and of the true sense of our Lords Promises in the Scriptures or at least of some of them that are urged for this matter N. 3 Which Promises of our Lord Protestants also extend to the Church after the Apostles times thus far that in general the Church Diffusive shall never fail or err in Necessaries in any age Nay that some Body of Clergy or other shall never fail to teach all necessary truths in this Church in any age as we have seen but now in Dr Field ‖ See Note on p. 107. l. 9 And yet further that General Councils universally accepted have been and always shall be infallible in their Determinations concerning matters of Necessary Faith 1 Of which thus the Archbishop †p. 346. A General Council de post facto after it is ended and admitted by the whole Church is then infallible 2 And then for an universal acceptation I suppose none can be justly demanded greater or larger than that of the four first Councils was And thus Dr St. †Rat. Account p. 537. urged by N. O. That both the truth of Gods promises surely that is in the Scriptures the goodness of God to his people and his peculiar care of his Church seem highly concerned that such a Council should not be guilty of any notorious errour as an errour in any Necessary must be N. 4 Lastly The Scriptures shewing these Promises since the Dr so earnestly calls for them which are usually produced by Catholick Writers and which are the Church's old Armor as the Dr calls it †See p. 127. for this point Armor very venerable indeed for its Antiquity but well preserved from the rust he complains of by the Church's so frequent use of it against such as the Dr. are these and several others Matt. 28.19 20. Jo. 14.16 26. 16.15 c. compared with Act. 15.28 1. Jo. 5.20.27 1. Cor. 12.7 8. Mat. 18.20 compared with 17 18. Mat. 16.18 19. Lu. 23.31 1. Tim. 3.15 2. Tim. 2.19 Eph. 4.11 13. 2. Pet. 3.16 To which Texts may be added all those enjoining Vnity of Opinion as 1. Cor. 1.10 Phil. 1.27 2.2 3. 3.16 Rom. 12.16 17.17 1. Cor. 14.32 33. Which Vnity of Opinion I ask how it can be had unless there be in the Church some Persons whose Judgment Doctrine Faith Spirit all the rest are to follow and conform to Which Scriptures forementioned you may see also briefly vindicated from suâ—â— glosses as Protestants and particularly Dr St. in his Rat. Account †p. 256. c. do put upon them in the 1. Disc concerning the Guide in Controversies § 78. c. But whatever may be urged touching the sense of these Scriptures pro or con by particular Authors yet both the foresaid practice of General Councils built upon such a traditive sense of those Texts as Catholicks contend for and the Church's general approving and acceptation of such practice and submission to it is a sufficient prescription of Tradition to warranâ— and secure such a sense against all contradiction Therefore N. O. p. 57. tells the Dr that Catholicks are not necessitated in arguing against Protestants who grant the Scriptures to be Gods word to use any other Testimony than that of these Scriptures for a sufficiently clear proof of Church-infallibility For that he may safely call this a clear proof even according to the Dr's common reason of Mankind which by the most of the Christian world is taken to be so notwithstanding that a Party engaged by their Reformation in an apparent contrary interest do contradict it And indeed if we look after the fact it self and the fulfilling of such a sense of them as applied to S. Peters Successor and to the Roman other Churches united to it the Dr I think grants that these Churches or their Prelats assembled in their most General Councils from the Apostles days to the present de facto never have erred in points Necessary to the Being of a Church Of which see what is said in the former Discourse § 53. and the places cited out of him in Note on p. 75. l. 5. N. 8. And he seems
necessitated thereto for the reason given before Ibid. N. 7. Now if this Being of a true Church or a member of the Catholick be stated as it ought or as Dr Field l. 2. c. 2. and l. 4. c. 2. hath stated it it must be affirmed that these Churches being allowed members of the Catholick have hitherto never fallen into any Heresy N. 5 This Plea of N. O. I desire may be applied by the Reader to the Dr's Discourse so often as he questions such a sense of these Scriptures and Promises of our Lord or such a Tradition and that the Reader would well examine what satisfaction he finds from the Answers the Dr hath here returned to it Which former practice of Church and Councils if once allowed Chillingworâ—h ‖ p. 200. saw pressed so far for Church-Infallibility and a proportionable Obedience to it that as N. O. hath observed in his Preface he plainly declares That what warrant the Fathers of the Church in after times to the Apostles had to oblige others to receive their Declarations under pain of damnation which they did he knew not and that he that can shew either that the Câ—urch of all ages was to have this authority or that it continued in the Church for some ages and then expired this because some Protestants amongst whom this Dr would willingly submit to four or five of the first Councils for which yet Chillingworth could see no just reason why such Post-Apostolick Authority for some time admitted should not be so always he that can shew either of these things saith he let him for my part I cannot He goes on Yet I willingly confess the Judgment of a Council though not infallible yet so far directive and obliging that without apparent reasâ—n to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to afford is an outward submission for publick peace sake Where the words though not infallible shew that he held the practice of former Councils disallowed by him clearly inferred Infallibility the thing N. O. urgeth Mean while whatever satisfaction he may find for either opinion here debated the Reader may observe that both from Scripture and Tradition N. O. contends for the Infallibility of General Councils in Necessaries and accordingly requires Submission of judgment to their Definitions the Dr opposeth it and the Reader hath also just cause to think there is some reason and interest in the two Religions of N. O. and of Dr St. and Mr Chillingworth for this defence made by the one and Opposition by the other and lastly any plebeian may discern what are the two necessary effects of the submission of private mens judgments to General Councils as such or withdrawing it from them as not such viz. Vnity and Division Pag. 113. l. 19. How easily might all the contentions of the Christian world have been prevented if Christ had said c. We must not prescribe to God but humbly leave to him the way how he shall be pleased to manifeâ—t his Will to us sure to be one way or other sufficiently made known by the clearness of his Scriptures 1 Cor. 11.19 or expositions of his Church For also Oportet esse haereses ut qui probati sum manifesti fiant Would not the Creed of Pius 4. or the 39. Articles of the Church of England delivered by our Lord or his Apostles have prevented many Controversies now extant See in the former Discourse § 1. Pag. 115. l. 5 If this point viz. of an infallible Judge be not clearly proved we are never the nearer an end of controversies c. Yes If such an unappealable Judge be proved as none may oppose or reform against Ib. l. 18. Let them if they can produce one clear Text c. I referr to the Texts forementioned ‖ Note on p. 113. l. 14. numb 4. interpreted by the common practice of Councils and of the Church in all ages grounded upon the traditive understanding them in such a sâ—nse Annotations on his §. 7. The Arguments from Scripture for Infallibility PAg. 116. l. 1. When I came thus prepared to find whâ—t the Considerator would produce in a matter of such consequence I soâ—n discerned how little mind he had c. N. O. â—s not obliged to say every thing in every place This Author will needs transform N. O's brief Considerations on his Principles into a set Discourse of Infallibility and then shew its Defectiveness as such One would think if he had not the reputation of a learned man done on purpose to divert his Reader from any other matters that are debated there by N. O and to release himself from prosecuting the necessary vindication of his own Principles from the several deficiencies charged on them in the Considerations Ib. l. 10. But however this Deut 17.10 is thought so considerable as to be twice produced Upon our Authors mentioning the clearness of Gods Law given to Moses N. O. mentioned these Judges also appointed to expound it and the one is twice repeated because the other twice urged Ib. l. 13. It is so unlucky as it proves the Judges in Westminster Hall to be infallible Of this Comparison of the Sanhedrim to the Judges in Westminster Hall and how the great causes between Church and Church are fit to be handled there ‖ See his Epist Dedicatory let our Author if he can give a just account These Judges were appointed by God to decide the true Sense of the Law not of Princes but of God given to Moses and all persons obliged to acquiesce in the sense they gave of it and to do and forbear to practise as they fallible or infallible stated such matter to be commanded or prohibited by it and that upon pain of death This Obedience let Protestants yield to lawful General Councils more is not desired Ib. l. 11 Doth this imply infallibility No that he dares not stand to but absolute obedience I think the Dr grants here the people yielded absolute obedience to these Judges i. e I suppose assent to their sentence deciding to them what was the true sense of Gods Law which is all N. O. presseth and indeed unless they first yielding this the people could not lawfully act whatever these Judges commanded Do the people then the same to the Judges in Westminster i.e. hold themselves obliged to do whatever these tell them is lawful or commanded I mean by God's law Let him review here what he hath said in his Rational Account if he pleaseth p. 239. to the contrary allowing an obligation to submission or acquiescence but not an obligation in conscience and if he please too that which Mr Chillingworth ‖ c. 2. §. 17. hath observed of the difference between a Civil and Ecclesiastical Judge Viz. that in civil controversies we are obliged only to external passive obedience and not to an internal and active We are bound to obey the sentence of the Judge or not to resist it but not always
Church where such Pleas as these are permitted to be urged in such a sense as to set men at liberty from the submission of their judgment to the Decisions and definitions of General Councils upon pretence that there shall be many seducers and a falling away and departing from the Faith and upon pretence of Force and Fraud used in the most General Counci's that could be convened for many past Generations Which falling away and departing from the Faith c. why should they not be rather applied to these New Sects and former Heresies and from them be inferred a closer adherence and Obedience to their lawful Church Governours Ib. l. 8 The Apostles told them they had no dominion over their faith What not so far as to oblige them to obey and submit to their Apostolical Doctrine What not such dominion as S. Paul urged 1. Tim. 1.20 to the blasphemers of the Gospel and as he commanded Titus to use Tit. 3.10 Consider the Acts of the Apostolical Council Act. 15. But the Text speaks here of any unjust dominion or authority to treat the faithful as he pleased in punishing or mulcting those who walk uprightly in the faith to alter change censure any thing therein for his own profit or advantage See Dr Hammond on the place Ib. l. 4. No present Guides whatever names they go by ought to usurp such an authority over the minds of men which the Apostles themselves did not challenge although there were greater reason for men to yield up their minds wholly to their guidance If to yield up their minds be to submit their judgments were not Christians obliged in this to the very Apostles and their Doctrines See before Note on p. 144. l. 11. See we not the effects here of the Dr's 13th Principle in the people 's not needing Guides for understanding necessary Scriptures but meanwhile in the Scriptures being needful to them for trying by it their Guides Pag. 147. l. 7. Where there is a Rule for them the Church-Governours or Guides to proceed by there is a rule for others to judge of their proceedings If here He means by these others those who doubting of the true sense of the Rule repair to these Guides to learn from them the true sense of it which is only to the purpose that these are again to judge by the Rule doubted of whether the Guides have given the right sense what is this but that these are finally to determine the sense of the Rule for the determining of which they consult their Teachers As if the Consulters concerning the meaning of a Law when the Judge hath given them the sense of the Law should again by this Law examine the truth of the sense of the Judge and act finally according to their own not his sentence Ib. l. 13. Where the rule by which the Guides of the Church are to proceed hath determined nothing there we say the authority of the Guides is to be submitted unto For otherwise there would be nothing left wherein their authority could be shewn Doth not he say here the Church's Authority is to be submitted to in nothing but things left indifferent by the Scriptures Then it hath no authority in determining Controversies of faith but why then saith the 20th Article of the Church of England that the Church hath authority of expounding Scriptures in Controversies of faith and by what authority hath the Council of Nice determined Consubstantiation But so often as the sense of the Scriptures to any is doubtful may not the Scriptures here be said as to such persons to have deteâ—mined nothing and then are they not in these if in a Necessary point to repair to the determination of their Ecclesiastical Guides If so all will be well still and thus all come to submit to the sentence of the Judge but those who are certain before hand of the sense of their Rule Ib. l. 11 We plead for the Church is authority in indifferent Rites and Ceremonies But suppose the Question be whether such Rites and Ceremonies are indeed indifferent As they are taken by some not to be so because God will admit nothing into his worship but what himself hath first expresly commanded and prescribed What authority is to end this I say for such who hold some Ceremonie unlawful and repugnant to Scripture are they or the Church to judge of this unlawfulness and may the Church lawfully enjoin it and oblige them under excommunication to practise it Or will it not come at last according to these Principles that the Subjects not the Church are to decide the indifferency or non-indifferency of such Ceremonies Pag. 148. l. 7. Wee allow a very great authority to the Guides of the Catholick Church in the best times of Christianity And look upon the concurrent sense of Antiquity as an excellent means to understand the mind of Scripture in places otherwise doubtful and obscure In the best times of Christianity But do not you then in all times Or is not their authority the same in all times If various who is Judge of this their Subjects As an excellent means to understand c. This will not serve the turn it must be as an authorized Expositor of the true sense of Scriptures doubtful and obscure in Necessary matters to whose definitions all ought to submit not only to make use of their advice This church-Church-Tradition makes good this such Protestants as our Author oppose Ib. l. 13. We reject the ancient Heresies condemned in them But doth he acknowledge and reject all that as Heresy that hath been or shall be condemned by all lawful General Councils for such Ib. l. 11 We reject nothing that can be proved by an Vniversal Tradition from the Apostolical times downwards That can be proved But who shall judge of the proof where any thing is disputed whether it be Tradition Apostolick Our selves or the present Church-Governours Ib. l. 5 We see no reason to have those things forced upon us now which we offer to prove to be contrary to their the primitive times doctrine and practice Offer to prove To whom To any whose final judgment you will stand to Name them Shall it be to a General Council But this may err you say It erring shall it be to a Second But if one err so may all And who shall judge when It doth not err Demonstration shall decide it And who judge when it is a clear demonstration if any deny it to be so Pag. 149. l. 1. The Controversy is Whether the Guides of the Apostolical and Primitive times ought not to have greater authority over us than those of the present Church in things wherein they contradict each other Here again who shall judge this difference concerning their contradiction denied by Catholicks denied by the latter Councils of the Church that plead Tradition and their agreement with the former Ib. l. 8. But we profess to yield greater reverence and submission of mind to Christ and his Apostles than
to any Guides of the Church ever since we are sure they spake by an infallible Spirit and where they have determined matters of faith practice we look upon it as arrogance presumption in any others to alter what they have declared Where they have determined matters of faith or practice But who 's Judge of this what Christ and his Apostles have determined the Church's Councils or private men each for himself Ib. l. 13 Til ignorance ambition private interests swayed too much among those who were called the Guides These vices in all ages are found in some and are justly by others reproved But doth He charge these on the Church's Supremest Guides or its General Councils Then if we declining their judgment on this account to what other Courts or Persons will He direct us to apply our selves that are more free what private Person or inferior Court Ib. l. 3 In matters imposed upon us to believe or practise which are repugnant to plain commands of Scripture or the evidence of sense or the Grounds of Christian Religion no Authority of the present Guides of a Church is to overrule our faith or practice In things contrary to the plain commands of Scripture or grounds of Religion we join with him No Church-authority is to overrule our faith or practice But the former Question still returns Who shall judge among us what is or is not so contrary As for the other thing he mentions contrary to the evidence of sense If a Divine Revelation be contrary to such evidence I hope our Faith is to be over-ruled by the Revelation and for this I think I have the Dr's consent in these words in his Rational Account Where discoursing of Transubstantiation whether consistent with the grounds of Christian Religion he saith ‖ p. 567 That which I am now upon is not how far reason I suppose he will allow me to say or sense is to be submitted to Divine authority in case of certainty that there is a Divine Revelation for what I am to believe but how far it is to be renounced that is Reason or Sense when all evidence that is brought i.e. for such a Divine Revelation is from the authority of the Fathers So that that Question in short is Whether there be greater evidence that I am bound to believe the Fathers in a matter contrary to Sense and Reason or else to adhere to the judgment of them though in opposition to the Father's authority Where I understand him to say that he is to believe a Divine Revelation that is certainly such made known to him by one Sense the Hearing though against the perceptions of another Sense the Seeing but notwithstanding this that he is still rather to adhere to the judgment of his Senses than credit the Fathers concerning the truth of such a Divine Revelation as contradicts his Senses So The certainty of the Divine Revelation is here the only thing in question which once any way proved the evidence Sense gives-in against it is to be neglected Now of the certainty of the Divine Revelation or of the true sense of Scripture we reckon the unanimous consent of the Fathers or Primitive Church if such can be shewn so expounding it a sufficient proof And I think sometimes so doth Dr St. in these words Rat. Account p. 375. We profess to be guided by the sense of Scripture at interpreted by the unanimous consent of the Fathers and the four first General Councils And p. 56. It is a sufficient prescription against any thing that can be alledged out of Scripture that it ought not to be looked on as the true meaning of the Scripture if it appears contrary to the sense of the Catholick Church from the beginning And so laying the evidence of Sense here aside what their consent is is the first thing to be discussed Pag. 150. l. 4. For there are some things so plain that no man wil be guided by anothers opinion in them Catholicks willingly allow withdrawing obedience where you have Certainty But how vainly doth any one pretend or promise himself a certainty of any thing wherein a General Council or a much major part of the Church having all the same means of certainty as he judgeth contrary or fancy that such a matter carrieth the like evidence to persons as doth the Whiteness of Snow Ib. l. 12. I am certain if I destroy the evidence of Sense I must overthrow the grounds of Christian Religion What if I disbelieve Sense only in such a particular thing where Divine Revelation declares the contrary Though indeed the Sense in Transubstantiation is not deceived at all its Object still remaining there out the Person if from it He collect the Substance of Bread to be under it Ib. l. 19. To reject that authority which overthrows the certainty of Sense He must meane with his Exception unless it be Divine Ib. l. 3 We preferr the grounds of our common Christianity before a novel and monstrous figment Good reason but not before a Divine Revelation This Controversy therefore must first be decided before any argument from Sense can be used He goes on Ib. l. 2 Hutched in the times of ignorance and barbarisme fostered by faction and imposed by tyranny Speaking evil of Dignities Jud. 8. Concerning the evidence of Sense N.O. †Consid p. 92. had this Discourse on Dr St's 4th Consequence charging the Church of Rome as maintaining opinions repugnant to the principles of Sense and Reason 1. That the judgment of our Senses appointed by God the Instruments by hearing or reading them of conveying Faith and his Divine Revelations to us affords a sufficient natural certainty or infallibility whereon to ground our belief in all those things subject to our senses wherein the Divine Power doth not interpose But 2ly That where the Divine Power worketh any thing supernaturally that is contrary to our sense as it may no doubt here we are not to believe them And 3ly That we are to believe this divine power doth so so often as certain Divine Revelation tells us so though by the same senses it tells us so We believing our Senses as our Hearing or Reading for this as we ought where we have no Divine Revelation or other evidence concerning their deception when at the same time we do not believe the same Senses for some other thing as that that which we see is Bread when a Divine Revelation tells us the contrary The truth of which Divine Revelation in any non-evidence and questioning of the Sense of Scripture we are to learn from Gods Church infallibly assisted in necessary Faith c. For which I referr the Reader to what hath been said more at large in § 60.61.62 of the preceding Discourse Thus N.O. in his Considerations ‖ which the Dr passeth over in silence For it is better not to debate or acquaint a Reader with those Scruples we cannot easily satisfy Cosa ragionata via và P. 151. l. 1. We
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
this plea seems to imply more iucluded in the word Prescription than the Dr allows viz. includes not only a just exception against their pleadings but a just plea against their exeeptions But this shall make no contention between us Pag 215. l. ult And makes that sufficient evidence of the truth of a body that it is the object of three senses of sight and touch and hearing Which is the same way of arguing we make use of against Transubstantiation And it is granted a sufficient evidence where no Divine Revelation intervenes declaring such arguing mistaken Which in the matter of our Lord's Resurrection there doth not And in vain had Marcion made any such pretence herein against these senses where he could produce no Divine Revelation for it Pag. 216. l. 14. And the universal reception i.e. by the Churches of the true Gospels Vniversal Reception Which Tertullian urgeth as an infallible proof of the truth of these Gospels See his words Contra Marcion l. 4. before in Note on p. 210. l 2. As also Ibid. contrary to what the Dr saith below his calling in an infallible Guide the same Churches for giving a certain sense of Scripture Pag 218. l. 6. Hitherto we find nothing c. Concerning this let the former places ‖ Note on p. 201. produced out of them bear witness Though this hath the infirmity of a Negative argument Pag. 219. l. 1. I now proceed to Clemens of Alexandria And therefore so must I though methinks he hath led his Reader and me a great way from the Consideration of his Principles He that reads the 7th Book of his Stromata here cited as he will find much of studying the Scriptures and learning Demonstrations from thence against Hereticks so will he of the Vnity of the Church contradistinct to Heresies and of the verity of its Traditions Of which he saith there Num ergo si quis pacta conventa non obseâ—vaverit i.e. adhaerendo Regulae Ecclesiasticae transgressus fuerit eam quae fit apud nos confessionem propter eum qui non stetâ—t suae professioni abstinebimus nos quoque a veritate i.e. hujus confessionis And he cals this afterward via regia trita Non dubit averit quispiam viam ingreâ—i propter dissensionem of some others strayin sed utetur viâ regiâ tritâ sejuncta a periculo ita cùm alii alia dicant de veritate hujus Confessionis Regulae Ecclesiasticae non est discedendum sed est exactiùs diligentiùs inquirenda ejus exactissima accuratissima cognitio Ibid. he saith In solâ veritate antiquâ Ecclesiâ i.e. Ecclesiâ deriving its doctrine from Antiquity est perfectissima cognitio ea quae estreverâ optima haeresis id est electio And Homo Dei esse Domino fidelis esse perdidit qui adversus Ecclesiasticam recalcitravit traditionem in humanarum haeresum desiluit â—piniones There he saith Qui in ignoratione quidem versantur sunt gentes qui autem in scientiâ vera ecclesia qui verò in opinione ti qui sectantur haereses And afterward Exciso ostio muro Ecclesiae jam perfosso veritatem transgredientes efficiuntur principes ac duces mystâ—riorum animae impiorum and then shewing as also Irenaeus and Tertullian the Doctrine of the Church ancienter that of Hereticks later he goes on Exiis quae dicto sunt manifestum esse exâ—stimo unam esse veram Ecclesiam eam quae verè est antiqua quam conantur haereses in multas discindere Et substantiâ ergo cogitatione principio excellentiâ solam esse dicimus quam etiam dicimus antiquam Catholicam Ecclesiam in unitatem unius fidei quae est ex proprus testamentis i.e. contained in the Scriptures in quibus Dei voluntate per unum hominem congregat eos qui jam sunt ordinati ‖ Act. 13.48 quos praedestinavit Deus c. saith he Ecclesiae quoque eminentia sicut principium constructionis est ex unitate omnia alia superans nihil habens sibi simile vel aequale And that Fuit una omnium Apostolorum sicut doctrina ita etiam traditio Ex haere sibus autem aliae quidem appellantur ex nomine aliae ex loco aliae ex gente aliae ex propriis dogmatibus c. A parallel to which both in his description of the Church and Heresies may be observed in our present times These things then he hath of the Church there where he hath those things our Authour brings of the Scriptures And in all these things he seems to own and remit us to this Church antiqua sola una eminens omnia alia superans as a Guide that cannot sail us in necessary truth And as he presseth the studying of the Scriptures to the contemplative so he leaves the unity of the Church and the verity of its doctrine as a secure refuge for all the rest that cannot intend such studies Pag. 222. l. 10 Stephen was against rebaptizing any Hereticks and the others the Eastern and Affrican Bisho were for rebaptizing all Any Hereticks i.e. such whose former Baptisme was not for want of a right Forme nulled the baptizing of whom when returning to the Church was indeed no Rebaptization and thus S. Stephen and latter Councils well accord Of whose sanctity and orthodoxness thus Vincentius Lerinensis ‖ c. 9. after these Councils Quo quisque floreret religiosior eo promptiùs novellis adinventionibus coâ—trairet Exemplis talibus plena sunt omnia Sed ne longum siat unum aliquod hoc ab Apostolicâ potissimùm Sede sumemus ut omnes luce clariùs videant beatorum Apostolorum beata successi qu nâ—â vi semper quanto studio quantâ contentione defenderit susceptae semel relâ—gionis integritatem speaking of this Stephen Mâ—an wâ—â—le the affection Reverence this Author pretends to Antiquity and the Holy Fathers is not unliable to suspition when he upon every or rather no occasion given endeavours to uncover their nakedness and lay open their deficiencies and divisions Those that defend their departure from the novelties of the Roman Church by their retreat to Antiquity and the doctrine of the Fathers methinks should have a greater tenderness of Their Reputation But here meanwhile the more He aggravates the dissentings about this point the more he confirms the necessity of the Infallibility of General Councils for fetling such Truths and allaying such Contests to which Councils we owe the present peace that the Church in latter times enjoys in this matter once so much agitated Pag. 225 l. 13 What course was taken in this important Controversy with Samosatenus concerning the divinity of Christ to find out the certain sense of Scripture Do they appeale to any infallible Guides Nothing like it But in the Councils of Antioch c. The sense of Scripture may be cleared either by comparing Scriptures c. or by examining church-Church-Tradition for confuting
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
study of his notions to the underâ—tanding Reader I shall only add these notes after it though the same hath been said already by N. O. and not taken notice of if they may serve to remedy any of his scruples and difficulties found herein N. 2 1. That a Christian hath always for the Object of his Faith and that whereon it formally relies and finally rests Divine Revelation or God's own Word Which Word of God is most absolutely infallible and so to which as infallible after whatever manner declared to him the believer may most firmly adhere N. 3 2ly That such things as are proposed to him for Divine Revelation or God's Word are so indeed and among the rest that of Church-Infallibility as assisted by the Holy Ghost and the Canon of Scripture both here believed infallible the Believer is or may be antecedently as to these sufficiently assured from the Tradition thus commonly discribed viz. the Testimony of a multitude in all ages of illustrious Persons qualified with the many Motives of Credibility their Wisdome Sanctity Martyrdomes their being honoured with Miracles relating things contrary to carnal appetites and their secular-interests unanimous consent in so many ages c which Tradition carries a sufficient self-evidence in it And that any further external and rational evidence of or introductive to his faith than that Certainty whatever it be stiled which this Tradition affords no Christian needs to have or also can have antecedently to all the Articles of his Faith unless God to attest them should send a Voice from Heaven or Miracles and these so as to be seen by every particular person For else Tradition also must witness these Miracles to others As likewise in the Apostle's dayes it is most credible that the major part believed upon Tradition without seeing Miracles As for the Certainty which such a Tradition yields us if it be urged that it is not such as the Christian Faith necessarily requires for the suffering all manner of deaths and Martyrdomes in attestation of the truth thereof namely an assurance or certainty cui non potest subesse falsum as this is taken in the most rigid sense we may here consider that neither such would our certainty be if we all had it like to that of S. Thomas quia vidisti credidisti and believed only that which we first saw with our eyes For the Certainty of our Senses even when all things naturally required to a true sensation are present and where no Divine Revelation discovers to us their mis-apprehension or mis-arguing collection as it hath in the Angles their coming to Sodom is not such cui non potest subesse falsum if taken in the highest sense For if not by the ordinary power of Angels God's permission supposed yet by the supernatural effects of the Divine Power all the senses of the whole world at once possibly may be deceived either by thinking they see those colours or other proper object of them which they do not or by collecting from these truly seen somthing to be joined with or the subject of them that is not so As the men of Sodom were and all the world might have been deceived in the sight of the truly Angels their appearing as Men in their entring Sodom Since then none desires or needs a greater evidence of his faith for example concerning our Lord crucified or risen again than Sense may afford us or S. Thomas by his Sense had consequently must we not say either that an evidence cui potest subesse falsum as this is taken in the strictest sense is abundantly sufficient for a ground or Reason of faith Or that a ground of faith cui non potest subesse falsum ought not to be taken in any higher notion than it is verifiable of our Senses And such a Ground is the Tradition we speak of a ground cui non potest subesse falsum considering the Nature of Man which Nature in such a Tradition improved with such circumstances cannot have the least inclination or inducement to deliver or propagate to posterity so general an Vntruth N. 4 3ly That an infallible assent is said in a Divine Faith to be yielded to Divine Revelation or Gods word as well by Protestants as Catholicks See Archbishop Lawd p. 360. where he saith That A. C. concludes well that an infallible certainty is necessary for that one faith which is necessary to salvation And of that faith saith he amost infallible certainty we have already in the Scripture the Creeds c And again see p. 330. where he saith I believe the entire Scripture infallibly and by a Divine infallibility am sure of my object and below that he is infallibly assured of his Creed So that if hence any difficulties press the Catholicks in the Resolution of Faith how they come to yield an infallible assent thereto the same do the Protestants Now by such infallible assent asserted by both I say may either be meant N. 5 1. An Assent grounded on the Infallibility that the forenamed Tradition affords being the greatest self-evident testimony of a thing past as of that which our Lord and his Apostles did said or writ that can be had except Miracles Of the infallibility of which Tradition thus the Archbishop ‖ p. 124. A man may be assured nay infallibly assured by Ecclesiastical and Humane proof Men that never saw Rome may be sure and infallibly believe that such a City there is by Historical and acquired faith And in the next page Certain it is saith he that by humane authority consent and proof a man may be assured infallibly that Scripture is the word of God N. 6 2. Or by infallible Assent is meant an Assent yielded to an Object that as being Gods owne word is believed to be most supremely Infallible and immutable As the Archbishops words seem to explain themselves where he saith †p. 86. That Faith is an evidence as well as knowledge and the belief is firmer than any knowledge can be because it rests upon Divine authority which cannot deceive And so Dr Potter ‖ p. 199. The assent of Faith is more certain if it be possible than that of Sense or Science or Demonstration because it rests on Divine Authority which cannot possibly deceive And as some Catholicks also explain themselves when they say that no Divine Faith without an infallible assent i.e. an assent to an object that is most infallible Gods Word not without a Proponent or Expositor of the sense of this Word where ambiguous that is also really infallible And thus they say the illiterate and vulgar sort among Catholicks are infallible in the assent they give to the Articles of their Faith not formally by an infallible knowledge or certainty that the thing or person they believe is so true or infallible but materially by their adherence to that which is a reall truth who therefore from the Object of their Faith Gods Word and the Proponent of the sense of
it where disputed viz. the Church being both infallible are alwayes actually preserved from erring in their Faith though all such persons are not infallibly certain either of the Object of their faith that it is Gods Word or of the Proponent that he is not liable to errour whilst on the other side a Protestant having or believing no such certain and infallible Guide in the Sense of doubtful Scriptures and following his own judgment in the interpretation of them either actually errs in some part of his Faith or casually hits right and fluctuates to and fro the same man as he meets with several arguments differing from himself and one from another in those matters wherein all Subjects to the Church's Authority are agreed To which purpose a late Adversary of the Doctor 's perceiving him to mistake the meaning of Catholicks in the former proposition explains himself in Errour Non-plust p. 133. 139. 143. c. the same Author mean while affirming that all Catholicks may be and that the learned are formally infallible in their assent to the object of their faith i.e. have an infallible certainty of the Infallibility both of the Scripture and the Proponent thereof viz. from Tradition the evidence of which Tradition is accounted by him to be impossible to be false but so also it is as to this Author's sense of impossible by Archbishop Lawd p. 124. but now cited And perhaps Infallible Assent thus taken by Catholicks in a various sense occasions the Dr's apprehending in them contradictions N. 7 3 Or by this infallible Assent may be meant an Assent in respect of the Subject having a Certitude of Adhesion to the matters believed exceeding that to a Science according to that of Biâ—l cited by the Archbishop ‖ p. 75. Scientia certior est certitudine evidentiae fides verò certior firmitate adhaesionis Majus lumen in scientiâ majus robur in fide N. 8 Now How proper these expressions be in the explaining of an infallible Assent and whether these two laâ—t Notions are not coincident I meddle not But however it be by such infallible assent is never meant an assent grounded on any absolutely-infallible Testimony that the Revelation is Divine transcending that of Tradition and equalling that believed infallibility of the Church the Church I mean as assisted by the Holy Ghost and as its infallibility as to necessaries is one of the Articles of our Faith or equalling that believed infallibility of the Scriptures Which Testimony were there any such absolutely infallible must either be proved by other Testimonies of an equal weight in infinirum or must rest in some one that is a per se notum I say an infallible assent so grounded Catholicks pretend not nor need pretend to The Church in necessaries the Holy Scriptures in all things are believed are affirmed to be infallible by an infallibility cui non potest subesse falsum because believed Divine Revelation and so are adhered-to as such by a firmer and constanter assent than Sense or science causeth but are not need not to be infallibly known to be so as to any rational or demonstrative evidence by any infallibility transcending that of the forementioned Tradition whereever Miracles do not intervene Which infallibility or certainty of Tradition is abundantly sufficient to render and represent the Christian the moâ—t rational Religion in the world N. 9 This that no other precedent Testimony is necessary for proving the Infallibility of the Church as it is effectually assisted by the Holy Ghost in necessaries than that of Tradition But neither do Catholicks affirm it necessary that every one for a Divine or saving Faith have that certainty of faith that Tradition affords And to see that this is no Paradox among Catholicks I referr the Reader to what F. Bacon hath said of it in his Analysis Fidei extracted out of other Catholick Authors Disp 3. c. 7. and 8. Though it is affirmed necessary in the Catholick Church that It always have a most rational and certain proof of the truth of the Christian Faith and such as no other false or Heretical Religion can equall N. 10 4ly That notwithstanding such a sufficient rational assurance and actual certainty in Tradition and so in the infallibility of the Scriptures too as to the most part of the Canon thereof sufficiently attested by the same Tradition Yet remains there still a great necessity also of the Infallibility in the Governours of the Church so assisted by the Holy Ghost as never to err in Necessaries upon a manifold account N. 11 Because though many are yet all Points of Faith are not delivered and transferred to Posterity by the forementioned Tradition in their express and explicit termes but some have only descended in their Principles the necessary Deductions from which are by this Infallible Church extracted and vindicated from age to age against those dangerous errours that may happen to assault them Again Because though this Tradition is also assisted or improved with the Infallible Scriptures for a compleater direction in the Christian Faith yet are not all Credends and Agends so clearly delivered in these Scriptures as that Christians the illiterate especially and plebeians have no need of such an Interpreter thereof as may not mistake or misguide them in any such necessary Agends or Credends To which unlearned persons though it is said not to be necessary that they be infallibly certain of the truth of that which they believe and therefore Church-Infallibility cannot be said necessary as to them upon this account yet it is necessary to them that in such points where one of the two contradictories is of necessary faith it be truth that they believe and hence necessary also that the Proponent thereof be infallible as to all such points And it is here observable that though in the Descent of Tradition the Congregatio fidelium when it first delivers to a person the Infallibility of Church and of Scripture appears not to him as yet absolutely infallible Yet indeed as to delivering necessaries it then and always is so For this Congregatio fidelium in every age that testifies such things It or some part of it is the very same Body that is promised by our Lord his perpetual assistance and is preserved for ever by Gods Spirit and Providence from erring in Necessaries 3 Again Because the same Church-Infallibility is necessary as to other Controversies so also to those if any happen concerning the Canon of Scripture so far as any part thereof hath hapned in some times not to have had in all parts of Christianity so clear a current of Tradition 4 Because after this point of Church-Infallibility is once established and confirmed by such Tradition one may hence sooner and easilier learn his faith from her plain definitions and proposals thereof than from Tradition much dispersed abroad whereby its uniformity is the harder to be discerned or from the Scriptures in several points not so perspicuous and so the
to believe it just But in matters of Religion such a Judge is required whom we should be obliged to believe to have judged right So that in civil controversies every honest understanding man is fit to be a Judge but in Religion none but he that is infallible at least in all necessary matters Thus he Ib. l. 9 Which absolute obedience we are ready to yield when we see the like absolute command for Ecclesiastical Judges of controversies of Religion as there was among the Jews for their Supreme Judges in matters of law What thinks he of our Lords Dic Ecclesiae and Si Ecclesiam non audierit sit tibi sicut Ethnicus c in the sense wherein church-Church-Tradition hath understood this Text as applied to the highest Courts of the Church and to their cutting off by a spiritual death the disobedient whether contradicters or dissenters Is there more injustice and tyranny in this than inflicting a corporal death on the dissenters or contradicters under Moses his law This Discourse of the Dr as also what he hath said of the same matter Rat. Account p. 239. I had occasion to examine in the former Discourse § 22. c to which I referr the Reader for what is here omitted Pag. 117. l. 7. Such a pretence implying an infallible assistance of the Spirit of God there were but two ways of proving it either 1. By such Miracles as the Apostles wrought to attest their Infallibility or 2. By those Scriptures from whence this Infallibility is derived What thinks he of a third way of proving it viz. By Tradition But then If the Church-Guides give this evidence of their being infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost in necessaries namely the clear Testimony of the Scriptures I ask is not this sufficient for the world to credit them to be so without their doing Miracles Doth not this Author of the two ways to prove it named just before allow either of them sufficient Now see this latter proved before in Note on p. 113. l. 17. and so I hope we may peaceably take leave of Miracles Pag. 118. l. 2. When I speak of infallibility in fundamentals I there declare that I mean no more by it than that there shall be always a number of true Christians in the world Now whence learns he this that true Christians shall never faile I suppose whence other Protestants do viz. from the Promise of our Lord in Scripture that the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against his Church See Archbishop Lawd p. 140. That the whole Church saith he cannot err in doctrines absolutely fundamental seems to me to be clear by the promise of Christ Mat. 16. That the gates of hell c. And it is as clear that the Arch-bishop meant it not only of a number of true Christians as our Author doth here but of true Pastors also and Doctors of the Church If this Promise then be enough for believing of this the non-failing of Christians that shall believe all necessary truth without Miracles will it not supposing such a promise made to them be as sufficient for believing the other the indefectibility of the Church-Guides as to teaching all necessary faith without their doing Miracles Ib. l. 16. But in case any persons challenge an infallibility to themselves antecedently to the belief of Scriptures c such persons are equally bound to prove their infallibility by Miracles as the Apostles were What if they challenge this Infallibility like wise from the Scriptures as most certainly they do This latter challenge of theirs surely will supersede Miracles But let us suppose no such challenge What thinks he if they produce the evidence of Tradition for their Infallibility antecedently to Scripture as also they do Is not this we here suppose there is such a Tradition which is proved before ‖ Note on p. 113. l. 14. a sufficiently clear and self-evident proof of it If not of their Infallibility how then is the same Tradition without Miracles a sufficient proof to Protestants of the Canon or Infallibility of Scriptures Suppose the same promises made no Scriptures written would not the Catholick Church have been what it is and must it then have perpetually-shewn Miracles or no Infallibility as to Necessaries have been believed in it Ib. l. 7 The Sum of which is c. In the Dr's suming of N. O's Answers still somthing is lost as here the Reason is omitted why no such need of Miracles to be done by the Church-Governours delivering only from age to age that Doctrine which by the first Teachers was sufficiently confirmed by Miracles viz. this the Evidence of Tradition which received from the Apostles and from their Ancestors they unanimously convey unto Posterity Yet such Miracles were necessary then to more persons than those Apostles who made the very first Sermons concerning the Gospel because the bare Tradition of a few at the first was not so evidently credible as that which by many Sermons made and Miracles done in many places afterward became Vniversal Pag. 119. l. 12. The necessity of Miracles was to give a sufficient motive to believe to all those to whom the Gospel was proposed Must all then in the Apostles times who received the faith see their Miracles Or if their Miracles only related to them by a creditable Tradition would serve the turn why not the same Miracles related now Pag. 120. l. 1. Those persons ought to confirm that authority by Miracles as the Apostles did And again l. 20. See Note on p. 118. l. 11. N. 1 Ibid. l. 11. Yet he is very loth to let go the Miracles of their Church done in latter times as well as formerly N.O. ‖ See Consid p. 29. is loth to let go the Miracles of their Church i.e. of the Catholick Church East or West for both have been noted for Miracles In latter times i.e. from the Apostles daies to the present there being the same evidences in all ages of the facts I say not of all the facts that are related but of many of them which is sufficient and the same Reasons where and when the World is already Christian in all times for the doing of them N.O. loth to let them go not as to this his affirming a Necessity of them now in the Church for the believing of its Infallibility or any other part of the Christian Doctrine or also for the Conversion of the yet Infidel and Heathen Nations after such a plenitude of Tradition appearing in the greatest part of the world already subdued by the Gospel Of which non-necessity N.O. saith ‖ Princ. Consid p. 29. That Miracles having been wrought by the Apostles in confirmation of that Doctrine which their Successors deliver from them are not now alike necessary to or reasonably demanded of these their Successors N. 2 But he is very loth notwithstanding this to part with true Miracles still wrought in the Church since the Apostles times and these too of the very
to the end of the world on purpose to expound the Scriptures and out of these to teach them all Necessaries for their salvation and to keep them stable and fixed from being tossed to and fro with every winde of doctrine that capricious fancies may imagine there or malicious pretend Necessary to inform them that are to learn of these Pastors the true sense of Gods Word according to former church-Church-Tradition and that they are to rest in their judgement as Dr Field hath and follow their faith as the Apostle ‖ Heb. 13.7 that they may not usurp their Office c. Lastly that supposing these Guides also should erre yet it is better for them still that all erre one errour which is the errour of their Guides because there will be at least some unity and peace in that and some excuse for the errour of Inferiours yea also in probability more verisimilitude than that every one should erre a several and his own errour to the utter ruine of Peace and a greater deviation from Truth But that which our Authour hath changed here and in stead of submission of judgement put only in general terms due obedience and submission and this due to be stated as I apprehend not by these Governours but those that owe it leaves all Sects still to enjoy their own tenents how absurd or impious soever and with these also to enjoy the Communion of the Church notwithstanding a due submission called for by it So that its subjects are still left to be tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine that blowes though the Apostle saith God hath appointed Governours to prevent it nor are tied to follow the Faith of their Guides as the Apostle requires nor to learn the sense of Scripture where this is disputed from those whom our Lord hath appointed to teach it them So that notwithstanding this latter defence made here by this Author I see no reason but that I may conclude these Notes on his Reply as N.O. doth his Considerations on his Principles That since it is the Church's Authority that must rectify such diversity of Opinions for the attaining unity and peace in the points controverted this Authority is necessary in the first place to be established in stead of leaving every fancy to perspicuity of Scripture And that the prudent may consider whether the authority of a Church must not necessarily be much debilitated and brought into contempt and daily like to wane more and more where such a new way is taken up of its Defence that he thinks himself its best Advocate and Pleader of its cause who doth most endeavour to set forth the defects and failings of all Ecclesiastical Societies Prelates and Councils in which office I appeale to the candid and equal Reader whether this Author hath not in this Discourse vigorously emploied his Pen and who best proves no Scripture-Promises made to them Nay where to the end to evacuate the Infallibility of any Society or Church in Necessaries is set up a Counter-Lay-Infallibility of private men if onely sincere endeavourers for understanding Holy Writ in all the same Necessaries Where therefore such new Maxims are still spread abroad and received with applause which were first made more current and common by Mr Chillingworth forced to it as the last refuge left to shelter him from Obedience to a just Church-Authority it is no great wonder if the broachers of new Sects and extravagant fancies in Religion the Contemners of Church-Authority and of the Clergy who first contemned and vilified themselves do daily in such parts so exceedingly multiply and increase Sed Tu Pastor Bone adduc istas oves perditas in Ovile tuum ut vocem tuaem audiant fiat unum Ovile unus Pastor Amen Pag. 290 l. ult Dr St's Conclusion I have thus far considered the main Foundations upon which N.O. proceeds in opposition to my Principles there is now very little remaining which deserves any notice and that which seems to do it as about Negative Articles of Faith and the Marks of the true Church I shall have occasion to handle them at large in the following Discourse I have perused his following Discourse in Vindication of the Protestants Grounds of faith and find nothing answered to what N.O. hath objected p. 76. concerning the Protestants Negative Articles of Faith or hath urged p. 86. concerning the Marks or evidences by which among many pretenders that Church may be known from which known we are to learn Truth But I wonder not at it since in this Discourse pretending to answer N. O's Considerations no reply is returned to a greater part of them Nor the arguings in his Principles justified where they are by N.O. questioned Which perhaps may be the reason why he saith here only that he hath thus far considered the main Foundations upon which N.O. proceeds the Structure it self remains yet unconsidered and as for his digging here at the Foundation it hath been but lost labour If the Church be a sure Foundation N. O's must stand FINIS