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
no certainty of the meaning of the Levitical Law because there is no High Priest or Sunhedrin to explain it Not all Persons in all things without an Explainer And there was anciently a Guide Infallible or so authorized as that all were to stand to its judgment appointed for deciding several doubtful parts of Moses his Law Of which see in the former Discourse § 22. Pag. 101. l. 8 Yet after all he cannot certainly understand the meaning of them Not of some of them exclusively to an Infallible Church-Authority and his Submission thereto Pag. 102. l. 10. And after all this cannot we understand c That every one cannot without some other helps than only our Lord's and his Apostles discourses I think this Authour grants before p. 96. 97. And Sic oportebat ut diceretur quod non ab omnibus intelligeretur saith S. Austin ‖ In Joan. tract 27. of our Lord's Sermon about the Eucharist in the 6th of S. John Ibid. l. 7 Our Question is not about may be 's Therefore N.O. in those Considerations on Princip 13. p. 14. c. contends that God not only may but hath so revealed his mind that in many things it is clear to some persons when not to others and for this quotes Dr Field on his side Ib. l. 5 It is taken for granted on both sides that God hath revealed his mind in writing But not granted that he hath revealed it so clearly in writing as none may mistake any part of it I am afraid I tire out the Reader with so often repetition of the same limitations and restrictions applied to a discourse that renders it self plausible by omitting them The use of Indefinite Terms and propositions is a sure way and a fine art for Controvertists to answer one another and both speak truth So these two Scriptures are clear in points of necessary faith and Scriptures are not clear in points of necessary faith are both very true as to several persons and in several matters of necessary faith Pag. 103. l. 14. But when I had expresly said things necessary for salvation why doth he avoid that which the dispute was about and only say many things It was an oversight in N.O. but no advantage made by it who in speaking of the clearness of Scriptures adds the term as to Necessaries frequently and that in the Consideration upon the very same Principle See p. 15. If these in all necessaries are clear Of every particular Christian in all points necessary Such a clearness in Necessaries must the Scripture have c. By which the Reader may see whether his Adversary had cause to complain but so doth not the Dr when speaking of Church Infallibility add this term as to necessaries used by N.O. Ib. l. 10 I never yet saw one difficulty removed by the pretended infallible Guides of the Church General Councils are these pretended Infallible Guides and the doubted and disputed Sense of many Scriptures in necessary matters have been cleared by these Councils and some of them put in the Church's Creeds Pag. 104. l. 8. Nothing of it their talent of infallibility ever appeared above ground See the last Note Ib. l. 15. Supposing we believe their Infallibility we are still as far to seek for the meaning of many difficult places The Church is not said to be infallible in all things whatewer as the Scriptures are but in necessaries As these are explained in the former Discourse § 2 and in 2d Discourse concerning the Guide § 9. c. viz in all points that are any way beneficial either as to the General Oeconomy or Government of the Church or as to the Salvation of Particulars to be believed or practised by her Subjects and the truth of which the Scripture or Tradition at least as to the necessary Principles from which such point is extracted do sufficiently evidence unto her Such from time to time as they are called in Question are stated and determined by her whilst neither having leisure nor perhaps light to determine all other I mean such as are no way necessary to be determined Of which thing what points are and what are not so the Church her self and not her Subjects is the most proper Judge Ib. l. 6 So that not making use of this talent of Infallibility gives us just reason to question whether God continues it Then from the Church's having well used this talent we may gather the contrary viz. the Divine Providence it s still preserving it to her Pag. 107. l. 9. Which several expressions of Dr Field's amount to no more than this that there will be alwayes some true Christians in the world Contrary to this Dr Field holds that in all ages there is and shall be not some true Christians only but some Visible Society and Church or other consisting of a Ministry or Clergy openly publishing and teaching and a People receiving their doctrine that in such age doth not err in necessaries to salvation which tenent of his very well consists with that advice in his Preface produced by N.O. That therefore men not having time or leisure or strength of understanding to examine controversies in Religion of such consequence should diligently search out which amongst all the Societies of the world is that blessed Company of Holy ones that Houshold of Faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the living God which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth that so he may embrace her Communion follow her Directions and rest in her Judgment Thus he Which cannot be spoken only of the being alwayes of some true Christians in the world that do not so err but of a visible society or Communion such as gives directions and delivers her Judgment And to shew him coherent to himself This Visible Society in all ages the excellency of it and their happiness that are in it he further thus describes in his 1st Book 10th Chapter Visible saith he there in respect of the profession of supernatural verities revealed in Christ use of Holy Sacraments order of Ministry and due Obedience yielded thereunto and they discernable that do communicate therein Such then he allows that Church in my age to be that he maintains not to err in necessaries what Church soever of that age it hapens to be as one or more it must be And if this be not enough to clear this N. O out of his Common-Place book for thence our Author saith he had his quotation can furnish him with several other places out of Dr Field that say the same thing Such that Ibid That the constant profession of saving truth is preserved and found amongst men and the ministery of salvation continued and known in the world For how saith he shâ—uld there be a Church gathered without a Ministery And the like l. 2. c. 6. That the Ministery of Pastours and Teachers is absolutely necessary to the being of a Church For how should there be a Church gathered guided and governed without a Ministery
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
definition in matters of faith upon Anathema to all dissenters in their inserting them as thought fit in the Church's Creeds and the Church Catholick upon this having esteemed all opposers of them Hereticks c. mentioned before § 50. He answers thus p. 128. That this argument is so weak that he wonders N.O. had not considered how often it had been answered by their own Writers For that it is certain that Provincial Councils as well as General have Anathematized dissenters pronounced them Hereticks that Bellarmine ‖ Concil l. 2. c. 10. saith that this doth not imply their Infallibility And that if it doth not in the case of Provincial Councils why should N. O think it doth in the case of General Thus He. And whereas N.O. who had well pre-considered such Objection said to it Consid p. 40. that these subordinate Councils granted in themselves fallible did not denounce such Anathemas nor require assent to their decrees but with relation to the same Infallibility residing in the General Body of Church-Governours and their concurrence therein that they passed not such Acts without consulting the Tradition and Judgment of other Churches and especially of the Apostolick See To this he replie That the Anathemas of Provincial Councils did not relate to the acceptation of their decrees either by the Pope or the whols Church as N. O. supposes but did proceed upon their own assurance of the truth of what they decreed otherwise their Anathemas would have been only conditional and not absolute and peremptory as we see they were Lastly That he needs to give no other answer to this argument than in the words of Dr. Field ‖ l. 4. c. 4. That Councils denounce Anathema not because they think every one that disobeys the decree of the Council to be accursed but because they are perswaded in particular that this is the eternal truth of God which they propose therefore they accurse them that obstinatly shall resist as S. Paul willeth every Christian man to anathematize an Angel coming from heaven if he shall teach him any other doctrine that he hath already learned yet is not every particular Christian free from possibility of erring Thus the Doctor § 65 To which I return this That whereas the Concession of Catholicks and particularly of Bellarmine De Concil l. 2. c. 10. is produced as ruining this weak argument of N.O. that would prove from anathematizing dissenters Infallibility First here consulting Bellarmine I find him De Concil l. 2. c. 3. where he maintains the Infallibility of General Councils to urge together with N.O. this Argument for it in these words 2º Docent Patres Concilia esse Haereticos excommunicandos omnes qui non acquiescunt Conciliis plenariis Ex quo manifestè sequitur eos putasse Concilia non posse errare atque in primis omnia Concilia Generalia dicunt anathema contradicentibus ut Athanasius testatur de Nicaeno c. Next That for the Objection concerning Provincial Councils which N.O. well considered he thought it sufficiently solved and so may think still by those words of his before recited and that Bellarmine also because the Dr. quotes him answers this Objection much-what in the same manner saying Provincial Councils have sometimes used such anathema's to dissenters in such points Quando res est facilis and this facilis he explains in quâ omnes ferè Doctores i.e. Ecclesiae Catholicae conveniunt Ferè for it is not necessary that all should no more than in the first four Councils they did Et quando a Sede Apostolicâ confirmationâ—m accipiunt Which seems to say the same with N.O. namely when Provincial Councils have such a concurrence of the whole Church as is sufficient to render their Act equivalent to that of a Council General and so in all necessaries infallible And therefore in the same place the Cardinal instancing in the Anathemas passed in the Affrican Councils against Pelagianisme observes out of Prospers Chronicon A.D. 420. that Pelagianisme condemned by them yet non priùs ab Ecclesiâ totius orbis damnata est quà m Zosimus Papa decreta illius Concilii firmasset Prospers words are Concilio apud Carthaginem habito 217. Episcoporum ad Pentificem Zosimum synodalia decreta prolata sunt their Anathemas quibus probatis per totum mundum Haeresis Pelagiana damnata est and these Anathemas obtained their just force And that S. Austin in his Retractations ‖ l. 2. c. 50. saith not postquam Pelagiana haeresis a Conciliis Affricanis but postquam ab Episcopis Ecclesiae Romanae prâ—ies Innccentio deinde Zosimo cooperantibus Conciliorum Affricanorum literis i.e. relating to those Popes these their decrees convictâ— atque damnata est though the Affrican Anathema's were pronounced before the Pope's confirming their Acts for which Confirmation we finde them writing to him after their Council ended in this manner Vt statutis nostrae mediocritatis say they ‖ Apud August Ep. 90. etiam Apostolicae Sedis adhibeatur authoritas c. who in his Answer to them also justifies them to consent with whole Body of the Catholick Church Thus then were their Anathemas grounded To the Dr's Reply that follows that in such a case their Anathemas would have been made only Conditional I answer § 66 That their Anathemas though relating always to the general approbation of their Decrees yet were penned not Conditional but Absolute either because such a sufficient concurrence with them of the Catholick Church was well known to them before the composing their Decree as it may be when yet the Confirmation of their Act is only received after it Or because such Post-Confirmation and Acceptation after the penning of the Decree yet precedes the promulgation and just force or obligation of it It being to run absolute upon such a consent presupposed as it is the ordinary custome in all Laws the establishment whereof depends on many successively yet in their first stile to run absolutely because such ratification is presupposed to their having the due force of Laws And so in General Councils the Anathemas are penned absolute though these Councils and their Decrees have not their full strength till the Confirmation thereof by the See Apostolick and also such an admittance and acceptation of them by the Church Catholick Dissusive where the Representatives of a Considerable part of it are absent as is thought necessary †Next That ‖ See Bellarm de Concil l. 1. c. 17. §. 4. l. 2. c. 11. §. objiciunt by the Dr's words of the Anathemas of such Councils proceeding upon their own assurance I know not what he means Doth he allow fallible Councils upon a perswasion they have of the truth of what they decree to anathematize dissenters and pronounce them Hereticks Then why may not the Council of Trent do so Or if he means by their assurance that Provincial Councils are certain without relation to any consent of the whole that they do
their external disobedience or contradiction but their wicked errour The 39. Articles being declared in the same 5th Canon To have been by this Church agreed upon for the avoiding Diversities of Opinions and the establishing of Consent touching true Religion To which I add that Consent touching true Religion is Consent surely touching matters of Faith and again that establishing of Consent is to be understood amongst all the Members of the said Church all whom it concerns to be united and established in the true Religion as well as amongst the Clergy Therefore the Stile of the two Canons runs generally Whoso shall hereafter affirm the Articles c in any thing erroneous And the excommunicating of those who will not abjure their holding Popery or Socinianisme see Synod 1640. Can. 3. and 4. is not of the Clergy but any whatever Which may be confirmed also by the practice of the Synods of other Reformed Churches abroad proceeding to the excommunication of Dissenters from their Doctrine To this purpose in the Ecclesiastical Discipline of the Reformed Churches of France the 31. Article of the 5th Chapter Du Consistoire runs thus Si un ou plusieurs c. If any one or more of the people shall raise any debate to the breach of the Church's Vnity concerning any point of Doctrine the Form of the Catechism Sacraments Publick Service c. if matters cannot be otherwise composed in the last place a National Synod is to be assembled which shall give them an hearing with all holy liberty and in it shall be made a full and final Resolution by the Word of God to which resolution if they refuse to acquiesce in every particular point and with an express disavowing their errours recorded now surely this disavowing their errours is assenting to the contrary truths they shall be cut off from the Church Here then is required a punctual assent to what the sentence of the Synod not the persons convented shall judge to be the sense of God's Word as it is also there cautioned before sans que la decision en appartienne a autrez qu' au Synode And the same course is taken against the Remonstrants by the Synod of Dort See Acta Synod Dordrecht Sess 138. Synodus haec Dordrechtana pro authoritate quam ex Dei verbo in omnia Ecclesiarum suarum membra obtinet in Christi nomine injungit omnibus singulis in Foederato Belgio Ecclesiarum Pastoribus c ut hanc sacram veritatis salutaris doctrinam viz. that delivered in the 91. Articles concerning the five points in controversy sinceram inviolatam conservent illam populo juventuti fideliter proponant explicent c. which surely includes the requiring their assent to and belief of thesh Articles excommunicating the disobedient donec per seriam resipiscentiam dictis factis studiis contrariis comprobatam Ecclesia satisfaciant atque ad ejus communionem recipiantur This I have added to shew the same proceedings of other forreign Synods of the Reformed with these of England To which now to return Either in the forementioned expressions these English National Synods do excommunicate all those whoever affirm any thing in the former Common-Prayer-Book to be repugnant to the Scriptures as all those must do who affirm the imposing something there to be done or used in God's worship which he hath not commanded to be a thing repugnant to the Scriptures or who do affirm any thing in the 39 Articles to be erroneous and then what a number of persons are there at this present in this Kingdom of England that are excommunicated by the Church of England Or if no consent to her Articles is required in general of all her Subjects what an indulgence is here for variety of Sects every one being left in matters touching true Religion to Liberty of Opinion Yet for the avoiding of which this Church saith she composed these Articles This of the Doctors Passings-by in the Preface Pag. 76. l. 3. The Controversy in short is this Whether Protestants who reject the Roman Church's Authority and Infallibility can have any sufficient Foundation to build their faith upon There is no such Question proposed by N. O. And if there had it would have been proposed on this manner in order especially to the Doctors 13th and 15th Principles Whether a Protestant in refusing the submission of his judgment to the Authority or Infallibility of the Catholick Church in her Councils can have in several Articles of Necessary Faith wherein the sense of Scriptures is controverted as sure a foundation of his Faith as he who submits his judgment to the foresaid Authority or also Infallibility Ibid. l 11. Those of the Church of Rome charge us That we can have no certainty of our faith as Christians without their Infallibility The Certainty pretended by this Author in his Principles and opposed by N. O. is such a Certainty from the Clearness of the Sense of Scriptures in all points of necessary Faith to every person as that no person whatsoever what useth his best endeavour I suppose he means such endeavour as consists with his Vocation to understand them can mistake therein And this is denied by Catholicks and sufficiently confuted by Experience Ib. l. 9. The occasion was my Adversaries calling for Grounds and Principles c. This account that follows nor concerning N. O and those worthy Persons whom the Doctor opposeth being much better able to return an answer for themselves if perhaps they think this worth their pains I shall pass on to p. 79. Annotations on § 2. Of the Notion of Infallibility PAge 79. l. ult Sometimes they apply Infallibility to the Object that is believed And hath not our Author used this language of an Objective Infallibility himself in his 20th Principle where he saith Assent doth not depend upon the objective infallibility of any thing without us Whereby it appears himself hath a share in the Jargon And what thinks he of that of his Archbishop Lawd ‖ p. 125. We must distinguish of Infallibility For first a thing may be presented as an infallible object of belief when it is true and remains so c. Doth not this make the Arch-bishop also one of the Jugglers he talks of P. 80. l. 10. Infallible is that which cannot be deceived Now if no one will say that a Proposition cannot be deceived it is absurd to say That it is infallibly true Infallible is that which cannot be deceived I add or as applyed to things is that wherein we cannot be deceived and so may Propositions be infallible And is it then such a great absurdity to say This proposition Homo est anâ—mal is infallibly true Doth not himself say the Scriptures are writings infallible See his Princ. 12. And is not this â—re infallibly true N. 1 P. 84. l. ult And being deceived In these two or three leaves the Dr hath been â—aâ—ing and fixing as he saith the Notion of Infallibility where leaving the
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
of the Christian Faith And here in what hath been urged out of him but now doth not he grant the just requiring of an internal assent to inferr Infallibility Or will he justify it lawful for a Council that grants it self fallible in such its decrees notwithstanding to do all these things And then may not the Council of Trent rightly do so And lastly why doth the Church of England as themselves say forbear such things I say I see not clearly what here the Dr would have N. 4 2ly Coming to that which he presseth concerning the practice of Provincial Councils anathematizing Dissenters and yet these Councils granted by Catholicks not Infallible which Concession of Catholicks and particularly of Bellarmine de Concil l. 2. c. 10. is produced as ruining this weak argument of N.O. that would prove from Anathematizing Dissenters Infallibility First here N.O. consulting Bellarmin he is found De Concil l. 2. c. 3. where he maintains the Infallibility of General Councils to urge together with N.O. this very Argument for it See his words recited in the former Discourse § 65. Next for the objection concerning Provincial Councils N.O. had considered and answered it thus ‖ Consid p. 40. We finde indeed subordinate Councils also stating somtimes matters of faith censuring hereticks and requiring assent to their decrees but still with relation to the same Infallibility residing in the general Body of Church-Governours and to their concurrence therein They not passing such Acts without consulting the Tradition and Judgment of other Churches and especially of the Apostolick See and a general Acceptation rendring such their Decisions anthentick and valid so as those of General Councils are And Bellarmin's answer ‖ l. 2. c. 16. is shewed to be in substance much-what the same Dr St. replies to this †p. 125. l. 6. That the Anathemas of Provincial Councils did not relate to the acceptation of their Decrees either by the Pope or the whole Church as N.O. supposes but did preceed upon their own assurance of the truth of what they decreed otherwise their anathemas would have been only conditional and not absolute and peremptory as we see they were Thus He. To which I Answer that though such Anathemas of Provincial Councils do relate to the general approbation of their Decrees yet their Anathemas are rightly made not conditional but absolute either because such a sufficient concurrence with them of the Catholick Church is known to them before the composing their Decree as it may be when yet the confirmation of their Act is only received after it Or because such post-confirmation and acceptation after the penning of the Decree yet precedes the promulgation and just force or obligation of it It being penned absolute upon such a consent presupposed as we see the Affrican Anathemas were and as it is the ordinary custome in all laws the establishment wherof depends on many successively yet in their first stile to run absolutely because such ratification is presupposed to their having the due force of Laws And so in General Councils the Anathemas are penned absolute though these Councils and their Decrees have not their full strength till the Confirmation thereof by the See Apostolick and also such an admittance and acceptation of them by the Church-Catholick diffusive as is thought necessary Neither is the transaction of these Moral things to be exacted according to the Rules in Mathematicks Pag. 129. l. 10. But did proceed upon their own assurance of the truth of what they decreed Here Doth our Author allow fallible Councils upon a perswasion they have of the truth of what they decree to anathe matize dissenters and pronounce them hereticks Then why may not the Council of Trent do so Or if he means by their assurance that Provincial Councils are certain without relation to any consent of the whole that they do not err in such Decrees where they pronounce Anathema so he seems to give to these Provincial Councils also an Infallibility more than which Catholicks do not desire to be allowed to General viz. the certainty that these Fathers met in a General Council have whether by the evidence of Scripture or of Tradition or of a necessary Consequence from something Traditive or at least of our Lords promised Assistance that they do not err in those things they decree though in many other things they be sallible Ib. l. 14. He goes on thus But I need give no other answer to this argument than in the words of Dr Field whom N.O. appealed to ‖ Fieid of the Church l. 4. c. 4. but in another matter not this before viz. That Councils denounce anathema not because they think every one that disobey the decree of the Council to be accursed but because they are perswadâ—â— in particular that this is the eternal truth of God which they proâ—se therefore they accurse them that obstinately shall resist as S. Paul willeth every Christian man to anathematize an Angel coming from heaven if he shall teach them any other doctrine than he hath already learned yet is not every particular Christian free from possibility of erring If the argument then were good from anathematizing dissenters and calling them hereticks every particular person must by it be proved infallible who are bound to anathematize even Angel from heaven in case of delivering any other doctrine from the Gospel N. 1 Where it is said first that these General Councils do not denounce anathema to dissenters because they think every one that disobeys the decree of the Council i.e. by dissenting to be or to incurr their Anathema I answer to this that then they must hold their Anathema universally pronounced to be as to such persons unjust Which I suppose the General Councils did not It is said again that because these General Councils are perswaded in particular that this is the eternal truth of God that they propose therefore they anathematize them that obstinately shall resist But 1st N.O. presseth not these General Councils their anathematizing them that shall obstinatly resist that which they propose but them that shall dissent from it and he presseth their putting it also into the Creed and under anathema requiring from all the belief of it and that as a matter of faith 2. I contend that no Council that only is perswaded but not certain that that which it proposeth suppose the Consubstantiality or Divinity of our Lord is the eternal truth of God can justly insert such point in the Creed or anathematize Dissenters But it is agreed that the four first Councils did justly these things and therefore they were not only perswaded but certain that those were truths and that in them they were infallible and then much more did hold themselves so since one may think himself to be and yet not be infallible N. 2 To that which follows out of S. Paul It is answered that S. Paul or a Galatian must be certain of his not erring in that for the meer
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-Tradition for confuting
to S. Austin he is far from calling his sense vox aperta against them or from not believing theirs and not his to be the true sense of this Voice of the Pastor Concerning whom united in such a Body he saith ‖ lib. de Haeres Sufficit Ecclesiam contra aliquid sentire ut illud non recipiamus in fidem But the Father evidently speaks of some Catholick Bishops holding something contrary to Scripture but also to the other Bishops as appears by the words following Sed qui custodito Vnitatis Charitatis Vinculo i.e. with the rest from whom they differ in opinion in hoc incidunt c. Nor have we any so sure Judge when some Catholick Bishops do so as this whole Body of them dissenting He proceeds Ib. l. 14. By which it is evident that he supposed no Infallibility in the Guides of the Church i.e. single or a few contradicted by the more and superiour Ib. l. 16. And in termes he asserts ‖ De Vnita Eccles c. 19. that the Church is to be proved by nothing but plain Scriptures neither by the authority of Optatus or S. Ambrose or innumcrable Bishops nor Councils nor Miracles Intermes he asserts No. These are not S. Austins words truly translated or quoted After S. Austin Ib. c. 18. had thus spoken to the Donatist Remotis omnibus talibus Ecclesiam suam demonstrent si possunt non in sermonibus rumâ—ribus Afrorum non in Conciliis Episcoporum suorum non in literis quorumlibet disputatorum non in signis prodigiis fallacibus c. sed in praescripto Legis c. And again ‖ Ecclesiam in Scripturis Canonicis debemus agnoscere non in vanis hominum rumoribus opinionibus factis dictis visis inquirere things the Donatists pleaded against him I say After this he proceeds in these words which are translated by the Dr Sed utrum ipsi Ecclesiam teneant non nisi de divinarum Scripturarum canonicis libris ostendant quia nec nos propterea dicimus nobis credi oportere quòd in Ecclesiâ Christi sumus quia ipsam quam tenemus commendavit Milevitanus Optatus vel Mediolanensis Ambrosius vel alii innumerabiles nostrae communionis Episcopi aut quia nostrorum collegarum Conciliis ipsa praedicata est aut quia per totum in locis sanctis quae frequentat nostra communio tanta mirabilia vel exauditionum vel sanitatum fiunt c. Where S. Austin saith not that the Church can be proved by nothing but plain Scripture Or denies that General Councils or true Miracles or Vniversal Tradition are no sufficient proof thereof Of which General Councils he speaks nothing here but of those of the two Parties Concilia Episcoporum suorum on one side and Concilia nostrorum Cellegarum on the other And we may see in the quotations before Note on p. 251. l. 12. S. Austin knowing the Scriptures from the Church and the Church from other marks amongst which true Miracles surely are the highest proof of any Truth and so were of the Apostles their being Gods true Church and Ministers But the Father to the Donatists allowing with him the Scriptures urgeth the Church as demonstrable by their clear testimony not as the only testimony but the chief and such as more than this needed not and exacts of them that he waving these other proofs on his side wherein he had much the advantage of them by his innumerabiles Episcopi which surely ought to carry it against theirs and vera Miracula so they would the urging of their Councils far inferior and their Miracles fallacious on their side and bring in their defence Anti-Scriptures to his Scriptures In these things I referr my self to the candid Examiner of the place Ib. l. 6. He endeavours to bring them to a resolution in the other point the Church for the clearing of this non-Rebaptization But how doth proving such a Society as defines Non-rebaptization to be the true Church clear Non-rebaptization to be the right practise which S. Austin inferrs from it if this Church proved yet may err in defining it so Pag. 255. l. 10 ‖ S. Austin de Baptisnâ— l. 2. c. 3. And of these General Councils the former are often anâ—â—nded by the latter As this place is often urged by Protestants so it is answered to by Catholicks that taking the Fathers words plenaria Concilia or General Councils as relating to the words immediatly preceding quae fiunt ex universo orbe Christiano which is not necessary N. 1 such General Councils may correct and amend one another the latter the former as to several things though never as to Dogmata Fidei For as Cardinal Bellarmine ‖ De Concil l. 2. c. 12. In Conciliis maxima pars actorum ad fidem non pertinet sed tantùm ipsa nuda decreta ea non omnia sed tantùm quae proponuntur tanquam de fide Interdum enim Concilia aliquid definiunt non ut certum sed ut probabile He grants Ibid. that Concilia in judiciis particularibus i.e. ubi non affirmatur aliquid generale toti ecclesiae commune errare possunt So he grants 2. l. 7. c. Quad aliqua praecepta morum Concilia plenaria priora emendari per posteriora upon S. Austin's reason quando experimento aliquo aperitur quod clausum erat c. If S. Austins words mean this so Catholicks grant it N. 2 But 2ly If S. Austins words must be understood of such plenary and absolutely General Councils without any remitting of the highest sense of the word whenas indeed these words Vniversale Generale Plenarium were applied to Councils of a smaller Collection of Bishops when this from several partss and a little after this quotation the Father saith concerning Rebapization that Diutiùs per orbis terrarum regiones multis hinc atque hinc disputationibuus collationibus Episcoporum pertractata est And several Synods were for it held in the East as well as in Affrick ‖ See Euseb l. 7. c. 4. thus what the Father saith here will make nothing for him as to his present Controversy with the Donatist about Rebaptization Nay more against him For there were no two such Councils that were both General whereof the latter had amended the former concerning Rebaptization at all and had there the same uncertainty of truth would have been in the decree of the latter as of the former and in this case the Donatist would not have failed to have taken the advantage of the Former General Councils N. 3 But 3ly applying S. Austins words Ipsa plenaria sapè priora posterioribus emendari as in reason we ought to the times preceding his as also considering those other words he adds sine ullo typho sacrilegae superbiae c. he seems to speak ‖ See contra Maximinum l. 3. c. 14. of the plenary but illegal Arian Councils that were not plenary in the largest
doubtful and obscure a nature as Rebaptization is our Author allows this presumtion on the Church's side ought he not much more in a clearer Pag. 258. l. ult S. Austins words The custom of the Church having been confirmed by a General Council c. It may now 〈…〉 now said that we follow what Truth hath declared Doth not S. Austin here from Non-Rebaptization being confirmed by a General Council which examined Custome and Scriptures declare himself secure of this truth not to be amended by latter Councils Pag. 259. l. 13. That in a matter of so doubtful and obscure a nature c. we are to believe that to be the truth which the Church of Christ agreed in c. And afterward he faith In such a case as this and so he saith before ‖ p. 257. in a question so doubtful he agrees to what S. Austin saith and thinks a man very much relieved by following so evident a consent of the Vniversal Church but the not so relieved S. Austin declares Hereticks not by vertue of any Infallibility but the unreasonableness of believing that so many so wise so disinteressed persons should be deceived That in a matter of so doubtful and obscure a Nature What means this limitation Are we to believe that to be truth which Councils determine in matters obscure I suppose he means generally obscure but not so in matters more clear One would think the contrary rather But who is to judge when the Question or matter is obscure since on this depends our assent to the Council The Donatist for example in this matter of Rebaptization But he will say This matter is clear enough on his side And so this Author promising as to present Controversies the same submission in case of obscurity to a General Council this case here of obscurity will not be found because these points they say are clear on their side and they offer demonstration of them But if Protestants will affirm that we are to believe that to be the truth which General Councils resolve without limiting it to certain cases because it is as he saith unreasonable to believe so many so wise so disinteressed persons should be deceived and then grant that consequently in necessaries these Councils must not err for so we should be obliged to believe in necessaries something wrong and false this would be as much as we desire Ib. l. 3 Let the same evidences be produced for the consent of the Vniversal Church from the Apostolical times in the matters in dispute between our Church and that of Rome and the controversy of Infallibility may be laid aside What was the Consent of the universal Church from the Apostolical times was the Question between S. Austin and the Donatists For the Donatists also pleaded a contrary Tradition against the Catholicks See Firmilian Ep. 75. â—pud Cyprian Caeterùm nos veritati consuetudinem jungimus c. as also the same Consent is controverted now concerning Now for a sufficient and certain decision of the truth in this Question viz. what the former Tradition was or what was our Lords will in this matter S. Austin urgeth the consent of the present Church met in a General Council and there discussing the matter Where S. Austin doth not require the Donatists submission to the Consent of the universal Church from the Apostolical times first proved to them i.e. they confessing it so for this if proved to them Donatists did not nor could not decline as now neither doth the Dr. Let the Pope's Supremacy c be proved by an universal consent of Antiquity c. p. 244. and here Let the same evidence be produced for the consent of the universal Church from the Apostolical times c. that is as I understand him Let such a consent be evidenced to us But S. Austin requires their submission and belief to the latter General Council of Nice or Arles or both it matters not declaring what was the former Apostolical Tradition Which if the Infallibility of this Council needs not be stood on as to the Donatist's obedience yet it is in the Council's determination of any necessaries as to Christians believing in such necessaries a Truth of which necessaries also this Council not their Subjects is to judge And the Father's words would have weighed little with these Affricans perswading them to obey the Councils Sentence though an errour Therefore he fortifies the Councils Decree with the former expressions Christus perhibet testimonium And In hâc re tenetur Scripturarum veritas Pag. 260. l. 9. Let them never think to fob us off with the consent of some latter ages for a tradition from Apostolical times But He ought to admit and submit to any universal consent of the Apostolical Churches of any latter age concerning what is the Tradition from Apostolical times as S. Austin admitted it and declared the Donatists Hereticks for not admitting it He goes on Ib. l. 10. Nor of a packed company of Bishops for a truly General Council He hath reason But surely there will need no packing of Bishops for their voting such a matter in Council which all the Bishops of the Christian world or if it be but the much major part of them have abetted and maintained taught and practiced before such Council And so it was in the Councils held before Luther's appearance and also afterward in that of Trent that for the greatest part of the Western Bishops who could only be convened in it but the same may be said as truly of the Eastern too were in most of the controversies there decided against the Protestants so perswaded in their judgment before their meeting in that Council as they or others afterward voted in it Annotations on his §. 15. Of Church-Authority said not to be destroyed by the Dr's Principles PAg. 260. l. 15. The last thing to be considered is whether the same arguments which overthrow Infallibility do likewise destroy all Church-Authority N.O. sheweth some reasonings in the Dr's Principles with which he endeavoured to destroy Church Infallibility to ruine also as much or more Church-Authority viz. as to their office of Teaching Christs flock and expounding to them the Scriptures These particular reasonings of the Dr questioned for this N.O. expected should in an Answer to him have been resumed by the Dr and justified But in the first of these quotations that follow out of N.O. p. 50. he finds our Author mentioning N O's Consequence indeed but omitting the Argument immediately preceding from which he inferred it viz. First Observe that whatever Divine assistance is advanced here viz. in the Dr's 19. Principle against the assurance that can be received from Church-Infallibility the same is more advanced against any assurance that may be had from Church-Authority And so Church-Authority as to this matter is thrown off by him as well as Church-Infallibility To this Observation the Dr saith nothing In the 2d Quotation out of p. 70. he finds him mentioning the Charge
the Roman Church No But because you are not for any effectual way at all Ib. l. 10 But I pray Sir are Authority and Infallibility all one in your account No. N.O. his affirming some of this Authors Principles to take away the Church's Authority as to some part of it as well as its Infallibility makes not these two one And therefore the pains here to prove these different and that one takes not away the other is lost Ib. l. 8 We suppose that Magistrates and Parents and Masters have all of them an unquestionable authority but I never heard yet of any man that said they were infallible Some part of the Church's authority is greater than that of Civil Magistrases Masters or Parents viz. the deciding of Truth and Errour lawful and unlawful in Divine matters or the defining of points Controverted in Gods Word and in matters of necessary faith and the power of obliging Subjects to belief and assent thereto and this part of their authority must also be joined with Infallibility as to Necessaries that their Subjects therein may not err For other our Superiours Civil magistrats Parents Masters c as they have no Infallibility so they are deficient in one branch of Authority whose proposals we only admit when we believe them to be truth and practise their commands when we believe them first to be lawful lawful I mean by the Divinc law but where there is any doubt herein we repair to the Ecclesiastical Count for the resolution of them and so proceed to obey or disobey the other 's commands and for this reason see before in Note on p. 116. l. 11. Mr Chillingworth candidly granting infallibility necessary to an Ecclesiastical Judge though not so to a Civil but still to save his phanomena denying such an Ecclesiastical Judge necessary Lastly I ask will this Author yield no more submission at all to the Authority of the Church defining Controversies in Religion than to his Prince or Parents defining them Ib. l. 3 Why may we not allow any Authority belonging to the Governours of the Church and yet think it possible for them to be deceived Some Authority which they I mean General Councils have claimed we cannot allow if they may be deceived viz not that of enjoining a certain Assent to their definitions in matters of necessary Faith For a Church fallible in necessaries can in nothing at all which she proposeth justly oblige her subjects to any absolute and certain belief Pag. 264. l. 7. These are strange ways of arguing c. Strange indeed but not these or any like ways of arguing to be shewed in N.O. Ib. l. 6 But it may be said c. But no such thing is said by N.O. Pag. 266. l. 6. The meaning of all this is c. I willingly grant to our Author without the demonstration of his many instances that if one using a Guide afterward by experience finds he hath guided him wrong as he may find this when he misseth of his end he hath reason for the future to desert him And thus upon this supposition may any reject N. O's Guide a lawful General Council But I hope this Author is a man of more modesty than to say * that such Councils or universal consent of the Church any other way known do misguide men in the Principles of Religion or common precepts which are so plain that every Christian may know their misguiding and meanwhile the Councils themselves either not know it or knowing yet impose such falsities and that in the profession of their own faith as well as others Or say * that they command them to believe against their eye-sight in any thing but what themselves also do believe upon the Divine Revelation more infallible than sense or to break the plain Commands of God c. Or if he will say they do so I know N.O. will say the contrary Ib. l. 2 And this is not to destroy all authority c. That a Church-Authority fallible may be of great use for its direction as it is said here by Dr St so it is granted by N.O. who also requires submission of judgment to it though fallible especially from the illiterate for many good reasons ‖ See the former Difâ—â—â— course §. 37 c but will He allow as much Pag. 267. l. 1. For they may be of great use for the direction of unskilful persons in matters that are doubtful But he will not say here in any necessaries doubtful since he contends that these are plain also to the unskilful Ibâ—l 12. I shall now shew what real authority is still left in the Governours of the Church though Infallibility be taken away That a reall authority is still left in the Governours of the Church though Infallibility be taken away is granted to him without his proof but this is also maintained as well consistent with it that these Governours united in Council have an Infallibility in all their Definitions concerning Necessaries and this given them from our Lord and that this by any other Authority he can shew given them is not taken away Ibl. 12 An authority left in the Church-Governours of receiving into and excluding out of the Communion of the Church I add and an Authority the Church hath of excluding amongst other things for Heresy against the infallible definitions of the Church Ib. l. 7 Which authority viz. of inflicting Censures upon offenders and of receiving into and excluding out of the Communion of the Church belongs to the Governours of the Church and however the Church in some respects be incorporated with the Common-Wealth in a Christian State yet its fundamental rights remain distinct from it 1 Here means he that the Church as this being a fundamental right of it may inflict such Censures and exclude from its communion such persons as justly incurr them to which I may add its declarative power of what is God's will or truth in particular doctrines of faith mentioned by him below p. 269. without or against the consent of the Civil State or the Supreme Governour thereof viz. when he prohibites the Exercise of such Censures or Declaration of such a particular Doctrine to his Subjects Which Power if our Lord hath given his Church and then hath given also to the Civil Magistrate if Christian another power of prohibiting to the Church the Exercise of this Power will not this be to use the Dr's expression ‖ Irenicum Disc of Excommunication §. 9. p. 423. to give it a power with one hand and take it away with the other And since the Church exercised this power given by our Lord before it was incorporated into the Civil State and then when the Civil State also prohibited exercise of such a power it seems most reasonable as the Dr saith elswhere †p. 446. that no accession to the Church of the Civil State can invalidate its former Title or Right But then how will all this consist with the Oath
of Supremacy which Supremacy is therein given to the Civil Magistrate without any exception of these the Church's fundamental Rights unless the Dr with Bishop Bramhal holds the sense of this Oath to maintain only an external coactive power in such spiritual matters belonging to the Civil Magistrate which I suppose no Catholick will deny to him Or unless he will say that the Oath excludes a forreign Church-Supremacy distinct from that of the State but not so a domestick one as to some fundamental Church-Rights But then how can the Ecclesiastical Supremacy of a General Council though forreign be excluded where the Supremacy of an inferiour and subordinate Church-authority is admitted 2 Or 2ly means he that the Church hath such fundamental Rights given her by our Lord but so that she may not actually exercise them in these things whenever the Civil Power if Christian doth oppose and prohibite them But then what if such Civil Power should happen to be as possibly it may Heretical Here may the Church in such a State neither declare still such Truths nor inflict any Censures I mean of Excommunication on such as are reall Delinquents And to use the Dr's words ‖ Irenicum p. 422. Can we imagine our Blessed Saviour should institute a Society and leave it destitute of means to uphold it self unless it be sustained by the Civil Power Whenas saith he before the Church flourished in its greatest purity not only when not upheld but when most violently opposed by the Civil Power Ib. l. ult Of which Rights this is one of the chief to receive into and exclude out of the Church such persons which according to the laws of a Christian Society are fit to be taken in or shut out Then I hope that this Society may also keep Assemblies as a fundamental Right though these prohibited by the Commonwealth and that the highest Courts thereof may exercise the foresaid Jurisdiction over its members into whatever Commonwealth though opposing this Church these members be incorporated Pag. 268. l. 12. And in establishing those ancient Rites of the Christian Church which are in themselves of an indifferent nature But what if this Authority being fallible judge somthing indifferent that is not May any be forced to obedience and the practice thereof which he calls below over-ruling the practice and consequently first to assenting to the lawfulness of a thing wherein this Authority is fallible And if such Authority execute its Censures on such persons disobeying it is not this Tyranny Or if not why is that of the Roman Church so Ib. l. 5 The Church hath an authority of proposing matters of faith and directing men in Religion But so may any one more learned than others propose and direct them But what thinks he of the Church s defining or imposing any such matter of faith to be believed Surely either the Church hath by Right such an Authority or the first four General Councils usurped it And doth not such an Authority if justifiable inferr an Infallibility But then this directing and proposing is as to Necessaries needless where all is clear and plainly proposed in Scripture for every ones capacity without repairing to this Authority But if he means so plain in Scripture that men following these their Guides cannot mistake in it the plainness lies not in the Text but in their Exposition Pag. 269. l. 15. Authority to declare what the mind and will of God is contained in Scripture c. And are the people to receive what they declare as such Or have they authority to declare what they think the mind of God is and their Auditors to judge whether it be contained in Scripture every one for themselves But this latter must multiply Sects and the former includes Infallibility in Necessaries Ib. l. 6 Especially having all the ancient rights of a Patriarchal Church I suppose He here by the word Patriarchal claims no other rights or priviledges for the Church of England than those of a Primatical Church such as those of the Churches of France Spain or Affrick and that the Primate of Canterbury is no higher elevated by him than the Primate of Carthage or Toledo and that notwithstanding any such Primateship the Church of England and the Prelates thereof are subject as also those of Spain France or Africk to any Reformation of errours made by Superiour Councils whether Patriarchal of the West or General of the whole Church Catholick both which Councils also are acknowledged Superiour to National or Provincial by learned Protestants Ib. l. ult To do as much as in them lyes to reform them viz. by requiring a consent to such Propositions as are agreed upon for that end of those who are to enjoy the publick offices of teaching and instructing others N. 1 Here he allows a just authority in Anglican National Synods to agree upon declare and publish any propositions for reforming or correcting of errours in the Doctrine of Religion i.e. as I understand him only or chiefly in matters of faith though he doth not name it the care of the preservation of which faith in their several precincts is committed to the Bishops of the Church To publish and declare he saith what those errours are and to reform them it is said also in the 20th Article of the Church of England that the Church hath authority in Controversies of faith but not so as to ordain any thing contrary to God's written Word i.e. as I imagine hath authority in deciding of such Controversies For what authority else can be shewed in matters of Controversy since teaching must follow the deciding what is to be taught and the Article requiring that they do not ordain or decree any thing contrary to Gods written word or enforce the same to be believed for necessity of salvation seems to imply they may decree what they think is his Word This Author also saith such Synod may require consent to which I suppose is the same as assent or belief of the truth of such propositions as such Synod hath agreed on from those who are to enjoy the publick offices of teaching and iustructing others i.e. from all the Clergy Now to this I have these things to reply N. 2 1st In this his stating of the Church's Authority to do as much as in them lyes to reform errours in Religion or Faith here is no restraint of any who live in its Communion save only of the Clergy from erring their former errours No consent to its Decrees required of the rest but that they may be Arian Socinian Nestorian and what not yet enjoy her Communion may be partly compounded of Orthodox partly Hereticks as to the Laicks in whom all opinions are tolerated This I say follows according to his stating this Authority here for the Canons of this Church seem contrary and to require assent from all and according to what this Dr hath said also elsewhere Ration Account p. 133. where he describes the Church a Society of
such persons who all firmly believe that doctrine infallible which Christ delivered but yet judge themselves all fallible and dare not usurp that roiall prerogative of heaven in prescribing infallibly in matters questioned but leave all men to judge according to the Pandects of the Divine Laws because each member of this Society is bound to take care of his soul and of all things that tend thereto A very true and just representative saith he of that society of men which our Blessed Saviour instituted as a Church in the world Now there the Clergy also as well as Laity seem left to their liberty so that to reconcile him to himself perhaps the consent here required of the Clergy is only conditional this consent not medling with their faith wherein they are left to their Christian liberty to hold what they think best but only in order to such an employment that if they do not testify their Tenents in Religion to be such as sute with the Synod's Decrees they must not be admitted to bear such an Office For his following words are Not to the end that all those Propositions to which a consent is required of the Clergy should be believed as Artlcles of Faith But because no Reformation can be effected if persons may be allowed to preach and officiate in the Church in a way contrary to the Design of such a Reformation Thus He. But then in the same way why may not this Church exact assent of all persons whatever i.e. a conditional one if they desire to live in her reformed communion yet not forcing their conscience therein but leaving them the liberty to stay out of it And since the designe or effects of the Reformation may be hindred also by learned Laicks their spreading abroad such errours why not in order to this such assent required of them as he saith is required in Order to this of the Clergy N. 3 2ly Such Church not being the Supreme Ecclesiastical Judge granted by our Author fallible this Authority given to it I mean of requiring assent of all its Clergy to all its doctrines or Articles of Religion seems very unjust servs equally as for the reformation of a former errour so for the corruption of a former truth For thus supposing this Church Arian or Socinian as it may be here all its Clergy receiving Holy Orders for the teaching of Gods word are engaged to believe and preach a most impious Heresy or to be dis-clergied than which what can be a greater tyranny Neither is there any remedy left in such a Church for rectifying such corruption or errour since none are admitted into the Clergy who do not assent to such errour and are removed out of it so soon as they recant it And this is it the Presbyterian Ministers have so much complained of that they might not be admitted to subscribe the 39. Articles with such a clause added so far forth as the same Articles are agreeable to Gods word And indeed the forbidding a ttuth in this Church to be taught to the Laity is in effect the forbidding it to be assented-to also by them N. 4 3ly What authority he allows in this kind to one Primatical Church he must to another and therefore as he professeth such an Authority rightly exercised in the Church of England as to requiring assent from all the Clergy to her 39. A ticles so must he that the same authority is so in the Church of Rome And thus Pope Pius's Creed so far as its requiring assent from all the Roman Clergy by which this Clergy may only preach those errours as he accounts them and cannot declare the contrary Truths is justified by himself and the Roman Church maintained herein to exercise a lawful power N 5 4. But 4ly If the Church of England hath such a lawful authority in the reformation of errours over its subjects the same have superiour Councils suppose a General or a Patriarchal in the West over it and all other Primaticael Churches viz. of requiring assent from all the Clergy whether Archbishops Bishops or inferiours to all their Decrees and not to teach any thing contrary to them and that if not for imposing them as Articles of Faith yet for the reason given by the Dr. viz. because no Reformation can be effected by these Councils if persons may be allowed to preach and officiate in these Churches in a way contrary to the designe of such a Reformation made by the Council And then supposing here under that pretended reformation of an error by such Council or Synod a corruption of a Truth and that of moment a thing this Author allows possible How can there be a reforming afterward of such a Corruption unless done by Laicks Or may the Council lawfully require an assent to such corruption from all its subjects that are admitted into sacred Orders and those that are so admitted afterward when they discerne truth as lawfully renounce and reverse such their former assent These seem to be the consequences of the Dr's stating such an authority in his Church consequences contrary to what he alloweth and these arguings seem of force especially against one that both accuseth the Roman Church because fallible for requiring assent to her Decrees and refuseth assent to the Decrees of Superiour Councils because these fallible N. 6 But notwithstanding this I am far from affirming 1. That the Church Catholick in her Supreme Councils whether fallible or infallible may not require assent of her subjects to her Definitions and Decrees as she thinks fit in matters that are not capable of a strict Demonstration against her judgment as I suppose Divine matters are not neither do I know any wiser or securer course though abstracting from the Church's Infallibility that any Christian can take as to attaining all necessary divine truth than by his firm adhering to her judgment in all things that is set over him by God himself to guide him in the way of salvation of which much hath been said elsewhere And 2ly far also from affirming that the Church of England or any other National or Provincial Synod may not require Assent not only from her Clergy but all her subjects to her Doctrines of Religion or matters of Faith and that upon Anathema to all Dissenters but then it must be for such doctrines wherein such Church or Synod doth not oppose but agree with the whole Body of the present Catholick Church and so also with that of former times according to the judgment of these times made by this present Church Taking here this whole Body I speak of as contradistinct to Heretical and Schismatical Churches or Societies and taking the consent of this whole in such an universality as is necessary for concluding the whole according to the proceedings we have seen in the first General Councils Now in these matters wherein a Provincial Council agrees with the whole as it demands assent to them from its subjects so is it infallible in
to the end of the world on purpose to expound the Scriptures and out of these to teach them all Necessaries for their salvation and to keep them stable and fixed from being tossed to and fro with every winde of doctrine that capricious fancies may imagine there or malicious pretend Necessary to inform them that are to learn of these Pastors the true sense of Gods Word according to former Church-Tradition and that they are to rest in their judgement as Dr Field hath and follow their faith as the Apostle ‖ Heb. 13.7 that they may not usurp their Office c. Lastly that supposing these Guides also should erre yet it is better for them still that all erre one errour which is the errour of their Guides because there will be at least some unity and peace in that and some excuse for the errour of Inferiours yea also in probability more verisimilitude than that every one should erre a several and his own errour to the utter ruine of Peace and a greater deviation from Truth But that which our Authour hath changed here and in stead of submission of judgement put only in general terms due obedience and submission and this due to be stated as I apprehend not by these Governours but those that owe it leaves all Sects still to enjoy their own tenents how absurd or impious soever and with these also to enjoy the Communion of the Church notwithstanding a due submission called for by it So that its subjects are still left to be tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine that blowes though the Apostle saith God hath appointed Governours to prevent it nor are tied to follow the Faith of their Guides as the Apostle requires nor to learn the sense of Scripture where this is disputed from those whom our Lord hath appointed to teach it them So that notwithstanding this latter defence made here by this Author I see no reason but that I may conclude these Notes on his Reply as N.O. doth his Considerations on his Principles That since it is the Church's Authority that must rectify such diversity of Opinions for the attaining unity and peace in the points controverted this Authority is necessary in the first place to be established in stead of leaving every fancy to perspicuity of Scripture And that the prudent may consider whether the authority of a Church must not necessarily be much debilitated and brought into contempt and daily like to wane more and more where such a new way is taken up of its Defence that he thinks himself its best Advocate and Pleader of its cause who doth most endeavour to set forth the defects and failings of all Ecclesiastical Societies Prelates and Councils in which office I appeale to the candid and equal Reader whether this Author hath not in this Discourse vigorously emploied his Pen and who best proves no Scripture-Promises made to them Nay where to the end to evacuate the Infallibility of any Society or Church in Necessaries is set up a Counter-Lay-Infallibility of private men if onely sincere endeavourers for understanding Holy Writ in all the same Necessaries Where therefore such new Maxims are still spread abroad and received with applause which were first made more current and common by Mr Chillingworth forced to it as the last refuge left to shelter him from Obedience to a just Church-Authority it is no great wonder if the broachers of new Sects and extravagant fancies in Religion the Contemners of Church-Authority and of the Clergy who first contemned and vilified themselves do daily in such parts so exceedingly multiply and increase Sed Tu Pastor Bone adduc istas oves perditas in Ovile tuum ut vocem tuaem audiant fiat unum Ovile unus Pastor Amen Pag. 290 l. ult Dr St's Conclusion I have thus far considered the main Foundations upon which N.O. proceeds in opposition to my Principles there is now very little remaining which deserves any notice and that which seems to do it as about Negative Articles of Faith and the Marks of the true Church I shall have occasion to handle them at large in the following Discourse I have perused his following Discourse in Vindication of the Protestants Grounds of faith and find nothing answered to what N.O. hath objected p. 76. concerning the Protestants Negative Articles of Faith or hath urged p. 86. concerning the Marks or evidences by which among many pretenders that Church may be known from which known we are to learn Truth But I wonder not at it since in this Discourse pretending to answer N. O's Considerations no reply is returned to a greater part of them Nor the arguings in his Principles justified where they are by N.O. questioned Which perhaps may be the reason why he saith here only that he hath thus far considered the main Foundations upon which N.O. proceeds the Structure it self remains yet unconsidered and as for his digging here at the Foundation it hath been but lost labour If the Church be a sure Foundation N. O's must stand FINIS
dissent from which he can justly anathematize Angel or Man and none may anathematize another for his dissent not receiving or for his not believing any thing of the truth whereof he himself is not certain much lesse if he doth not so much as hold himself so which latter will make the fault the greater Unless perhaps such were the supreme and unappealable Ecclesiastical Judge and knew that none other could be in such matter certain of the contrary But this I grant that who is certain and infallible in some things may not be so in all neither do I contend for an universal Infallibility even of General Councils in all things whatsoever but in all that are any way necessary to be determined See Note on p. 104. l. 15. Pag. l. 130. l. 7. Let the Reader now judge in his Conscience c. What thing is there more publick in the Church's Tradition and of which there hath been a more remarkable Testimony in all ages than of the repairing where the Ecclesiastical affaires required or times permitted it following the precedent of Acts 15. to General Councils or those some way equivalent for deciding the more important Controversies in Religion that disturbed the Church and than of these Councils when met their requiring a belief and assent from all Christians to their Definitions and this assent accordingly yielded by the Vniversal Church which inferrs also a General belief and acknowledgment of their Infallibility And Councils are as well known for thus deciding controversies in the Church as he saith the Judges are for trying causes in Westminster-Hall Ib. l. 7 I challenge him to produce any one age wherein the infallibility of a standing Judge of Controversies appointed by Christ hath been received by as universal a consent as the authority of Scripture Review the last Note 1 This standing Infallible Judge are affirmed to be Lawful General Councils Which though as being a Court consisting of many it is not at all times actually assembled and sitting Yet the Members of this supreme Ecclesiastical Court are alwaies existent and in being and retain their Authority from Christ for judging matters of Faith equally whether conjoined or distant in place from one another And when happens no conveniency of assembling such a General Council the Consent of the Body of the Catholick Clergy manifesting a concurrence in their judgment whether by several Provincial Councils or by any one that is generally approved Or whether by Communicatory and Synodical Letters or whether appearing in a general accord in their publick Writings Catechismes and Explications of the Christian Doctrine I say such Consent is equivalent to a General Council The Decrees also and Definitions of former General Councils are always standing in force and the execution of them committed to the care of the present Church-Governours This of the standing Judge 2 As for the Infallibility thereof the Vniversal consent of the Church hath admitted as the Authority and Infallibility of Scriptures so of Councils as to their defining points of necessary faith as hath been shewed before Note on p. 113. l. 14. 3 But in the 3d place it is not necessary that every point of Faith to have a sufficient Attestation or Evidence from Tradition have it as ample and Universal as some other point hath no more than it is for a just ratifying of the Canon of Scripture that all points of it be shewed to have alwaies had as General an Acceptation as any other Or that the Definitions of Chalcedon equall in this those of Nice Pag. 131. l. 5. The Infallibility of a standing Judge is utterly denied by one side and vehemently disputed between several parties on the other Not the infallibility of General Councils in all necessaries disputed save only by some Protestants agreed in by all the rest whether Eastern or Western Church And if the Common Reason or Body of Christianity were to decide this contest between N. O and Dr St Dr St. would be cast Pag. 132. l. 15. If the Infallibility of the Church be as liable to doubts and disputes as that of the Scriptures it is against all just laws of reasoning to make use of the Church's infallibility to prove the Scripture by It is true that the Infallibility of the Scripture cannot be proved from Infallibility of the Church to any that doubts as much of this as of the other till this proof is also proved to them But then it is true too that a Neophyte may first be taught from Tradition the Infallibility of the Church and from this so made known to him have the Infallibility of the Canon of Scripture proved to him as this Church hath in her Councils declared and delivered it for which Church it were to no end to define the Canon if the Canon thereby received no more certainty as to any Christian than formerly Ib. l. 3 N.O. turns my words quite to another meaning In the meaning the Dr now explains his words the sense of the latter part of this Principle which I leave the Reader to compare seems coincident with the former and so is granted to him Princip 17 as the former is And if N.O. not imagining such a reduplication mistook the Drs sense here from what he found him to say in another place ‖ Rat. Accountâ—p 512 the discourse is still pertinent if not to this to the other place and N.O. hath not lost his labour Pag. 133. l. 13. Men can have no certainty of faith that this was a General Couneil that it pâ—ssed such decrees that it proceeded lawfully in passing them and that this is the certain meaning of them all which are necessary in order to the believing those decrees to be infallible with such a faith as they call divine Christians have a sufficient certainty as to all the former particulars that the Council of Nice for example hath delivered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the true sense of the Scriptures which Sense of Scripture we believe with a divine faith and this divine faith relies on the word of God as thus expounded by this Council The same to which therefore may be said as to other points and other Councils Ib. l. 3 But I expresly mention such decrees as are purposely framed in general terms and with ambiguous expressions His words in Rat. Account are Suppose saith he p. 510. we should grant that you might in general be certain of the Infallibility of General Councils when we come to instance in any one of them you can have no certainty of faith as to the infallibility of the decrees of it For you can have no such certainty 1 that this waâ— a lawful General Council 2 that it passed such decrees 3 that it proceeded lawfully in passing them and 4 that this is the certain meaning of them Then examining these four particulars coming to the 4th he proceeds thus 4ly Saith he Suppose men could be assured of the proceedings of the Council yet what
comprehension amended by the 2d General Council of Constantinople and that at Sardica For as is said if we understand saepè here of legal plenary Councils we find none at all before his times either as to Rebaptization or any other points of faith amending one another These things then being left to the Reader 's consideration which may best fit the place I add N. 4 4. Lastly That whatever the sense be this place can never be understood of Lawful General Councils amending one another as to any matters of necessary faith that such Councils when defining any thing to be by all Christians believed and assented to when declaring Hereticks all that dissent and perhaps inserting such their Definitions into the Creed yet may be amended after this by latter For this would overthrow the old foundations of the Nicene and Athanasian Creed and whatever could be shewn of one such Council thus erring Hereticks at their pleasure would apply to any other This also would overthrow particularly S. Austin's Veritas eliquaata declarata And plenarium Concilium confirmavit consolidavit for Non-rebaptization the chief if not the only argument he useth for convincing the Donatists whilst they might here plead this was still latens and clausum till more experience in a latter Council should open and disclose it and so must all before cited out of S. Austin be also reversed and all the former Heresies revive again which pretending Scriptures for their Tenents have been quelled by the judgment of such Councils Pag. 256. l. 4. Would he assert that all Councils how General soever may be amended by following Councils and yet bind men to believe that the decrees of the former Councils do contain the unalterable will of God i.e. Supposing S. Austin here to speak of absolutely General and Legal Conncils would he assert that in some things as in matters of fact a Council may possibly erre and so may be amended by others following which Council in some other things its Definitions of faith delivers the unalterable will of God cannot be amended Yes This may well be But I conceive this Father not to speak here of absolutely General and legal Councils their being amended by others The Council of Nice preceded the Arian Councils which pretended to amend it Did not S. Austin bind men to believe the Decree of Nice which Decree he saith ‖ Contra Maximin l. 3. c. 13. In Concilio Nicaeno adversus Haereticos Arianos a Catholicis Patribus veritatis authoritate authoritatis veritate firmatum est How is that so confirmed that is still liable to amendment Or if all decrees are not how know we when they are so Or are those Decrees that are so liable universally to be believed Dissenters anathematized the Creeds enlarged with them till such time as they be amended Ib. l. 11. Which words of his cannot be understood of unlawful Councils of matters of fact or practice but do refer to the great Question then in debate about rebaptizing Hereticks If S. Austins words touching former General Councils erring and being amended by latter do reser as our Author here saith to the point of Rebaptization the Father hath destroyed his great Argument of the Donatists their certainly erring in it because a General Council had defined the contrary to it the Decree of which Council might err and be repeal'd by another And this after that his former words namely that Provincial Councils are to yield without dispute to those which are General if he had stopped there had clearly confuted them 2ly S. Austins words also as applied to this point would be false for never was any former General Council concerning this point of Rebaptization corrected by a latter the first decreeing for it the latter against it Ib. l. 11 He S. Austin grants that the arguments drawn from the Church's authority are but humane Humane authority saith Archbishop Lawd ‖ p. 124. may be infallible enough and an argument drawn from it convincing Especially from that of General Councils which are divinely assisted not to err in necessaries But this Authority meanwhile is no hindrance that S. Austin may not also urge with and rather than it but he never doth as contrary to it the Divine Authority in Scriptures where he thinks them to all Rational men cleare and manifest Pag. 257. l. 6. And elswhere he appeals not to the judgment of men but to the Lords ballance None of these instances imply any comparison or opposition made by S. Austin between the Scriptures and the judgment of a General Council as if these Scriptures might be cleare where the Judgment of the Council contrary but imply that these Scriptures where cleare may be disceded from by some private though learned mens judgments and in any such case are doubtless to be preferred before them But whither tend these quotations To the liberty of private men to judge of the definitions of General Councils That is of Donatists to judge of that of Nice made against them in Rebaptization This destroys S. Austins whole designe which was to have them to acquiesce in the Decree of a General Council Ib. l. 12 The utmost by a careful consideration of his mind in this matter that I can find is that in a question of so doubtful and obscure a nature as that was which had been so long bandied in the Churches of Africa and from thence spred over all the Churches of the Christian world it was a reasonable thing to presume that what the whole Christian world did consent in was the truth not upon the account of an infallibility but the reasonable supposition that all the Churches of the Christian world would not consent in a thing repugnant to any Apostolical doctrine or tradition Here our Author saith that in a Question of so doubtful obscure a nature and that had been first so much discussed it is a reasonable thing to presume a reasonable supposition not then a certain Position that all the Churches in the world will not consent in a thing repugnant to any Apostolical Doctrine or Tradition so Non-rebaptization put in the Creed may be a presumed Truth and the Donatist's a presumed Heresy Where I think he will not say we do presume things that we are certain of Is then S. Austin's In hac re tenetur à nobis veritas Scripturarum and Christus perhibet testimonium Ecclesiae suae Columna firmamentum veritatis And veritas eliquata consolidata come to this a reasonable supposition and a fair presumption of Truth But yet will He stand to this that whatever the Church in her General Councils shall consent to it is a reasonable supposition that she consents to nothing repugnant to any Apostolical Doctrine or Tradition and that such may be presumed a Truth If so will not this inferr a duty of Assent also to all her Decrees at least as presumed truths And if in a Question of so