of any other Judge infallible and much less fallible save Scripture only for deciding Controversies in any points necessary which seems to engage the Assertors to the maintaining also of one of these two very harsh Propositions either 1 That all such points as are in controversy among Christians are no Necessaries but that it must pass for a matter of less moment as any thing becomes disputed and particularly No necessity of believing or practising on the Protestants side for his attaining of salvation any of the points agitated between them and the Roman-Catholicks Which Proposition seems of a very hard digestion to be allowed abetted by those Reformers especially who make such Declamations against the hainousness of the Roman corruptions of the sense of Scripture even in the highest matters of God's Worship and Mysteries of our Redemption As in giving the Divine Worship to a Creature in the doctrine of Justification Merit of mens good Works c. Or 2 engageth them else to the maintaining of this other proposition that though the Scriptures are so clear in some of those points in controversy for so they say they are in all Necessaries as that no illiterate person using a convenient endeavour can mistake in them yet de facto that the much Major part of the Christian world having and perusing the same Scriptures is and hath been mistaken in them for many ages and hath thought the Scriptures clear to the contrary which seems on the other side a thing as hard and incredible viz. to deny to so many Men and Ages for understanding the Scriptures the using of such a just endeavour as any unlearned Protestant doth or may employ § 5 Lastly from this Principle seems naturally to proceed in such a Church as holds it a Toleration of all Opinions that pretend Scriptures for themselves however it comes about that those of Roman-Catholicks find little favour by it because there is no just reason of suppressing the assertions of any party where is no competent Judge of deciding the truth in them save the same Scriptures which read by both sides yet do not end the Debate A Toleration of all Opinions I say save perhaps such as invade and disturbe the Civil Peace and Government Among which opinions tolerated also some will be Heresies ‖ 1 Cor. 11.19 unless these men tell us by what Judge these shall be declared such and so excluded That Toleration of opinions was a Consequence of this Principle Mr Chillingworth †See ch 4. clearly saw and so pleaded much for it as only well consistent with Protestant Grounds Of which see more below §. 38. c. 96. § 6 Vpon such Consequences as these then N.O. was moved to write some brief Considerations and Reflections on these Principles observing herein the Method that they prescribed to him But now since Dr Stilling fleet hath not at all followed the same though his own order in his Reply whereby would more clearly have appeared the many things therein that have received no answer I also in this Rejoinder shall take the liberty to change the former method of the Considerations and briefly to repeat N. O's Conceptions especially such as relate to the forementioned Principles reduced into such an order as they may be more applicable thereto and then consider how far the Dr's Replies have rebated their force or confirmed his own Positions And after this done lest a considerable part of the Dr's Book expatiating to other subjects which if nothing pertinent to N. O's Considerations yet may appear to some very important to the Protestant Cause may seem unspoken to I shall accompany the Reader through his whole Book with Annotations following his Discourse whither it leads me on the passages that appear to me more remarkable and so I shall leave all to the judgment of the prudent and piously disposed of what present perswasion soever who not zealous for a party seeks after Truth § 7 Only I am first to acquaint him with this in general That the two main Pleas of the Dr and N. O as to a Christian's attaining a right belief in all necessaries to salvation are Obedience and submission of Judgment to the Church's Determinations on the one side and every Christian's Liberty of Judgment in their perusing the Scriptures on the other Where he will easily discover that the interest of those who contend for Liberty engageth such persons to deny and evacuate the Infallibility and non-mistaking of any Ecclesiastical Guides even as to the same Necessaries wherein yet they affirm the Clearness of Scripture to every Christian using a right endeavour so that none can safely herein adhere to their sentence and judgment wherein yet he may to his own Again their interest to set forth to the uttermost the defects and failings of these Guides their oppositions and contradictions and of every one so much the more as he claims a greater Authority and therefore no wonder if the Pope is no better treated by them To charge them whether Prelates or Synods with passion ambition covetousness or the like in their proceedings To rip up and publish any their infirmities or vices whereby they may be thought less fit to be Guides of other mens Ignorance or Conscience or Judges of their Differences as if inferior and private persons were free from such passions and self interests and not born in a state where some opinions better served their profit preferment than others where such engagements clouded their Judgments § 8 To press a non-necessity of Deciding Controversies For this thing would call for some publick Judge And To diminish and abridge points of necessary Faith as much as may be Because all such points must be affirmed so clear that no honest endeavour can mistake in them and because thus the Liberty of Opinion in all other points may the better be justifyed upon the account of their not being necessary and to inveigh much against the Multiplicity of the Articles of Faith that have been imposed by the Church's Councils To extend the Title of Catholick to all Churches professing Christianity Because these men allow no certain Judge to determine Heresy or Schisme which may exclude any Church from being Catholick and because they hold only those points to be necessary to salvation that are so cleare in Scripture as that all Churches agree in them § 9 To plead much the Liberty and just authority of Particular Churches and of Civil States to correct and reform within their Dominions whatsoever Errours and Corruptions in Religion As indeed it is most necessary they should those which first by a Lawful Ecclesiastical Authority are stated to be so But how such Errours and corruptions shall first be certainly known and distinguished from what are certain Truths and lawful-practices which ought to precede a proceeding to reform them This useth to be passed over by them in silence So To speak much of the lawful liberty and power of particular Churches
cannot judge of their Judgment whether right by the Rule concerning the sense whereof they consulted them i.e. they cannot learn the sense of the Rule from their Guides and then know the truth of their sentence from the Rule p. 140. How or by what Marks the true Church is to be discerned from Sects from which Church first known the Enquirer may learn the true Faith p. 106. 152. 155. 209. And that In any difference or contrariety of Church-Governours the Superiour Authority is to be obeyed That Christians both prudently may and in Duty ought to subject their Judgment in Divine matters to church-Church-Authority though supposed fallible whereever they are not certain of the contrary to its Decisions p. 99 223. That all other Magistrates and Superiours are deficient and come short as to one branch of Authority belonging to the Church viz. the Deciding of what is Truth and errour Lawful and Vnlawful in Divine Matters for which Infallibility is necessary to them when not so to the others p. 222. That Church-Infallibility is clearly enough evidenced to Christians both from the Scriptures and from Tradition p. 109. And that Catholicks place this Infallibility in a lawful General Council p. 96 Where Concerning the Decrees of General Councils their being put in the Creeds And an Vniversal Assent required to them under Anathema p. 127. Concerning the Anathemas passed by inferiour and fallible Councils p. 127 129. Some Quotations out of Dr Field and the Text Gal. 1.8 considered p. 130 131. That Dr Field clearly maintains some Visible Church or other consisting of Prelates and Subjects and giving Laws to be infallible as to Necessaries in all Ages which Church the unlearned at least are advised by him to search out and so to follow her Directions and rest in her Judgment p. 103. The Deficiencies in his Tenent p. 105. That Miracles are not necessary in all Ages to attest the Church's Infallibility p. 116. That true Miracles for many good ends advancing the Glory of God and the Catholick Faith have been continued in the Catholick Church but not so elsewhere ever since the Apostles times p. Ibid. How Miracles signify the Infallibility of those by whom God worketh them p. 118. The Latter Times of the Church doing Miracles in all the same kinds as the Former and both as our Lord and his Apostles did p. 119. Several Controversies in Religion necessary to be decided and those respecting Manners as well as Faith p. 175. c. By what Authority General Councils assemble and decide Controversies p. 174. In what manner General Councils and the Church-Guides are an Infallible standing Judge of Controversies p. 132 238. Lawful General Councils of any Age since the Apostles times of equal Authority and Obligation p. 151 160 205. That we want a Judge for the necessary Decision of many Controversies As for instance Whether Latter Times have altered what Christ or his Apostles delivered or Have imposed things contrary to the plain Commands of Scripture Or Latter lawful General Councils contradicted former or What former Councils are to be accounted General Legal and Obligatory Whether what is pretended to be the concordant sense of Antiquity or to be contrary to it really is so Whether some things repugnant to Gods Word are not commanded by our Superiours as things Indifferent c. I say that the Christian World is destitute of a Judge to end such differences unless the Present Church be It and is in such Contests to be appealed and stood to p. 140. 141. That the present unanimous Agreement of the Apostolical Churches and especially the consent of the Prime Apostolick See joined with them was by the Ancients esteemed and urged as Infallible and to which all owed Submission of Judgment p. 180 181. Held so by those Ancient Writers cited by Dr St. By S. Jrenaeus p. 182. By Tertullian p. 185. By Clemens Alexandrinus p. 188. By S. Athanasius p. 190. 203. By S. Austin p. 194 206 By Vincentius Lerinensis p. 197. The place * in S. Gregory Nazianzen Ep. 55. concerning Councils considered p. 194. * In S. Austin Contra Maximin l. 3. c. 14. p. 194. De Vnitate Eccl. c. 19. p. 212. De Baptismo l. 2. c. 3. p. 213. Arguments used by the Fathers against Hereticks both from infallible Church-Tradition and from the Scriptures and that those from the latter notwithstanding the evidence of the former are necessary against persons not submitting to the other p. 190 191. The Places out of Petavius and S. Hierome concerning the Tradition of the Doctrine of the Trinity before the Council of Nice considered p. 201. c. Vnanimous Consent of the Fathers Primitive Times Catholick-Church in her Councils in order to Our Obedience how to be understood 159 200. And Vincentius Lerinensis his Rule Quod ubique quod semper c. Ibid not necessarily comprehending all particular Persons or Churches Vniversality understood of the Catholick Church distinct from Heretical never as to Necssaries dissenting from Antiquity p. 199. How the believing of the Determinations of General Councils is necessary to salvation p. 164. That Heretical and Schismatical Churches are no Members of the Catholick p. 154. That a Church committing and teaching Idolatry is no true Member of the Catholick Church p. 80. c. The Nicene Council to be obeyed suppose the Arian Councils more numerous as to the Bishops present in them because the Nicene more universally accepted and the Arian how numerous soever formerly declared Hereticks p. 146. 193. Of Pope Liberius and Honorius accused of Heresy p. 146. 149. That no Certainty from Sense or Reason can rationally be pleaded for any Doctrine against a General Council or Major part of Christianity having all the same means of Certainty from Reason and Sense and they maintaining the contrary Doctrine certain p. 143 145. Where Concerning Veneration of Images Communicating in One Kind p. 144. That our Senses are not to be credited where is the certainty of a Divine Revelation contrary Nor doth the Disbelieving them in such things prejudice the Certainty of their Evidence as to all other matters where no Divine Revelation opposeth p. 142. c. No Reformation lawful against the Definitions of a Superiour Church-Authority p. 236. In a Controversy Whether a National Church hath departed from the truly Catholick Church of former Ages who is to be the Judge p. 237. That National Churches and Councils are subject to Patriarchal and Generall p. 152. 226. That any particular Church may require Assent from all her Subjects to her Doctrines of Religion so far as such Church accords therein with the Church Catholick Because in these she infallible if the Catholick be so p. 222. Whether a fallible Church may require assent to her doctrines or to some of them at least as to matter of Faith where she as fallible confesseth she may err in such matters Or she not requiring such submission to them as to matters of faith Whether her Subjects are not left
the just authority of Bishops To this nothing to N. O's Considerations I say Let him perform his duty to Superiour Councils and to the Pope so far as he is obliged by the Church-Canons and concerning any Controversy of other usurped Authority let him acquiesce as a regular Son of the Church in the Council's Decisions those as well of any of its latter Councils so lawful as of the former and all is well Ib. l. 14. N. O's words Which more Comprehensive Body in any dissent and division of the Clergy according to the Church Canons ought to be obeyed It follows in N. O. and which hath hitherto in her supremest and most generally accepted Councils in all ages from the beginning required such submission under penalty of Anathema Which words expressing more plainly what N. O. means by the more comprehensive or universal Body of the Church's Hierarchy the Dr omits here And it seems was willing to mistake his meaning by what he saith below p. 283. That by the more universal Church N. O. fairly understands no more but the Church of Rome Ib. l. 8 I answer that the Church of England in reforming herself did not oppose any just authority then extant in the world Yes The Church of England then reformed and changed several matters of Doctrine against the Definitions of many former Superiour Councils which were accepted and unanimously obeyed by the whole Body of the other Churches viz. by all those that were free from the Mahometan yoke and among those by the Church of England also till Luthers appearance to which Definition and unanimous consent of these Churches in them she stood obliged as a part to the judgment of the Whole But many of which Doctrines also reformed by her were and are still to this day believed and practised by the Eastern Churches also under the Mahometan servitude which he who is curious to inform himself may see sufficiently cleared in the 3d Discourse Concerning the Guide in Controversies ch 8. This then the departing in their doctrine of the two Metropolitan Churches of England from the greater Body of these many Co-Metropolitan Churches all accepting and submittingto the Decisions and Determinations of many former superiour Councils even all those from the 2d Nicene called the 7th General Council to that of Trent to which Councils the Church of England was and still is obliged as well as the rest and did also submit till the times of Luther is the Discession from the more Comprehensive and universal Authority and from the Holy Catholick Apostolick Church if any then extant which Catholicks charge upon them And perhaps it is the consciousness of the truth of this discession that makes this Author in several places before maintain ‖ p. 242. That the Church he means Catholick in any one or more ages since the Apostles times may be deceived and †p. 241. that Vniversality in any one age of the Church being taken without the consent of Antiquity is no sufficient Rule to interpret Scripture by and that when he speaks of standing to the judgment of the Church he declines that of the present Catholick Church unless joined with the judgment of the Catholick Church of all ages past till that of the Apostles to the constant doctrine of all which first proved to him he is content to yield See for this what he saith by and by ‖ p. 282. But the Church thought otherwise of them What Church I pray The Primitive and Apostolical that we have always appealed to and offered to be tried by The truly Catholick Church of all ages that we utterly deny to have agreed in any one thing against the Church of England And before p. 244. Let saith he the Popes Supremacy c be proved by as universal consent of Antiquity as the Articles of the Creed are and then let them charge us with Heresy if we reject them And p. 259. Let the same evidences be produced for the consent of the Vniversul Church from the Apostolicat times in the matters in dispute between our Church and that of Rome and that controversy of Infallibility may be laid aside Where still a proof not of the decision of the Catholick Church in some latter age but of the Consent of the Vniversal Church from the Apostolical times is demanded for his yielding a submission to it Nor will the Judgment of the present Church be current with him for deciding what was the Consent of the former the judgment of this he reserves to himself Pag. 281. l. 1. The dispute was then concerning the Pope's Supremacy over our Church The reforming Articles of the Church of England not only opposed this but many other Definitions of the former Church But neither could they justly reject this Supremacy so far as it was by the Canons of former superiour Councils established That only could be ejected that was unjustly usurped Ib. l. 11. Which is sufficiently known to have been the beginning of the breach between the two Churches The breach of the Church of England in the Reformation was not only from the Communion of the Roman concerning the Popes supremacy but of the Gallican Spanish and all the other Occidental or Oriental Churches in matters wherein they were united in the Resolutions and Decrees of several former Councils Where or at what point the Breach began matters not so much as where it ended Or the full charge that the whole breach contains Ib. l. 15. What should hinder our Church from proceeding in the best way it could for the Reformation of it self The Canons and Definitions of former Superiour Councils should hinder the Church from reforming any thing contrary to them as this Church did It follows Ib. l. 17. For the Pope's Supremacy being cast out as an usurpation our Church was thereby declared to be a free Church The Pope's Supremacy established by the Canons of the Church in Superiour Councils cast off by whom It can by none lawfully unless by Church-Councils of equal authority to those that allowed it The Church of England was thereby declared to be free Free what from the authority of superiour Councils and the Bishop of the Prime Apostolick See presiding in them By whom so freed 1 By Itself or by the Governours of this particular Church i.e. by one member declaring against the whole or 2 by the Secular Magistrate abrogating Church-Canons and Constitutions and Decisions made in Ecclesiastical and spiritual affairs Neither valid Ib. l. 6 Authority to publish Rules and Articles But not contrary to the Rules and Articles of Superiour Councils Pag. 282. l. 3. His unjust power was cast off and that first by Bishops who in other things adhered to the Roman Church Their adhering in other things justifyes not the Catholick Bishops for their breach in this This Author well knows the first casting off the Pope's power began not at the Bishops and he hath heard I suppose of their great Reluctance and Cromwel's negociations with
A DISCOURSE OF THE NECESSITY OF Church-Guides For Directing Christians in Necessary Faith WITH Some ANNOTATIONS on Dr Stillingfleet's Answer to N. O. By R. H. Matt. 18.17 Si ECCLESIAM non audiverit sit tibi sicut Ethnicus Publicanus 2 Cor. 6.8 Vt Seductores VERACES Printed in the Year MDCLXXV THE PREFACE BEfore my entrance upon the following Discourse it seems necessary to pre-acquaint the Reader with the occasion thereof § 11 Doctor Stilling fleet at the end of his Book of the Roman Idolatry upon his Adversary's importunity published Thirty Principles drawn up as he saith immediatly before them ‖ p. 557. to give an Account of the Protestants Faith in the way of Principles In the 13th of which he affirms That the Scriptures may be understood by all persons who sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their salvation Again in the 15th That these Writings contain in them the whole Will of God so plainly revealed that no sober enquirer can miss of what is necessary for salvation Again in the 19th That the assistance which God hath promised to those who sincerely desire to know his Will where I suppose he means such assistance as includes not that which God hath promised to Christians from the direction and instruction of his Ministers for this assistance here is opposed by him to that may give them greater assurance of the truth of what is contained in the Books of Scripture than it is possible for the greatest Infallibility in any other persons to do supposing they have not such assurance of their Infallibility Where you may observe that it follows much more may give them greater assurance than it is possible for the highest church-Church-Authority Wisdome Learning or Divine assistance short of Infallibility in any other persons to do And so in his first Consequence he saith There is no necessity at all or use of an infallible I add much less of a fallible society of men to assure men of the truth of those things of which they may be certain without them and cannot have any greater assurance than that they have already supposing such Infallibility to be in them § 2 These his Principles were considered and especially the forenamed opposed by a Roman Catholick as appearing to him not only untrue but of most dangerous consequence as being very derogative from church-Church-Authority as to these chief parts of their Office the Expounding of the Scriptures the Teaching and Guiding Christ's Flock in all Truth necessary to be known by them and their Defining also matters of Necessary Faith as Controversies in them do arise and Requiring from their Subjects a Belief of them and also very hazardous to mens salvation in leaving each private person to entertain in Religion especially as to points thought more necessary in which therefore the Scriptures also are affirmed by the Doctor more plain what in his own judgment after a to him-seeming sincere perusal of them he likes best even though a much major part of Christianity reading the same Scriptures assert the contrary and this without any obligation of submitting his judgment in such things to his Spiritual Superiours § 3 And indeed from some such Principle it seems to be that Luther when he had said to himself ‖ De abrogand Missâ privat praefat Tu solus sapis Totne errant universi And Quoties mihi palpitavit tremulum cor reencouraged himself to proceed in his Reformation though contradicting the whole World viz. Because the Scriptures were cleare and for him against them all often using S. Paul's Licet Angelus de Caelo c. Gal. 1. The Holy Scriptures the rest of the Christian World had read as well as himself but he meanwhile was conscious only of his own sincere endeavour and so the Principle secured him that he did not mistake if any such point were necessary wherein he opposed them From such Principle was the confidence of the Protestants then but a very few against the sacred Council of Trent i. e. all the other Church-Governours of that Age Soave Hist Couc Trid. p. 344.641 when they desired that the Authority of the Fathers might be qualified with a Fundantes se in Scripturis Of which fundantes whether it were so or no they themselves for themselves at least would be the Judges From such a Principle the Socinians departed from the whole Church of God Ancient Modern only pleading the Scriptures clear on their side See Volkelius De Vera Relig. l. 5. c. 7. Praesertim saith he si sapientiam a Deo petat quam ille nemini denegat i. e. if using their prayers and sincere endeavours though not consulting or obeying any Guides or the Church Quam in iis quoque rebus quae ad salutem sunt necessariae errare constat From such Principle it is that the Presbyterians ‖ Reasons shewing Necessity Reform p. 5. denied Subscription to the 39. Articles except this clause were added so far forth as the same Articles were agreeable to Gods Word of which how farre they make themselves the Judges And so also do the many latter Sects who for a sufficient knowledge in all necessary points and triall of the Doctrine of their Teachers therein need nothing more than a Bible and learning to read From such Principle that Mr. Chilling worth denies that any Church-Authority not excepting the first four General Councils hath just cause to oblige others to receive their Declarations in matters of Faith ‖ c. 4. §. 18. And elsewhere saith †c. 6. §. 5◠That the Bible the Bible only is the Religion of Protestants and that the belief of any thing besides Scripture and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it indubitable i. e. to those on whom they are imposed cannot i. e. by Protestants with coherence to their own grounds be required of any without most high and most Schismatical presumption From such Principle that Dr Stilling fleet accuseth the whole Church Catholick Eastern and Western for so many Ages before the Reformation of so manifold an Idolatry where his own sincere endeavour to understand the Scriptures in so necessary a point he holds cannot be mistaken and therefore all that World must be so And thus what opinion may not One maintain against all if he have first a confidence concerning himself that he hath used a requisite industry which industry also must not be maintained greater than the meanest condition of life may practise and so that Scripture is clear to him in all necessary matter and Next the consequent of this if he have a perswasion concerning others how many soever whom by their differing from him he knows to be in an errour that either they have been defective in a sincere enquiry or having with him discerned the Truth yet for some secular ends falsify it § 4 From this Principle also proceeds that Assertion That there is amongst Christians no Necessity
I leave to the Readers examination § 11 This to the Dr's Principle as restraining the clearness of Scripture to Necessaries to salvation Next In its affirming the Scriptures in such necessaries clear to men only on this condition viz. their using a sincere endeavour for knowing the right meaning of them wherein also I suppose he includes the divesting themselves of all passion and Interest that may any way blinde them in the search of Truth N.O. hence observes that no private person can be secure of their right understanding them till they are first assured of having used a just endeavour and reduced themselves to a clear indifference and disengagement And by what means may they be certain of this Or are not the simple or illiterate obliged to use much greater industry herein than others And thus one being left to himself all things will be still in suspense For Example The Socinians esteemed as great Scripturists as any it is by all of them erring to this day in a necessary point of Faith very manifest that according to this Principle they have not used a sincere and upright endeavour to underâ—tand them Nor yet the Major part of the Christian World in some other Necessaries to have used their endeavours aright if the Dr. have so used his for these differ from him in this sense of Scripture How then shall any be assured of his having used a just diligence herein Or will not all be driven for the want of this assurance notwithstanding the truth of such a Principle to their Obedience and submission of judgment herein to the Church And the same may be said of ones duty of using also other helps besides his own industry as their repairing to the instruction of Church-men or others more learned which helps for their understanding of matters that are doubtful and require skill to resolve them ‖ p. 267.269 the Dr. owns and recommends in his Answer to N.O. though in his Principles speaking of Necessaries he forbears to mind the sincere endeavourer or sober enquirer of them at all One would think because the consulting such helps if recommended by him would have seemed to imply as indeed it doth some non-clearness of Scripture at least to such persons contrary to the Dr's Thesis Here I say how shall one know when he hath sufficiently used such helps also herein But if a person may be certain when he hath done so so may he be when he hath not namely when upon searching he is not certain that he hath and so all those that erre in necessaries suppose the Socinians and Roman-Catholicks must be affirmed if they examine it conscious to themselves of a defect herein § 12 But after this the Dr. allowing the same effect of such sincere endeavour to all sorts of persons to the unlearned and Plebeians as well as the Divines and Doctors Consid p. 16 this sincere seems to mean not all possible endeavour such as is learning the languages perusing Commentators c. but Chillingw Answ to Prefac §. 26 as Mr. Chillingworth who anchored his whole Religion upon it states this point such a measure thereof as humane prudence and ordinary discretion their abilities and opportunities and all other things considered shall advise And thus such a clearness in necessaries must the Scriptures be affirmed to have as sutes with the very lowest capacities Such a clearness I say even as to all the Articles of the Athanasian Creed if these be esteemed necessaries and even as to the Consubstantiality of the Son with God the Father In which notwithstanding the whole Body of Socinians dares to oppose all Antiquity upon pretence of clear Scripture to the contrary But then such a sincere endeavour put as the meanest persons are well capable of using how can we deny it to be used also by the Church Governors and so by it them also well to discern all necessary Truth and then may not the simpler sort with all safety â—ely on their judgment and rather in a due humility suspect a defect in their own than in their endeavours But of this more by and by CHAP. II. Concerning a Necessity of Church-Guides for the instruction of Christians in Necessaries § 13 II. SEcondly Wheras this Principle of the Scripture's being so clear as that every one who sincerely endeavours it may understand their sense in all things necessary to their salvation is advanced by the Dr. as he often saith thence to inferr no necessity of any infallible Society of men to instruct and guide Christians in such necessaries N. O. in the second place observes Consid p. 24. that from such a Principle seems to follow something more than haply the Dr. would willingly admit viz. the non-necessiry of any Society at all fallible or infallible to explain these Writings Consid p. 24 as to Necessaries unless perhaps these Teachers may be said to be left by our Lord either for others to supersede their endeavours or else only for instructing them in non necessaries And again p. 49. upon the Dr's assertion Princip Consid p. 49 19. That the Assistance which God hath promised to those who sincerely desire to know his will may give them greater assurance of the truth of what is contained in the books of Scripture than it is possible for the greatest Infallibility in any other persons to do N. O. observes that whatever Divine Assistance is there advanced by the Dr. against the assurance that can be received from Church-Infallibility the same is more against any assurance that may be had from the same Church fallible and that thus it happens more than once in these Principles that in too forward a zeal of demolishing the one the other also was dangerously that is as to this particular the need of the Clergy for instructing the people in necessaries undermined by him And again p. 83. upon the first Consequence drawn by Dr. St. from his own Principles Consid 83. That there it no necessity at all or use of an infallible society of men to assure men of the truth of those things of which they may be certain without them c. observes that this concludes the uselesness as well of any Ecclesiastical Authority to teach men as of an Infallible to assure men of the truth of those things which by using only their own sincere endeavour they may know without them So that as by this Principle he takes away Infallibility so doth he also the Office of Gods Ministry though not as to every thing in the proof of which Church-Authority and Office as to many other things the troubled Dr. would relieve himself in his Answer Or as to this of Teaching the people if he will as to non-necessaries Yet as to this the need that there is of any such Clergy for teaching the people in the Necessaries to their salvation § 14 The Reader may see for this his Reply in his Answer to N. O. from p. 260. to
precedes and follows it in N. O. of which the Reader if he pleases may inform himself by viewing the place and then takes the liberty to descant upon him in this manner p. 281. That which N. O. calls refusing submission to all the Authority then extant in the world was all the authority then extant shut up in the Pope's breast And p. 283. That by the more universal Church N. O. fairly understands no more but the Church of Rome Whereas N. O. whether speaking of Superâ—our Authority or its Infallibility hath made no where in his Book any application of it to the Church of Rome or Pope at all but to Superiour Councils But hither it much concerned this Author to force N. O.'s discourse to be the better able to confute it So p. 282. he tels his Reader The plain English of all is the Church of Rome was against the Church of England i.e. in the Reformation But after all this excursion N. O. speaks of an obedience the Church of England owes to Superiour Councils Patriarchal or General and to those whether former or present and that shewing its Freedom from the Pope or Church of Rome as a Co-Metropolitan Church will not serve the turn nor yet its being a Patriarchal i.e. a Primatical Church or had it been yet in an higher sense Patriarchal for neither was Dioscorus excepted from such a Superiour Authority by being a Patriarch § 30 Another while p. 283. he conjectures N. O. by more universal Church may mean the greater number of persons or of Christians at the time of the Reformation and so he asks How he knows that the Eastern Armenian Abyssine and Greek Churches did agree with the Church of Rome against the Church of England But though this is a truth which the Reader may see proved at large in the Third Discourse concerning the Guide in Controversies Chap. 8. and that very considerable that the Church of England in many points of her Reformation opposed the general doctrines and practices of the Oriental as well as Occidental Churches and where a general consent is in the Church-Governours apart the same we may presume would be in a General Council yet N. O. letting this alone speaks not of a greater number of persons but of a Superiour Authority § 31 Another while he pleads p. 282. the Church of England's submission to or consent with the Church Primitive and Apostolical or the truly Catholick Church of all Ages which she hath always appealed to and offered to be tried by But the Catholick Church of all ages being taken here by Him not distributively for what the Authority of the Catholick Church in any age hath stated or determined For to this he often declines submission See in him p. 241.242 Where he saith That Vniversality in any one age of the Church taken without the consent of Antiquity is no sufficient Rule to us And That the Church in any one or more ages since the Apostles times may be deceived But only collectively for what it can be shewed to have held delivered and agreed-in in all ages Such a submission I say is not sufficient For as our obedience is due to the Decrees and Definitions of lawful General or other Superiour Councils of the Primitive Times so is it as well to those of any latter age the authority of them in any age being equal and the same and an equal necessity of it for deciding the Controversies in Necessaries that may arise in any age though these Points disputed do not appear save in the Traditional Principles from which they are deduced in any former Nor could the Arrians justly decline the Definitions of Nice because made in their times or in the same expressions not delivered in any more primitive age There also he saith that the Church of England rejected nothing but innovations and reformed nothing but abuses But none ought to be rejected or reformed by any particular Church as such which Superiour Councils in any times have declared to be otherwise especially where no contradiction of a Body of equal Authority can be shewed in times more ancient § 32 Another while ‖ p. 283. he urgeth that at the time of the Reformation there was no superiour authority to the Church of England extant upon this account because saith he This must either be the authority of the Pope and Councils of the Roman Church or a General Council of all the Catholick Church For the first we owe no obedience to them for the second there was no such thing thâ—n in the world therefore could not be opposed But here first if by the Councils of the Roman Church he means Councils assembled by the Western Patriarch and consisting of the Metropolitans and Bishops not only of the Roman but other Western Churches and Nations these must be confessed and so are by Protestant Divines Superiour to a National Synod of England And then as for these or for other General Councils in what former times soever held they are an Authority always extant and their decrees obliging so long as not by an equal authority repealed Otherwise the Obligation also to the Definitions of the first General Councils would be long since expired And also any particular Church is obliged to a submission to any superiour Council following such Reformation from the time of its Decrees passed and a due acceptation of them i.e. by a much major part § 33 After this he alledgeth That for the Canons of the Catholick Councils before the breaches of Christendome no Church hath been more guilty of a violation of them than the Church of Rome But first if this were granted another's faultiness excuseth not our's Next if he speaks of the Councils that have been in the Church till the breach made by Luther methinks this is enough to confute what he saith that the one Church the Roman owns and admits the Definitions and Canons of these Councils as true regular and obliging and so in its disobeying them condemns it self which the other the Reformed denies to be so § 34 Lastly p. 285. he pleads That every free Church enjoying the rights of a Patriarchal See hath according to the Canons of the Church a sufficient power to reform all abuses within itself when a more general consent cannot be obtained But not I hope when a more general dissent is already declared I mean that the things so called are no abuses By all this I think appears no Answer as yet returned by this Author to the things objected which affords any reasonable satisfaction N. O. then proceeds § 35 That in Point of Obedience though it is most true that a Christian is bound to reject whatsoever is offred to be imposed upon his Faith which is certainly known to such Christian to have no foundation in or to be contrary to Gods Word ‖ See Dr. Stillingst Princ. 29. Consid p. 73 Yet learned Protestants do also require from such Christian that where not
be both an act of prudence and of duty to submit our judgment to our Superiours in whatever they shall define and especially in matters of Necessary Faith § 42 Again p. 144. That the exercise of this Faculty was not to cease as soon as men had embraced the Christian Doctrine Granted as the former and yet our submission of this our Judgment to what doctrines our Superiours shall define be both our duty and a most rational act of this our Judgment and any perswasion of our judgment not rightly used to the contrary no way excuse our non-submission from guilt I say as the exercise of this faculty doth not cease so it must be rightly used which it never is when used it at any time dissents from the doctrine of our Lord or his Apostles or of lawful General Councils whereto is required its assent § 43 Again he saith p. 146. That the Authority of Guides in the Church i.e. for their determining truths in necessaries is not absolute and unlimited but confined within certain bounds and afterward he saith confined to a Rule which if they transgress they are no longer to be followed Be it so when they transgress against their Rule if this be certainly and demonstratively known by any such person is not to follow them this is confessed already by N. O. But Consid p. 73 who is appointed Judge of these Supreme Judges when they transgress against this Rule or when their Subjects have Demonstration for this Their Subjects who are from them to learn the sense of the Rule where difficult and disputed and who are bidden to follow their faith The right exercise of our judgment will not judge so but will judge that if Demonstration were on his side these Supreme Judges having all the same Evidences would have discovered it sooner than he or at least have discovered it when related to them by him and also the Protestants Definition of it concludes it none if these Judges do not discern it such Who then since he is not excused from sin and disobedience by using his judgment if he judge amiss will not think it the safest way still to continue his submission The Socinian in judging the Council of Nice in their Definition of Consubstantiality to have transgressed the Rule they are confined to and so not to be followed is not hereby released at all from his obedience to this Council or secured in his discession from it That authority is none that is only to be obeyed where the Subjects are to approve first of its sentence § 44 Again p. 148. he saith He allows a very great authority to the Guides of the Catholick Church in the best times of Christianity and looks upon the concurrent sense of Antiquity as an excellent means to understand the mind of Scripture in places otherwise doubtful and obscure First for the limitation of places doubtful and obscure This seems to render such Authority useless as to Necessaries in which this Author will have the Scriptures clear and perspicuous Next a right judgment cannot but account all those places so in the sense whereof either the ancient or present major part of Christianity are of a contrary judgment from himself Lastly the looking on such a concurrent sense as an excellent means c. is short and will not serve the turn for the unity of faith it must be looking on it as a Rule requiring our obedience when such sense is declared by their Councils § 45 He proceeds p. 149. That in matters imposed to be believed or practised which are repugnant to plain commands of Scripture or the evidence of sense or the grounds of Christian Religion we assent that no authority of the present Guides of a Church is to overrule our faith or practice But the same thing is here replied as before § 43. in answer to that in his p. 146. concerning the Guides transgressing the Rule § 46 P. 151. He goes on That no absolute submission can be due to those Guides of a Church who have opposed and contradicted each other and condemned one another for errour and heresy True not to both but to one part It is and N. O. hath told him that it is to the Superiour Or in the Supreme Court where a party dissents to the major part joined with the President Lawful Supreme Councils contradicting one another in matters of necessary faith are not by this Author nor cannot be produced § 47 P. 172. He saith That in the present divided state of the Christian Church a man that would satisfy his own mind must make use of his judgment in the choice of his Church and those Guides he is to submit to True now and in all former times wherein also have been Divisions and Anti-Communions in the Clergy and Guides against Guides that we are to make use of our judgment in the choice of a Church But our Judgment there must be used rightly and being so tells us both that we are to obey those who are found by this judgment to be our lawful Spiritual Superiours and which in such divisions be so And whenever in this our judgment is not used rightly but mistakes we are never a whit the more by this so used released from our Obedience Generally in these Answers here is the exercise of our Judgment or liberty to Judge pleaded against absolute Obedience or Submission of it as if the proving of the one annulled the other when as himself urgeth a ‖ p. 144. liberty of Judging may be used also concerning the Apostles Authority and their Doctrines and yet this liberty well consistent with an obligation of absolute Obedience to such their Doctrins Authority as infallible So then is it well consistent also with that to the Supreme Guides of the Church in their defining necessaries if they be in these infallible or if fallible yet with an obligation still of submission of Judgement to them where any are not demonstratively certain of the contrary Which demonstrative certainty of convincing all those to whom proposed no Protestants have in matters debated with Catholicks § 48 Again for qualifications of Obedience p. 178. he brings That we are not to submit to all those who challenge the authority of Guides over us though pretending to never so much power and infallibility And p. 179 not to submit to those who are lawful Guides in all things they may require Both which are most true and yet well consistent with this that we are to submit to our lawful Guides in all their Determinations in matters of necessary faith if they Supreme and Infallible herein and if they fallible in all things of which we are not demonstratively certain to the contrary Thus you see the Dr's Responsory Propositions are admitted and N. O's Obedience no whit lesse established CHAP. IV. Concerning Church-Infallibility as to Necessaries § 49 4ly AGainst such Principle and for submission of private mens judgements to that of the Church N.O.
ea ab omnibus fidelibus recipiuntur tanquam Scripturis divinitùs inspiratis consonantia And in the Conclusion of that Answer he saith ‖ p. 142. Non enim nobis licet nostrae propriae confidendo explicationi aliquod divinae Scripturae dictum aliter intelligere animadvertere aut interpretari nisi quemadmodum Theologis illis visum est qui a Sanctis Synodis in S. Spiritu ad pium scopum probati receptique sunt ut ne si a rectâ Evangelicâ doctrinâ a verâ sapientiâ prudentiâ declinemus mentis nostra cogitatio instar Protei huc illue circumforatur Sed quaerat aliquis Quomodo ista corrigentur Quomodo Deo adjuvante sic Nihil praeter illa que a Sanctis Apostolis a S. Synodis instituta ordinata sunt in manus sumendo sentiendâ— Qui enim hunc limitem terminumque rectè servat Synchorouta nobis erit sociuâ— fidei consors Again in his Preface to the same Answer he saith Respondebimus ergo nihil nostrum afferentes sed ex Sanctis Septem Occumenic is Synodis the last of which is that so befool'd by this Dr. in his Book of Roman Idotatry p. 78. c. ex sententiâ Sanctorum Doctorum Interpretunâ—que divinitùs inspirata Scriptura quos Catholica Christi Ecâ—lesia unanimi consensu recepit quando oratione miraculis tanquam alter Sol orbem terraum illustrarunt cùm Spiritus Sanctus in â—is spiraverit per eosque locutus fuerit qua in aeternum immota manoâ—unt utpote in Verbo Domini fundata Ecclesia enim Christi ut cum Paulo loquamur columna est fundamentum veritatis cui ne portaequidem inferorum ut divina Domini promissio habet praevalebunt That here we see in the East the same zeal for Councils and for Fathers taken collectively as an Infallible Guide as is in the West and the like endeavour to reduce Protestants to the same acknowledgment and humble submission of Judgment § 57 Lastly N. O. insisteth p. 31. c. That both Dr St. himself Arch-bishop Lawd do seem to hold such General Councils as have an universal acceptation from the Church Catholick diffusive to be infallible Consid p. 31 For both these admit ‖ Archbishop Lawd 139 140. compared with p. 160 195 258 346. See also Rat. Account p. 58 59 537. that the Church diffusive is for ever preserved infallible in all Fundamentals or Points absolutely necessary to falvation and this by vertue of the Divine Promise That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her and other Texts and therefore such Councils whose Decrees are admitted by the whole Church diffusive must be so too I say as to Fundamentals though as to other points not Fundamental they affirm these Councils also liable to errour and fallible because the Church Catholick diffusive say they is so also Dr. St. also Rat. Account p. 537. saith of such Councils universally-accepted That both the truth of Gods Promises the goodness of God to his people and his peculiar care of his Church seem highly concerned that such a Council should not be guilty of any notorious errour Where we see he saith that the truth of Gods Promises is concerned that these Councils should not fall into any notorious errour Now such an errour it must needs be if an errour in Fundamentals or necessaries And such a notorious errour I suppose this among others would be if they should hold themselves when they are not Infallible in their Decrees and so should require a general assent such as that in the Athanasian Creed from Christians to them as to Divine Revelations and make them De Fide thereby in case any Decree be not true obliging all the Members of the Church to an Vnity in Errour Thus far then as to Fundamental errours it seems Gods Providence secures both such Councils and their Subjects And then also for their erring in non-Fundamentals Rat. Account p. 535. both He and the Arch-bishop put this among the rarò contingentia § 58 The Archbishop also is much in asserting the Catholick Church infallible not only in its Being but Teaching Consid p. 34 Archbishop Lawd §. 37. p. 318. and that must be by its Councils Dr White saith he had reason to say That the Visible Church had in all ages taught that unchanged Faith of Christ in all points Fundamental And again ‖ Ib. §. 21. p. 140. It is not possible the Catholick Church that is of any one age should teach against the word of God in things absolutely necessary to Salvation Where the word teach shews that he intends the Governours of the Church in every age Likewise in another place Ib. §. 25. n. 4. If we speak saith he of plain and easy Scripture the whole Church cannot at any time be without the knowledg of it And If A. C. mean no more than that the whole Vniversal Church of Christ cannot universally err in any one point of faith simply necessary to mens salvation he fights against no adversary that I know but his own fiction Where it follows But if he means that the whole Church cannot err in any one point of Divine Truth in general if in these the Church shall presume to determine without her Guide the Scripture then perhaps it may be said that the whole Militant Church hath erred in such a Point Here then the first of the whole Church not erring in fundamentals as well as the second are spoken of the Church as determining And so is that saying of his viz. That Though the Mother Church Ib. p. 258. Provincial or National may err yet if the Grand Mother the whole Vniversal Church that is in her General Councils universally accepted controlling the other Provincial or National cannot err in these necessary things all remains safe and all occasions of disobedience that is to the Grand Mother's commands taken from the possibility of the Church's erring namely as to all necessaries are quite taken away Thus He. But safe c. it could not be if the Catholick Church the Grand Mother as she held so could not also witness all the necessary truths against such Mother Churches Provincial or National Here then an Infallibility in teaching in determining c is an Infallibility of the Church in its Governours not only believing but testifying the Truth Consid p. 36. Though N. O. indeed seeth not how these things consist with what is said by Dr. St. elsewhere ‖ Rat. Account p. 154 You much mistake when you think we resolve our faith of fundamentals into the Church as the infallible witness of them For though the Church may be infallible in the belief of all things fundamental for otherwise it were not a Church if it did not believe them it dâ—th not follow thence necessarily that the Church must infallibly witness what is fundamental and what not § 59 This Infallibility of Councils if universally accepted
peace lasts not long where is once a diversity of Opinion or Faith there is no means left here upon such a ground for reducing any to the sentiments of the rest though in those points which are of the greatest moment For when two contradicting parties after both repairing to the Scriptures and supposing a due endeavour used to understand them do contend Scripture clear for themselves the clearness of such Scripture how great soever it be on one side how falsly soever pretended or imagined on the other cannot be made an instrument of conviction to the other here then can be no suppression of any side nor abscission of them from the Catholick Communion how pernicious soever their doctrine be unless things be prosecuted further than Scripture to their hearing the Church that is asserting and submitting to its judgment or else being esteemed and treated as Heathens Matt. 18.17 Now the Church here referred to by our Lord in case of differences is not so proper an Arbitrator and Judge of any contentions as of those that happen in the matter of the Christian Faith in which matter also we see S. Paul Timothy and Titus used their Ecclesiastical Authority and Judicature and therefore they seem to do much wrong to this Text who would limit it especially if not only to trespasses in Manners 3ly N.O. adds also that the great licentiousness of opinions that follows upon such a Principle seems very contrary also to the former pretences and practice of the Church of England for which he urgeth §. 84. n. 1. Consid p. 77. * the Title of the 39. Articles which are said to be Agreed upon for the avoiding of diversities of opinions and the establishing of Consent touching true Religion Preface p. 6. Consid p. 77. And * 5. Canon Synod 1602. Whosoever shall affirm these Articles agreed on for establishing Consent in true Religion such as he may not with a good conscience subscribe i.e. assent unto let him be excommunicated and not restored but after repentance and revocation of such his wicked not gainsaying or contradiction but Errour and * Can. 36. Where the Clergy are obliged To allow and acknowledg all the Articles agreeable to God's Word i.e. to assent to them and the * Statute 13. Eliz. c. 12. Where such as enter into the Ministry are required to declare their assent and subscribe to the 39. Articles of Religion this being there added also which only concern the confession of the true Christian faith and doctrine of the Sacraments Entitled Articles whereupon it was agreed c and shall have from the Bishop a testimonial of such assent and subscription c. Of which matter the Reader if he pleaseth may see much more in the 3d Disc concerning the Guide in Controversy ch 7. N.O. also contends Ibid. against the Dr's 26th Principle §. 84. n. 2. That the Church of England's rejecting in her Articles several points believed in the Church of Rome as contrary to Scripture as she doth Purgatory Adoration of Images Invocation of Saints Article of the Church of England 22 Works of Supererogation Art 14. Sacrifice of the Mass Art 31. Transubstantiation Art 28. is as plainly making the Negatives of these Articles of her Faith as the Roman Church doth the Positives and using the same severity herself which she complains of in others Because the declaring any Positive proposition to be contrary to Scripture makes the Negative thereof to be a thing revealed in Scripture and therefore this to be believed by all who hold it is so Thus though if I profess not to believe Transubstantiation because neither contained in Scripture nor deducible thence I do not hereby make the denial or Negative thereof an Article of my Faith Yet if I profess not to believe it because contrary to Scripture I do Now in all these things this Church seems to have an aim at the preservation of an Vnity of Faith and opinion amongst her subjects and a removing from her Communion of such as shall not assent to her Doctrines and acquiesce in her Ceremonies And I know not whether by some later different Comments on the sense of these her Canons and Laws but so it is that since Chillingworths â—imes who seems the first that made this Principle more current and authentick in this Church Sects have much more multiplyed in this Nation than formerly And By this way N.O. saith ‖ Consid Pref. p. 7. our later English Divines seem to have brought the Authority of their Church into a great disreputation and waning condition and to have excused yea justified all Sects which have or shall separate from her i.e. as to the liberty they take of such a sâ—pa ation For indeed what fault can it be to forsake when they imagine the contrary to be truth the doctrine of a Church whose teaching none is bound to believe or obey out of conscience § 85 4 But N.O. yet further observes that though the Church of England should or also doth require assent and submission of judgment from her Subjects to her Decrees and Articles of Religion for hindring Sects and divisions from her yet that she cannot ju ify to her subjects any such proceedings nor justly restrain them â—rom doing toward her that which she indulged her self in the Refâ—rmation toward her Superiours So that if in some cases viz. in what not indeed were but seemed to her manifest and intolerable errours she might depart from and publickly oppose the doctrine of Church-Councils superiour to her National one so might others again break off and reform from her on the like to-them-seeming good grounds and causes Such submission of assent being by no particular Church divided from the more Universal Pref. p. 5. with the least pretence of reason to be challenged from her subjects when she herself and particularly the Church of England refused the same to all the Superiour Church-Authority that was extant when she departed as surely there was and is always an Authority Superiour to a Primate as to Persons or as for Councils to a National one Now to consider the Dr's Replies to these things § 86 To N. O's pressing here that he seems in his Principles to discede from the intentions of the Church of England which in several passages ‖ See b fore §. 84. requires an Assent from her Subjects to the verity of her Articles of Religion and conformity to her Ceremonies which implyes Assent I do not remember he hath said any thing Yet a Point that if it were but for the Presbyterians sake who boggle much at such a submission needs some cleaâ—ing Nor hath he said any thing in Answer to the Church of England's being shewed ‖ §. 84. n. 2. to make the Negatives Articles of her faith whilst she condemns the tyranny of the Roman Church in making the Positives so § 87 Next to N. O's words That by their way the late English Divines have excused yea
it where disputed viz. the Church being both infallible are alwayes actually preserved from erring in their Faith though all such persons are not infallibly certain either of the Object of their faith that it is Gods Word or of the Proponent that he is not liable to errour whilst on the other side a Protestant having or believing no such certain and infallible Guide in the Sense of doubtful Scriptures and following his own judgment in the interpretation of them either actually errs in some part of his Faith or casually hits right and fluctuates to and fro the same man as he meets with several arguments differing from himself and one from another in those matters wherein all Subjects to the Church's Authority are agreed To which purpose a late Adversary of the Doctor 's perceiving him to mistake the meaning of Catholicks in the former proposition explains himself in Errour Non-plust p. 133. 139. 143. c. the same Author mean while affirming that all Catholicks may be and that the learned are formally infallible in their assent to the object of their faith i.e. have an infallible certainty of the Infallibility both of the Scripture and the Proponent thereof viz. from Tradition the evidence of which Tradition is accounted by him to be impossible to be false but so also it is as to this Author's sense of impossible by Archbishop Lawd p. 124. but now cited And perhaps Infallible Assent thus taken by Catholicks in a various sense occasions the Dr's apprehending in them contradictions N. 7 3 Or by this infallible Assent may be meant an Assent in respect of the Subject having a Certitude of Adhesion to the matters believed exceeding that to a Science according to that of Biâ—l cited by the Archbishop ‖ p. 75. Scientia certior est certitudine evidentiae fides verò certior firmitate adhaesionis Majus lumen in scientiâ majus robur in fide N. 8 Now How proper these expressions be in the explaining of an infallible Assent and whether these two laâ—t Notions are not coincident I meddle not But however it be by such infallible assent is never meant an assent grounded on any absolutely-infallible Testimony that the Revelation is Divine transcending that of Tradition and equalling that believed infallibility of the Church the Church I mean as assisted by the Holy Ghost and as its infallibility as to necessaries is one of the Articles of our Faith or equalling that believed infallibility of the Scriptures Which Testimony were there any such absolutely infallible must either be proved by other Testimonies of an equal weight in infinirum or must rest in some one that is a per se notum I say an infallible assent so grounded Catholicks pretend not nor need pretend to The Church in necessaries the Holy Scriptures in all things are believed are affirmed to be infallible by an infallibility cui non potest subesse falsum because believed Divine Revelation and so are adhered-to as such by a firmer and constanter assent than Sense or science causeth but are not need not to be infallibly known to be so as to any rational or demonstrative evidence by any infallibility transcending that of the forementioned Tradition whereever Miracles do not intervene Which infallibility or certainty of Tradition is abundantly sufficient to render and represent the Christian the moâ—t rational Religion in the world N. 9 This that no other precedent Testimony is necessary for proving the Infallibility of the Church as it is effectually assisted by the Holy Ghost in necessaries than that of Tradition But neither do Catholicks affirm it necessary that every one for a Divine or saving Faith have that certainty of faith that Tradition affords And to see that this is no Paradox among Catholicks I referr the Reader to what F. Bacon hath said of it in his Analysis Fidei extracted out of other Catholick Authors Disp 3. c. 7. and 8. Though it is affirmed necessary in the Catholick Church that It always have a most rational and certain proof of the truth of the Christian Faith and such as no other false or Heretical Religion can equall N. 10 4ly That notwithstanding such a sufficient rational assurance and actual certainty in Tradition and so in the infallibility of the Scriptures too as to the most part of the Canon thereof sufficiently attested by the same Tradition Yet remains there still a great necessity also of the Infallibility in the Governours of the Church so assisted by the Holy Ghost as never to err in Necessaries upon a manifold account N. 11 Because though many are yet all Points of Faith are not delivered and transferred to Posterity by the forementioned Tradition in their express and explicit termes but some have only descended in their Principles the necessary Deductions from which are by this Infallible Church extracted and vindicated from age to age against those dangerous errours that may happen to assault them Again Because though this Tradition is also assisted or improved with the Infallible Scriptures for a compleater direction in the Christian Faith yet are not all Credends and Agends so clearly delivered in these Scriptures as that Christians the illiterate especially and plebeians have no need of such an Interpreter thereof as may not mistake or misguide them in any such necessary Agends or Credends To which unlearned persons though it is said not to be necessary that they be infallibly certain of the truth of that which they believe and therefore Church-Infallibility cannot be said necessary as to them upon this account yet it is necessary to them that in such points where one of the two contradictories is of necessary faith it be truth that they believe and hence necessary also that the Proponent thereof be infallible as to all such points And it is here observable that though in the Descent of Tradition the Congregatio fidelium when it first delivers to a person the Infallibility of Church and of Scripture appears not to him as yet absolutely infallible Yet indeed as to delivering necessaries it then and always is so For this Congregatio fidelium in every age that testifies such things It or some part of it is the very same Body that is promised by our Lord his perpetual assistance and is preserved for ever by Gods Spirit and Providence from erring in Necessaries 3 Again Because the same Church-Infallibility is necessary as to other Controversies so also to those if any happen concerning the Canon of Scripture so far as any part thereof hath hapned in some times not to have had in all parts of Christianity so clear a current of Tradition 4 Because after this point of Church-Infallibility is once established and confirmed by such Tradition one may hence sooner and easilier learn his faith from her plain definitions and proposals thereof than from Tradition much dispersed abroad whereby its uniformity is the harder to be discerned or from the Scriptures in several points not so perspicuous and so the
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
judgement of an expert Lawyer though not infallible Ibid. l. 6 A man convinced that the Church of England is a sound and good Church ought to rest in her judgment so as not to forsake her communion for any cavils that are raised about particular controversies of which he is not a capable Judge Vpon being convinced that the Church of England is a sound or orthodox Church to rest in her judgment is only to rest in her judgment where such person first knows it right or true but how then rests he thus in Controversies wherein he is no capable Judge and so doth not foreknow her soundness in them The same may be said to that he mentions afterward concerning a man's foreknowing the Church's integrity honesty skill all which sincere and good in one matter may fail in another Again where the Dr mentions resting in this Church's judgment for people who have not either leisure or capacity to understand particular controversies means he in Necessaries Then how will his 13. and 15th Principles stand good that from the clear delivery of such points in the Scriptures the diligent cannot mistake nor need for their guidance therein any infallible society of men and much less then need they a fallible But if he makes this Society Dr Field speaks of only useful for private men to submit their judgment to in non-necessaries it is clear Dr Field intends it otherwise who saith such a Society in non-necessaries may err but in Necessaries doth not and therefore in these not the other may safely be relied upon But lastly if thus private men unseen in Controversies may and ought to rest in the judgment of a particular Church so qualified why are not such much more obliged to rest in the judgment of N. O's Church contended to be infallible in all Necessaries viz. in the Definitions of a lawful General Council Or in matters not so defined to rest in the judgment of the supremest Courts of the Church Catholick that can be had which Church Catholick is but One and subordinate in its members see-before § 26 In stead therefore of some particular Church Orthodox let this be sought out and perpetually adhered to when found Pag. 109. l. 7. Do make all men impeccable if they will So far as God gives any man grace not to sin every one may be impeccable or may not sin if he will i. e if he uses his best endeavours That all are sinners I speak as to Actual Sin is from all failing in their will and endeavours Ibid. l. 14. Who can believe the Goodness of God and yet think that he will suffer those who sincerely endeavour to know what is necessary to their salvation not to understand it They are not to be supposed sincerely to endeavour to know things Necessary as they ought who do not repair to the Church to learn of her Gods Truth where this is obscure to them in the letter of Scripture Ib. l. 17. How often doth the Scripture promise a greater degree of knowledg to the meek and humble and diligent God teacheth the humble and diligent as well by his Church as by his Scriptures and one and a great duty of such persons is their seeking instructions from and the submission of their judgment to those Spiritual Guides and Pastors whom God hath set over them on purpose that they may not be carried away with every wind of doctrines Eph. 4.11 13. in matters that are otherwise to them obscure Pag. 110. l. 2. His word so clear in necessary things that no one who sincerely endeavours to know them shall ever miss of salvation Here notwithstanding what was said before by our Author p. 96 97. and 107 108. of using others directions resting in the judgment of a Church trusting the learned so and so qualifyed we are relapsed again into the 13th and 15th Principles and all the weight laid on the Clearness of Scripture as to all persons in all Necessaries for in some none deny it Annotations on his §. 6. N. O's Proofs of Infallibility examined PAg. 112. l. 12 I come to his particular Arguments which ly scattered up and down but to give them the greater strength I shall bring them nearer together N.O. writing no set Discourse on a chosen or single subject but Considerations on 30 several Principles of the Dr's and some Consequences also drawn from them his Considerations varying so as the Principles expected the Dr should in the same order have vindicated his 30 Principles as he laid them down and have discovered the Considerer's mistakes Instead of this as if loth to come to such a trial close and perspicuous to the Reader he finds the Dr adorning a new Discourse as an Answer to a former Treatise that had pitched on the same subject casting new Methods gathering together here and there his Adversary's Concessions extracting his Principles and with what fidelity the Reflections on them have shewn contracting and giving the summ and sense of what N. O. thought he had writ most compendiously and not after the manner of an Harangue or Sermon that needed to be epitomized and telling his Reader here p. 112. that he will bring nearer together N. O's arguments which ly in him scattered up and down that is are there fitted to the particular Principle that is discoursed of to give them the greater strength a kindness Controvertists use to do to one another for their own advantage and so after much pains taken in altering and transforming and transplacing N. O's Conceptions and drawing them off from the Principles they were fixed and applied to and omitting them also where he thinks fit and where they will not come within his Methods and so leaving his Principles also together with them abandoned and unguarded for of the Thirty Six the Reader will find in all this Book a very few re-confidered he in fine confutes a thing of his own making not N. O's Pag. 113. l. 14. Is it then to be imagined that if Christ had intended such an infallibility as the foundation of the faith and peace of his Church he would not have delivered his minde more plainly and clearly in this matter N. 1 Our Lord hath delivered his mind by his Apostles plainly and clearly enough concerning this matter in the Scriptures and to his Apostles before them The knowledg of which Promise of our Lord concerning such an infallible Assistance to be for ever continued to his Church and its Guides should alwaies have descended to Posterity by Tradition had there been no Scriptures Delivered this so plainly as that upon all Controversies concerning the dubious sense of Scriptures thought necessary to be decided the Church's subjects de facto have repaired to these Guides as believed infallible in all Necessaries upon the account * of our Lords assisting them with his Holy Spirit promised in and before these Scriptures * of their being left by our Lord behind him for this end amongst others to keep the
Church Catholick always in one Faith and one Body And by these unfailing Guides the Church hath ever understood the Supreme Governours and Pastors of the Church assembled in a lawful General Council or otherwise unanimously agreeing Of which Councils the first was that convened Act. 15. about stating the Controversy concerning Mosaical Ceremonies when S. Austin saith ‖ Contra Cresconinm l. 1. c. 3. Inter Apostolos de Circumcisione quaestio sicut postea de Baptismo inter Episcopos non parvâ difficultate nutabat And these Fathers of the Church also so assembled as acknowledging and owning the same their Infallibility in Necessaries from the same Divine Promises have accordingly from time to time determined and stated Controversies even in the highest and most necessary points concerning the B. Trinity and concerning the Humanity of our Lord and some of these Decisions that were thought more necessary to be of all men more explicitly known they have inserted into the common Creed and have enjoined to all the members of Christ the belief of them as matters of Faith and as themselves declaring the true and genuine Sense of the Scriptures therein Witness the points inserted by these Councils in the Athanasian Creed and that with an Haec est fides Catholica quam nisi quisque fideliter firmiterque crediderit salvus esse non poterit Nay added this also in the Creed concerning themselves and the faithful joined with them that he Catholick Church continues always Apostolica preserâ—ing the Apostles Rules Traditions and Doctrines and Vna indivisa in se divisa ab omnibus aliis viz. such Churches or Congregations as are Heretical or Schismatical As also before in the Apostles Creed it is stiled Sancta i.e. so farr as not to teach any Doctrine in Faith or Manners destructive to Sâ—lvation and therefore among others not to teach Idolatry And accordingly the doctrine of these Fathers and Councils the Church hath generally alledged as certain and infallible against Hereticks N. 2 This Use and Practice of the Church from the beginning is apparent and notoriously known And therefore this apparent also that both the Church Diffusive and these her Councils have thus understood our Lords Promises the thing we here speak of as securing for ever the Infallibility as to Necessaries of these Highest Ecclesiastical Courts and any obscurity in the letter of any of these Scriptures were there any in this matter this Tradition hath cleared to us as to the Sense of them And this Practice of Councils and the Church-Diffusive N. O. hath pressed to any who demand it as a most incontrollable Evidence both of the constant Tradition of such Church-Infallibility as evident as that of the Canon of Scriptures is or more than it for some parts of the Canon since by these Councils also hath this Canon been settled and of the true sense of our Lords Promises in the Scriptures or at least of some of them that are urged for this matter N. 3 Which Promises of our Lord Protestants also extend to the Church after the Apostles times thus far that in general the Church Diffusive shall never fail or err in Necessaries in any age Nay that some Body of Clergy or other shall never fail to teach all necessary truths in this Church in any age as we have seen but now in Dr Field ‖ See Note on p. 107. l. 9 And yet further that General Councils universally accepted have been and always shall be infallible in their Determinations concerning matters of Necessary Faith 1 Of which thus the Archbishop †p. 346. A General Council de post facto after it is ended and admitted by the whole Church is then infallible 2 And then for an universal acceptation I suppose none can be justly demanded greater or larger than that of the four first Councils was And thus Dr St. †Rat. Account p. 537. urged by N. O. That both the truth of Gods promises surely that is in the Scriptures the goodness of God to his people and his peculiar care of his Church seem highly concerned that such a Council should not be guilty of any notorious errour as an errour in any Necessary must be N. 4 Lastly The Scriptures shewing these Promises since the Dr so earnestly calls for them which are usually produced by Catholick Writers and which are the Church's old Armor as the Dr calls it †See p. 127. for this point Armor very venerable indeed for its Antiquity but well preserved from the rust he complains of by the Church's so frequent use of it against such as the Dr. are these and several others Matt. 28.19 20. Jo. 14.16 26. 16.15 c. compared with Act. 15.28 1. Jo. 5.20.27 1. Cor. 12.7 8. Mat. 18.20 compared with 17 18. Mat. 16.18 19. Lu. 23.31 1. Tim. 3.15 2. Tim. 2.19 Eph. 4.11 13. 2. Pet. 3.16 To which Texts may be added all those enjoining Vnity of Opinion as 1. Cor. 1.10 Phil. 1.27 2.2 3. 3.16 Rom. 12.16 17.17 1. Cor. 14.32 33. Which Vnity of Opinion I ask how it can be had unless there be in the Church some Persons whose Judgment Doctrine Faith Spirit all the rest are to follow and conform to Which Scriptures forementioned you may see also briefly vindicated from suâ—â— glosses as Protestants and particularly Dr St. in his Rat. Account †p. 256. c. do put upon them in the 1. Disc concerning the Guide in Controversies § 78. c. But whatever may be urged touching the sense of these Scriptures pro or con by particular Authors yet both the foresaid practice of General Councils built upon such a traditive sense of those Texts as Catholicks contend for and the Church's general approving and acceptation of such practice and submission to it is a sufficient prescription of Tradition to warranâ— and secure such a sense against all contradiction Therefore N. O. p. 57. tells the Dr that Catholicks are not necessitated in arguing against Protestants who grant the Scriptures to be Gods word to use any other Testimony than that of these Scriptures for a sufficiently clear proof of Church-infallibility For that he may safely call this a clear proof even according to the Dr's common reason of Mankind which by the most of the Christian world is taken to be so notwithstanding that a Party engaged by their Reformation in an apparent contrary interest do contradict it And indeed if we look after the fact it self and the fulfilling of such a sense of them as applied to S. Peters Successor and to the Roman other Churches united to it the Dr I think grants that these Churches or their Prelats assembled in their most General Councils from the Apostles days to the present de facto never have erred in points Necessary to the Being of a Church Of which see what is said in the former Discourse § 53. and the places cited out of him in Note on p. 75. l. 5. N. 8. And he seems
in not erring or in believing aright in necessaries here granted to the Church Governours in like manner as to Mechanicks but only their Infallibility in Teaching to others the same necessary things which they themselves believe and by their Infallibility here is meant not passively their not being deceived but actively their not deceiving And that N. O in proving these Church-Governours their believing aright in necessaries hath lost his labour his discourse proceeding as the Dr saith from a very false way of reasoning from believing to teaching To which that I may not be here further tedious in repeating the same things I desire the Reader to review what hath been said to this in the former Discourse § 38. p. 26. Ib. l. 9. Urged as N. O's arguing If God will not be wanting to particular persons in matters necessary to their salvation much less will he be wanting to the Guides of the Church in all matters of faith N.O. inferrs or urgeth no such thing But this is justly inferred Not wanting to the Church Guides in all Necessary matters of faith See note on p. 104. l. 15. Meanwhile from what motive thinks this Author comes that profession of Dr Hammond concerning all matters of faith ‖ Of Heresy §. 14. n. 6. We do not believe that any General Council truly such ever did or shall err in any matter of faith he means in defining it And that of Bishop Bramhal †Vindic. e. 2. p. 9. We are most ready in all our differences to stand to the judgment of a free General Council Ib. l. 5 He goes on No certainly unless it be proved that their guidance is the only means whereby men can understand what is necessary to salvation The following words infer the guidance of Church Governors need to be no means of this at all God having as he saith in the following words provided otherwise for that by giving so clear a Rule in matters necessary that no man who sincerely endeavours to know such things shall fail therein Unless he means the Rule to be clear so as that it needs an Expositor But then should not he say so obscure rather i.e. as to some things and call for a sincere endeavour in private men to learn the sense of it from their Guides and that they may have the more confidence in their guidance should not he tell them with N.O. at least that Scriptures that are so clear to them rude and unlearned cannot but be so to their Guides more versed and studied in them Pag. 142. l. 13. Besides that no man that is acquainted with the proceedings of the Council of Trent will see reason to be over-confident of the sincerity of Councils so palpably influenced by the Court of Rome The sincerity and just proceedings of the Council of Trent are ill learnt from such persons of a contrary interest If all Bishops rightly have an influence on Councils much more ought the Prime Patriarch and other Bishops that assist him Annotations on §. 10. Of the Authority of the Guides of the Church PAg. 142. l. 4 God hath entrusted every man with a faculty of discerning truth and fashood supposing that there were no persons in the world to direct or guide him The Reader may be pleased to review the brief Replyes made to what the Dr urgeth here till his page 150 in the preceding Discourse from § 40. to 47. With a faculty of discerning truth and falshood Meaneth he so as every one to be able to discerne truth from falshood in every thing without any Guide or instructer This is denied In such indefinite terms lies great ambiguity and deceit Pag. 143. l. 13 I hope no one will deny this Nor N.O. doth not In some truths and falshoods more easy ones own judgment or reason may be sufficient in others harder not as put the case in his judging of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Articles of the Trinity Pag. 144. l. 9. All which were to no purpose at all if men were not to continue the exercise of their own judgments about these matters viz matters of Religion Exercise of private mens judgments in all things General Councils Church-Governours N. O allow For this also is an act of our judgment when by it rightly used we find it our duty to submit these our judgments or the particular reasons we have for or against such a point in Religion to the judgment of our Canonical Superiours in such matters as are defined by them and not clear to us Ib. l. 11. Accordingly we find the Apostles appealing to the judgments of private and fallible persons concerning what they said to them It is true All may search all things and welcome For all Truths among right searchers bear witness one to another And after such search if rightly made they may disobey or dissent from the contrary doctrine of an Apostle Yet this also is true that whenever they shall so dissenâ— such judgment is not rightly made which the more it is used rightly the more is one confirmed in the doctrine of our Lord and his Apostles and so of General Councils And in all matters not otherwise clear to them this judgment rightly used will still direct them to obedience of their right and Canonical Pastors But by this bidding the people search and try our Lord or his Apostles secured none if after 〈◊〉 used they either dissented from their doctrine or disobeyed 〈◊〉 commands because in a right judgment made of thâ—◠〈…〉 could not do so And therefore the Apostles commanded 〈…〉 persons as supposing these two things belief of their 〈…〉 and the Vse of ones Judgment well consisting together 〈…〉 fast and firm in the doctrines delivered to them by theâ—◠〈…〉 and not to be carried away with every doctrine becauâ—◠〈…〉 Pastors appointed to guide them and to observe those 〈…〉 sed any Divisions among them contrary to the Doctrâ—â—â—◠〈…〉 and to reject any person heretical c. See Rom. 16. 〈…〉 11.2 Phil. 4.9 Heb. 13.7 1 Tim. 6.10 2 Tim. 3.10.14 Tit. 1.9 3.10 Eph. 4.11 13. Pag. 145. l. 10 They are frequently charged to beware of seducers and false Guides I add and frequently charged to follow their true and Canonical Church-Governours that they may not be misled by those false Guides See the Texts now quoted to which may be added Jude 4. here quoted by our Author Ib. l. 7 They are told that there should come a falling away c. All this more makes for a most close adherence especially of the more simple and less able to examine Controversies to their Canonical Superiours and for their rejecting the doctrines of those Spirits whom upon trial they find to oppose them Being assured from our Lords Promises of lawful General Councils the supreme Church-authority their never erring in things necessary Pag. 146. l. 9. Both shall fall into the ditch We have heard the Dr's plea hitherto Now is it any wonder that Sects so multiply in a
to any Guides of the Church ever since we are sure they spake by an infallible Spirit and where they have determined matters of faith practice we look upon it as arrogance presumption in any others to alter what they have declared Where they have determined matters of faith or practice But who 's Judge of this what Christ and his Apostles have determined the Church's Councils or private men each for himself Ib. l. 13 Til ignorance ambition private interests swayed too much among those who were called the Guides These vices in all ages are found in some and are justly by others reproved But doth He charge these on the Church's Supremest Guides or its General Councils Then if we declining their judgment on this account to what other Courts or Persons will He direct us to apply our selves that are more free what private Person or inferior Court Ib. l. 3 In matters imposed upon us to believe or practise which are repugnant to plain commands of Scripture or the evidence of sense or the Grounds of Christian Religion no Authority of the present Guides of a Church is to overrule our faith or practice In things contrary to the plain commands of Scripture or grounds of Religion we join with him No Church-authority is to overrule our faith or practice But the former Question still returns Who shall judge among us what is or is not so contrary As for the other thing he mentions contrary to the evidence of sense If a Divine Revelation be contrary to such evidence I hope our Faith is to be over-ruled by the Revelation and for this I think I have the Dr's consent in these words in his Rational Account Where discoursing of Transubstantiation whether consistent with the grounds of Christian Religion he saith ‖ p. 567 That which I am now upon is not how far reason I suppose he will allow me to say or sense is to be submitted to Divine authority in case of certainty that there is a Divine Revelation for what I am to believe but how far it is to be renounced that is Reason or Sense when all evidence that is brought i.e. for such a Divine Revelation is from the authority of the Fathers So that that Question in short is Whether there be greater evidence that I am bound to believe the Fathers in a matter contrary to Sense and Reason or else to adhere to the judgment of them though in opposition to the Father's authority Where I understand him to say that he is to believe a Divine Revelation that is certainly such made known to him by one Sense the Hearing though against the perceptions of another Sense the Seeing but notwithstanding this that he is still rather to adhere to the judgment of his Senses than credit the Fathers concerning the truth of such a Divine Revelation as contradicts his Senses So The certainty of the Divine Revelation is here the only thing in question which once any way proved the evidence Sense gives-in against it is to be neglected Now of the certainty of the Divine Revelation or of the true sense of Scripture we reckon the unanimous consent of the Fathers or Primitive Church if such can be shewn so expounding it a sufficient proof And I think sometimes so doth Dr St. in these words Rat. Account p. 375. We profess to be guided by the sense of Scripture at interpreted by the unanimous consent of the Fathers and the four first General Councils And p. 56. It is a sufficient prescription against any thing that can be alledged out of Scripture that it ought not to be looked on as the true meaning of the Scripture if it appears contrary to the sense of the Catholick Church from the beginning And so laying the evidence of Sense here aside what their consent is is the first thing to be discussed Pag. 150. l. 4. For there are some things so plain that no man wil be guided by anothers opinion in them Catholicks willingly allow withdrawing obedience where you have Certainty But how vainly doth any one pretend or promise himself a certainty of any thing wherein a General Council or a much major part of the Church having all the same means of certainty as he judgeth contrary or fancy that such a matter carrieth the like evidence to persons as doth the Whiteness of Snow Ib. l. 12. I am certain if I destroy the evidence of Sense I must overthrow the grounds of Christian Religion What if I disbelieve Sense only in such a particular thing where Divine Revelation declares the contrary Though indeed the Sense in Transubstantiation is not deceived at all its Object still remaining there out the Person if from it He collect the Substance of Bread to be under it Ib. l. 19. To reject that authority which overthrows the certainty of Sense He must meane with his Exception unless it be Divine Ib. l. 3 We preferr the grounds of our common Christianity before a novel and monstrous figment Good reason but not before a Divine Revelation This Controversy therefore must first be decided before any argument from Sense can be used He goes on Ib. l. 2 Hutched in the times of ignorance and barbarisme fostered by faction and imposed by tyranny Speaking evil of Dignities Jud. 8. Concerning the evidence of Sense N.O. †Consid p. 92. had this Discourse on Dr St's 4th Consequence charging the Church of Rome as maintaining opinions repugnant to the principles of Sense and Reason 1. That the judgment of our Senses appointed by God the Instruments by hearing or reading them of conveying Faith and his Divine Revelations to us affords a sufficient natural certainty or infallibility whereon to ground our belief in all those things subject to our senses wherein the Divine Power doth not interpose But 2ly That where the Divine Power worketh any thing supernaturally that is contrary to our sense as it may no doubt here we are not to believe them And 3ly That we are to believe this divine power doth so so often as certain Divine Revelation tells us so though by the same senses it tells us so We believing our Senses as our Hearing or Reading for this as we ought where we have no Divine Revelation or other evidence concerning their deception when at the same time we do not believe the same Senses for some other thing as that that which we see is Bread when a Divine Revelation tells us the contrary The truth of which Divine Revelation in any non-evidence and questioning of the Sense of Scripture we are to learn from Gods Church infallibly assisted in necessary Faith c. For which I referr the Reader to what hath been said more at large in § 60.61.62 of the preceding Discourse Thus N.O. in his Considerations ‖ which the Dr passeth over in silence For it is better not to debate or acquaint a Reader with those Scruples we cannot easily satisfy Cosa ragionata via và P. 151. l. 1. We
words there †are As all Articles of Faith are not by all persons learnt at once so neither by all exactly in the same order as is frequently observed by Catholick Writers A Christians faith therefore may begin i.e. in the order of his learning it either at the infallible authority of Scriptures or of the Church and this infallible authority of either of these be learnt from Tradition and that of the other from it Thus N.O. Concerning the Foundation of Faith I referr the Reader to the former Note on p. 84. l. ult Ib. l. 3 He often pleads for necessity of an external infallible Guide because God hath referred all in the dubious sense of Scripture to the direction of his Ministers their Spiritual Guides This is by N.O. given for the reason of another thing not infallibility where N.O. in answer to the Dr's 18th Principle saith in the immediate words preceding ‖ p. 46. Neither can such Promise viz. that whoso useth his best endeavour for understanding Scripture if meant exclusively to his consulting and embracing the Exposition of the Church either shall not err or not be damned for it be pretended necessary since God hath referred all men c. And here the Dr omits the vindicating of his Principle and applyes N. O's words to the proving of Infallibility Pag. 187. l. 9 Whilst the Scriptures are ambiguous c. N. O's words are whilst the Scriptures in such points at least to persons unlearned or of weaker judgments which are the greatest part of Christians are ambiguous which words are here left out by our Author Ib. l. 6 The force of all which comes to this that we can arrive at no certainty of the sense of Scripture in controverted places without an external infallible Guide and therefore we are bound to submit to him Nay comes to this that persons unlearned and of weaker judgments can arrive to no certainty of the sense of Scripture in some matters of necessary faith without an external Infallible Guide and therefore such a Guide is necessary Pag. 188. l. 1. Point to be Discussed What necessity there is for the Salvation of persons to have an infallible interpretation of controverted places of Scripture Salvation of persons he should add persons unlearned and of weaker capacitie and doubting of the sense of such places Of controverted places of Scripture He should add in points necessary of which N.O. every where speaks see his words but now quoted by himself whose Words one would think but that the Dr surely is a man of more integrity that he on purpose to make his Answers more plausible almost every where as to both these omitteth Now the necessity of such an infallible interpretation is this that such person may not err in such Necessaries Ib. l. 8. Men may attain a certain sense without an infallible Guide Here again want words Men all men the vnlearned those of weakest judgment employed in a secular vocation c. attain to a certain sense in all places of Scripture concerning Necessaries Ib. l. 13 1st We are to enquire into the necessity of such an infallible interpretation of doubtful places of Scripture Add in necessaries Pag. 189. l. 1. N.O. Must prove not that there are doubtful and controverted places which no one denies N. 1 but that the sense of Scripture is so doubtful and obscure in the things which are necessary to mens salvation that persons without an infallible Guide cannot know the meaning of them 1 Why it lies more upon N.O. to prove that the sense of Scripture is not clear as to some persons in some points necessary than on the Dr to prove that the Scripture is clear to them in all points necessary I see not since he affirms these plain to all N.O. denies it and Affirmers as he saith ‖ p. 193. ought to prove 2 Here what thinks He of several of the points of the Athanasian Creed urged by N. O much controverted in Antiquity and by the first Councils inserted in this Creed as thought necessary for mens salvation to be known Are the Scriptures so clear in all these as all capacities using an endeavour sutable to their vocations cannot mistake in them Then what thinks he of his own words Ration Account p. 58. urged by N.O. p. 63. and cited before in Note on p. 126. l. 2. The Deity of Christ and the Trinity are they not points necessary to be rightly believed for attaining Salvation And Doth not the guidance of the Church-Governours set over the Church by God Eph. 4.11.13 relate to Necessaries Or where the erring of the unlearned which always many Christians must be 2. Pet. 3.16 tends to mens destruction is not the knowing of the right sense necessary to their salvation What thinks he of the sense of Hoc est Corpus meum urged by N.O. p. 20 Is it clear on the Protestants side to all using a just endeavour when the much major part of Christianity and before Luther's time the whâ—le understands it in the contrary And if none of this world of men hath used a right endeavour how shall any be secure of such a right endeavour used by him that he may be confident in such clear Scripture he is not deceived Or is the true sense of this Text not necessary to be known where such a gross Idolatry is affirmed by our Author to be the necessary consequent of an erroneous sense But if he will restrain Necessaries to the Apostles Creed or perhaps only to three or four principal Articles thereof the pure nescience of which excludes from salvation then as he contends these are clear in Scripture so why will he not allow that General Councils are in these infallible and so the Church in Necessaries an Infallible Guide But then let him consider in any such restraint of necessaries yet whether there are not many other points at least so highly beneficial to salvation as that the Divine Providence is engaged to leave the truth of them also either clear to all sober enquirers in Scripture or to Guides that shall not err in expounding such Scriptures to the people Indeed after so much clamour against the pernicious doctrine of the Church of Rome our Author seems to have a hard task of it and also very unsutable to so much choler to maintain that none of the points agitated between it and Protestants is so necessary for attaining salvation at least with less difficulty to be believed on the Protestant side that God should either leave Scripture for it clear enough to the sober enquirer or else in the sense of Scripture doubtful some living Guide unerrably to determine it Or if he shall say God hath left Scriptures clear to all capacities well-endeavouring in all such points he seems to have as hard a task again to maintain this when the major part of Christianity reading these Scriptures do think against him the contrary to be clear in them But lastly if what He over-lavisheth
that their sentence is to be obeyed in these matters and why else are they Judges If to be obeyed then either they must be infallible in all necessary controversies or else the people after as before their judgment are still in these liable to errour Suppose in the Controversy of the Arians or Socinians about the Deity of our Saviour Ib. l. 13. And in this case we think it is all the reason in the world that they who affirm should prove May not I here return the proving upon himself That Experience shews there is a Necessity of such an Infallible Guide since God is not wanting to his Church in Necessaries and since the Scriptures are not so cleare in all necessary points as to prevent all doubters and disputers and those that say they are clear let them prove it for they that affirm must prove But both for the Commission and Infallibility of such Guides see before Note on p. 119. l. 17. Pag. 194. l. 2. What if Christ having provided for the necessaries of salvation by a clear revelation should leave other things in the dark to exercise the wits of some and the charity of others Hath not his 13th Principle here unhappily engaged him to maintain with Mr Chillingw that since all necessaries are clear in Scripture all Controversies in religion are about non-necessaries and so no necessity of a Judge to determine them Can we think then that it is not very necessary that any of the Controversies that are between Protestants the Church of Rome about non-necessaries and so no necessity of a Judge to determine them Can we think then that it is not very necessary that any of the Controversies that are between Protestants the Church of Rome about Merit of Works Praying for the Dead and Purgatory Transubstantiation Adoration of the Eucharist Invocation of Saints Worship of Images in which is said to be Idolatry on the Roman part c. were decided Had the former Decisions touching such matters of these Judges in Controversies of Religion gone on the Protestant side surely we had not had so many What ifs for the non-necessity of them Ib. l. 11. What if Christ foresaw this matter of ending controversies i.e. by a living Judge would be an occasion of raising one of the greatest c. Doth not this grate upon General Councils Apply this to the Definitions of the Athanasian Creed and see what thanks these Fathers that composed it have returned to them for so settling the Christian Faith and not rather leaving such things in the dark to exercise mens wits and their charity one to another and obliging them to their own greater honesty and integrity in knowing and doing God's-will Are there not then too many Controversies yet on foot for the serving all these ends And may not the Sects that have departed from the Church of England make good use of the Dr's What ifs in respect of the things the Church of England requires from them Whom what if our Lord hath left in all such things to their Christian Liberty Ib. l. 16. What if Christ thought it reasonable to leave the failings of mens understandings and lives upon the same terms so as to give sufficient means to prevent either but not effectually to hinder men from falling into either of them Christ hath left both these here on the same terms i.e. hath left an Infallible Guide for Manners as well as Faith but so as we may possibly swerve from him in either He may be pleased to review the Consideration on his 30th Principle p. 82. where it is said That God hath provided by the same church-Church-Authority to preserve his Church in Truth and to restrain it from Sin giving an equal Commission to teach the Ignorant and to correct the Vicious And that since their Doctrine directs our Manners as well as Faith their Infallibility is as necessary for things of practice as of Speculation That Errour in opinion also may be such as may be much more dangerous to us than for the present a vicious life supposing our persistence in a right Faith because we have our Conscience still left uncorrupted to reclaim us in the latter but not so in the former And there is more hope of his recovery who as yet doth ill with a relucting judgment That some erroneous opinions or other also are the ordinary sources and springs of evil practices and that the Dr cannot but acknowledge this who hath spent a considerable part of the Book to which he hath annexed his Principles upon pretending to shew how Roman errours do induce an evil life and destroy devotion This of the special need of such a Guide for the failing of mens understandings Ib. l. 9 What if the nature of Religion will not bear such a determination of controversies as Civil matters will because civil matters concern the right and wrong of particular persons in which it is not the sentence of the Judge so much as the civil force whereby it is backed which puts an end to the dispute but in matters of Religion the ending controversies can be no effect of force and power but of Reason and conviction of conscience Doth not He argue here that an Infallible Guide or Judge sutes not with the nature of Religion because ending Controversies can be no effect of force and power but of reason and conviction of conscience But how then did the Infallibility of our Lords Apostles and their Laws their ending the Controversy about the Mosaical Ceremonies in the Council Act. 15. and S. Paul's anathematizing or excommunicating Hymenaeus and Alexander fallen away from and blaspheming the true faith sute with the Nature of Religion How the Anathemas of the four first Councils sute with it Was there no effect of Force and power here Then how is there so in the ending controversies by a Judge Or if there was such an effect was it not just As for that He saith of the necessity of reason and Conviction there needs none as to the proof of the controversy that is determined when there is once such a conviction that such are appointed to determine it and we to obey them And where this Conviction is not it ought to be and an erroneous conscience that obligeth us to follow it excuseth not our errour from being culpable Doth this Author hold all not convicted of their fault or errour to be freed from Ecclesiastical Censures What thinks he of the 4th and 5th Canons of the English Synod under King James Pag 195. l. 9. But in our case this who is the Judge is the main thing in dispute But it ought not to be Ib. l. 14. We must therefore allow every one that pretends to it to be such an infallible Guide No but General Councils we must upon the grounds mentioned before Note on p. 113. l. 15. Ib. l. 17. If we must not first be satisfied c. You may be rationally satisfied And if you are not so must the
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
ambagibus tergiversationibus sic suscipiendus es Quod si non vis non mihi aut cuiquam hominum qui vult ita suscipere sed ipsi Salvatori contra salutem tuam perniciosissimè reluctaris cui te sic suscipiendum esse non vic credere quemadmodum suscipit illa Ecclesia quam testimonio suo commendat ille cui fateris nefarium esse non eredere Here this Father plainly saith in believing and doing as the Church commands and directs us we believe and do that which our Lord and the Scriptures command us which Lord and Scriptures have commended and given a Testimony to us of his Church N. 2 Which recommendation and Testimony let it be meant as the Dr will have it namely of the shewing and pointing ouâ— which of several pretending to be it is this Catholick Church for indeed this thing only needed a proof to the Donatists who allowed the same Infallibility in this Catholick Church as S. Austin and so an Infallibility in themselves conceiving themselves only to be this Catholick Church and that which our Lord and the Scriptures so recommended Yet this Church thus demonstrated which it is it is manifest S. Austin in the former passages affirms that in all things we are to follow and believe to be truth that which it tells us is so as if Christ or the Scriptures that recommended this Church to us had told us so Otherwise if this Church so demonstrated by our Lord and Scripture be fallible after its Resolution we may still be deceived in our Question about Rebaptization whereas the Father saith Quisquis falli metuit c. Ecclesiam consulat and Scripturarum a nobis tenetur veritas cùm hoc facimus quod universaeplacuit Ecclesiae And so after such Resolution we may disbelieve the Church without disbelieving our Lord. Nor can S Austin justly say as he doth to a Donatist refusing to receive Hereticks so as the Church doth without Rebaptization Nunquid Tu meliùs potes nosse quomodo suscipiendus sis qùà m Saltor noster And here it would be a great mistake to rely on the Church for that which it delivers to us as a truth upon our Lord 's recommending it which Church our Lord recommends not for this but some other thing consistent with that which it delivers its being an errour N. 3 But to put this further out of doubt If S. Austin did nâ—t suppose our Lord and the Scriptures to recommend this Church in such doubtful cases as in its Resolutions of them Infallible how comes this Father to require Assent and belief of what this Church defines and doing of what she commands How makes he all Hereticks that dissent from her Definitions even those Donatists to be Hereticks after the Church's Decree for holding Rebaptization who were not so before it Now Haeresis quae in vitio est as he saith ‖ De Haeresibus sine errore aliquo Haeresis esse non potest But if General Councils might erre in such points something thus might be Heresy in opposing them that were no errour If he held not Non rebaptization defined by the Church as a most certain truth how came it to be put in the Creed May something be a part of the Christian Faith that is not truth S. Austin every where expresseth his belief touching the not erring of General Councils otherwise See concerning Non-rebaptization De Baptismo 2. l. 4. c. where he questions not S. Cyprian's yielding to the consenting authority of the universal Church on this account Si jam illo tempore quaestionis hujus veritas eliquatae declarata per plenarium Concilium solidaretur Therefore S. Austin held it was so consolidated afterward So he saith of him Ib. c. 8. Vt quod postea plenario Concilio visum est id verum esse perspiceret doceret But how this his discerning it and teaching it for truth if this Council might err in their definition of it He might indeed have expected S. Cyprian's conserving the Church's peace but not conforming to its opinion He cals the Council's Decree verum liquidum eliquatum sincerum And 2. l. 1. c. he calls it after defined regula veritatis quam tota ecclesia tenuit L. 1. c. 18. he saith Restat ut hoc credamus quod universa ecclesia custodit And Quod in hâc re sentiendum est plenioris Concilii sententiâ totius Ecclesiae consensio confirmat Lib. de Haeresibus he saith of the Donatists Audent etiam rebaptizare Catholicos ubi se ampliùs Haereticos esse firmarunt cum ecclesiae Catholicae universae placuerit nec in ipsis Haereticis Baptisma communc rescindere And Ibid. he saith that Sufficit Ecclesiam contra aliquid sentire ut illud non recipiamus in fidem Why so if something in matters of Faith contrary to what the Church believes may be Truth And if the Father saith thus of this Church cui testimonium perhibet Christus Scriptura it s not erring in Quaestione obscurissimâ as he calls it and having no clear evidence of Scripture what would he do in its defining any other points wherein the Scriptures afford the same Church more light N. 4 To this Church he applies that Text 1. Tim. 3.15 16. Vt scias quomodo oporteat te in domo Dei conversari quae est Ecclesia Dei vivi columna firmamentum veritatis ‖ De Vnit Eccles c. 2. And Magnum est pietatis sacramentum praedicatum est in gentibus creditum est in mundo And †De Verbis Apostoli Serm. 14. speaking against the Pelagians concerning another point already defined by the Church Ecclesiae sanctae saith he pro remissione peccati Orginalis parvulorum quotidiè laboranti non contradicant Fundata ista res est i.e. the benefit of Baptisme to Infants Ferendus est disputator errans in alt is quaestionibus non diligenter digestis nondum plenâ Ecclesiae authoritate firmatis ibi ferendus est error non tantum progredi debet ut etiam fundamentum ipsum Ecclesiae quatere moliatur So saith he Contra Parmenian l. 2. c. 13. De iis qui ab Ecclesiae unitate separati sunt nulla jam quaestio est quin habeant verum Baptismum dare possint Hoc enim in ipso totius orbis unitate discussum consideratum perfectum atque firmatum est And to this might be added all those Testimonies out of him wherein he saith that there can never be any just cause of separating from the Communion of the Catholick Church from which I conceive it follows that she can never commit such an errour in her Decrees that to avoid the subscription thereof exacted by her any shall be justly necessitated to leave her external Communion N. 5 Concerning the same Church's Authority he saith in his Book De Vtilitate Credendi c. 16. Homini non valenti verum intueri Authoritas ab ipso Deo constituta praesto est
quo velut gradu certo innitentes attollamur ad Deum And c. 17. Quid est aliud ingratum esse opi auxilicque Divino quam praedictae authoritati velle resistere In respect of which Authority he saith that In Catholica Ecclesia there is sincerissima sapientia which also he defines adhaesio veriâ—ati And Turbam non intelligendi vivacitas sed credendi simplicitas tutissimam facit Ibid. he saith he believes the Gospel from this Authority of the Catholick Church Quâ authoritate Catholicorum infirmatâ Contra Epist Manich c. 4. jam nec Evangelio credere potero quia per eos illi credideram Of which see more in his 11. l. Cont. Faustum c. 2. c. N. 6 And the Motives he saith that induced him to credit and follow such Authority are such as these urged by N. O. ‖ p. 87. Ibid. Besides the Wisdome he observed in the Church Tenet me saith he consensio populorum atque gentium tenet authoritas miraculis inchoâ—ta spe nutrita charitate aucta vetustate firmata tenet ab ipsà Sede Petri Apostoli cui pascendas oves suas post Resurrectionem Dâ—minus commendavit usque ad praesentem Episcopatum successio Sacerdoâ—um c. Where we may observe him as also Irenaus Terâ—ullian and Cyprian giving a special Principality amongst other Churches to that of Rome for which likewise he cites that Text Jo. 21.15 of our Lord 's giving a special charge to S. Peter of feeding his Sheep which special Commission of our Lord to Peter also S. Paul seems to relate-to Gal. 2.8 where he saith the Apostleship of the Circumcision was given not to all the Apostles but to Peter and so this Father in his 162. Epistle against the Donatists naming this See amongst others with whom Caecilianus was joined in communion he saith In quâ Ecclesiâ Romanâ semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit Principatus Again in his Book De Vtilit Credendi speaking of the same Church Authority Hâc autem saith he sepositâ ratione dupliciter nos movet partim miraculis partim sequentium multitudine And Hoc ergo credidi famae celebritate c. 14. consensione vetustate roboratae And Quae ab ipso Christo per Apostolos ad nos usque manavit abhinc ad posteros manatura est c. 17. And yet more fully Dubitamus nos ejus ecclesiae condere gremio quae usque ad confessionem generis humani ab Apostolica Sede per successiones Episcoporum frustra haereticis circumlatrantibus partim plebis ipsius judicio partim Conciliorum gravitate partim etiam miraculorum majestate i. e by Miracles done in this Church after the Apostles times of several of which S. Austin himself was an eye-witness and also of some an Instrume damnatis culmen authoritatis obtinuit Whereas he observes of the Donatists ‖ Epist 48. That in their discovery of which is the true Church they declined Vniversality and appealed as Protestants do to the Marks of its true observance of the Divine Precepts and right administration of the Sacraments marks according to their different perswasions some men find in one Church some in another Vos estis saith he qui non ex tetius orbis communione sed ex observatione praeceptorum omnium divinorum atque omnium Sacramentorum tenetis Catholicam fidem And Acutum aliquid videris dicere dum Catholicae nomen non ex totius orbis communione interpretaris sed ex observatione praeceptorum omnium divinorum c. And I have thus copiously cited him the more fully to satisfy the candid Reader in this matter of the greatest consequence and that the places in him that seem more clear may prevent the mistaking glosses that may be made on some other This of S. Augustine's being no stranger to the Church's Sovereign Authority and Infallibility in her Definitions and that the obeying Her was the obeying the command of our Lord and conforming to the verity of Scripture and the knowing of her easy by the forementioned marks Pag. 252. l. 14. S. Austin was willing to bring it to that issue that what the Catholick Church after so much discussing the point had agreed upon should be received as the truth As a Truth So may that which indeed is an errour But S. Austin every where contends as was but now shewed that it must be a most certain truth which a General Conncil of the Catholick Church agreed in and determined so and in this had the Donatists no way contradicting him So Cont. Crescon l. 1. c. 28. He saith to the Donatist Vnam fidem esse Vnam incorruptam i.e. not errin Catholicam ecclesiam Haec inter nos conveniunt And De Vnit Eccl. c. 24. Doce huic Communioni tuae apertum aliquod manifestum testimonium a Scripturis Canonicis perhiberi fateor ad te esse transeundum nec aliter esse suscipiendos Haereticos quà m sicut suscipit Ecclesia in quâ es quia tali testimonio Scripturarum declarata est i.e. to be the true Church and consequently that Truth to be maintained in it which all are to follow This then whether the Catholick Church always defines a certain Truth was no Question between them but Whether their's or his were this Church Catholick which Catholick Church these Churches being divided in Communion was but one of them This therefore the Father endeavoured to prove to the Donatist And if it be not a certain truth that such Councils determine for any thing I know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also for Scriptures concerning it are still eagerly disputed on both sides and this point of Non rebaptization found in the Creed as well as it may be brought in time only to be received as a truth but not certainly concluded a Truth And all this for avoiding Church-Infallibility and maintaining an ill-grounded Principle Which Church Infallibility once cashiered what would become of the Christian Faith in so many Sects daily rising up and after a new mode still interpreting the Scriptures Ibid. l. 9. S. Austin doth not hereby intend to make the Church's Authority to resolve all doubts concerning Scriptures No but to resolve all doubts in matters necessary Pag. 253. l. 11. For neither saith S. Austin ‖ De Vnita Eccles c. 11. are we to yield to Catholick Bishops themselves if they be at any time so much deceived as to hold what is contrary to Canonical Scriptures This is most certain Certain I say though understood of a General Council of these Catholick Bishops upon the supposition that these should hold what is contrary to Canonical Scriptures but S. Austin is farr from supposing here or in any other place that these may hold so especially In manifestissimâ Voce Pastoris in voce ejus clarâ apertâ in a matter wherein the Scriptures are very clear of which he there speaks Or if these General Councils should interpret any such Scriptures in a contrary sense
to S. Austin he is far from calling his sense vox aperta against them or from not believing theirs and not his to be the true sense of this Voice of the Pastor Concerning whom united in such a Body he saith ‖ lib. de Haeres Sufficit Ecclesiam contra aliquid sentire ut illud non recipiamus in fidem But the Father evidently speaks of some Catholick Bishops holding something contrary to Scripture but also to the other Bishops as appears by the words following Sed qui custodito Vnitatis Charitatis Vinculo i.e. with the rest from whom they differ in opinion in hoc incidunt c. Nor have we any so sure Judge when some Catholick Bishops do so as this whole Body of them dissenting He proceeds Ib. l. 14. By which it is evident that he supposed no Infallibility in the Guides of the Church i.e. single or a few contradicted by the more and superiour Ib. l. 16. And in termes he asserts ‖ De Vnita Eccles c. 19. that the Church is to be proved by nothing but plain Scriptures neither by the authority of Optatus or S. Ambrose or innumcrable Bishops nor Councils nor Miracles Intermes he asserts No. These are not S. Austins words truly translated or quoted After S. Austin Ib. c. 18. had thus spoken to the Donatist Remotis omnibus talibus Ecclesiam suam demonstrent si possunt non in sermonibus rumâ—ribus Afrorum non in Conciliis Episcoporum suorum non in literis quorumlibet disputatorum non in signis prodigiis fallacibus c. sed in praescripto Legis c. And again ‖ Ecclesiam in Scripturis Canonicis debemus agnoscere non in vanis hominum rumoribus opinionibus factis dictis visis inquirere things the Donatists pleaded against him I say After this he proceeds in these words which are translated by the Dr Sed utrum ipsi Ecclesiam teneant non nisi de divinarum Scripturarum canonicis libris ostendant quia nec nos propterea dicimus nobis credi oportere quòd in Ecclesiâ Christi sumus quia ipsam quam tenemus commendavit Milevitanus Optatus vel Mediolanensis Ambrosius vel alii innumerabiles nostrae communionis Episcopi aut quia nostrorum collegarum Conciliis ipsa praedicata est aut quia per totum in locis sanctis quae frequentat nostra communio tanta mirabilia vel exauditionum vel sanitatum fiunt c. Where S. Austin saith not that the Church can be proved by nothing but plain Scripture Or denies that General Councils or true Miracles or Vniversal Tradition are no sufficient proof thereof Of which General Councils he speaks nothing here but of those of the two Parties Concilia Episcoporum suorum on one side and Concilia nostrorum Cellegarum on the other And we may see in the quotations before Note on p. 251. l. 12. S. Austin knowing the Scriptures from the Church and the Church from other marks amongst which true Miracles surely are the highest proof of any Truth and so were of the Apostles their being Gods true Church and Ministers But the Father to the Donatists allowing with him the Scriptures urgeth the Church as demonstrable by their clear testimony not as the only testimony but the chief and such as more than this needed not and exacts of them that he waving these other proofs on his side wherein he had much the advantage of them by his innumerabiles Episcopi which surely ought to carry it against theirs and vera Miracula so they would the urging of their Councils far inferior and their Miracles fallacious on their side and bring in their defence Anti-Scriptures to his Scriptures In these things I referr my self to the candid Examiner of the place Ib. l. 6. He endeavours to bring them to a resolution in the other point the Church for the clearing of this non-Rebaptization But how doth proving such a Society as defines Non-rebaptization to be the true Church clear Non-rebaptization to be the right practise which S. Austin inferrs from it if this Church proved yet may err in defining it so Pag. 255. l. 10 ‖ S. Austin de Baptisnâ— l. 2. c. 3. And of these General Councils the former are often anâ—â—nded by the latter As this place is often urged by Protestants so it is answered to by Catholicks that taking the Fathers words plenaria Concilia or General Councils as relating to the words immediatly preceding quae fiunt ex universo orbe Christiano which is not necessary N. 1 such General Councils may correct and amend one another the latter the former as to several things though never as to Dogmata Fidei For as Cardinal Bellarmine ‖ De Concil l. 2. c. 12. In Conciliis maxima pars actorum ad fidem non pertinet sed tantùm ipsa nuda decreta ea non omnia sed tantùm quae proponuntur tanquam de fide Interdum enim Concilia aliquid definiunt non ut certum sed ut probabile He grants Ibid. that Concilia in judiciis particularibus i.e. ubi non affirmatur aliquid generale toti ecclesiae commune errare possunt So he grants 2. l. 7. c. Quad aliqua praecepta morum Concilia plenaria priora emendari per posteriora upon S. Austin's reason quando experimento aliquo aperitur quod clausum erat c. If S. Austins words mean this so Catholicks grant it N. 2 But 2ly If S. Austins words must be understood of such plenary and absolutely General Councils without any remitting of the highest sense of the word whenas indeed these words Vniversale Generale Plenarium were applied to Councils of a smaller Collection of Bishops when this from several partss and a little after this quotation the Father saith concerning Rebapization that Diutiùs per orbis terrarum regiones multis hinc atque hinc disputationibuus collationibus Episcoporum pertractata est And several Synods were for it held in the East as well as in Affrick ‖ See Euseb l. 7. c. 4. thus what the Father saith here will make nothing for him as to his present Controversy with the Donatist about Rebaptization Nay more against him For there were no two such Councils that were both General whereof the latter had amended the former concerning Rebaptization at all and had there the same uncertainty of truth would have been in the decree of the latter as of the former and in this case the Donatist would not have failed to have taken the advantage of the Former General Councils N. 3 But 3ly applying S. Austins words Ipsa plenaria sapè priora posterioribus emendari as in reason we ought to the times preceding his as also considering those other words he adds sine ullo typho sacrilegae superbiae c. he seems to speak ‖ See contra Maximinum l. 3. c. 14. of the plenary but illegal Arian Councils that were not plenary in the largest
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
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
States to change alter improve abolish according to several Constitutions of the Civil Government things that are not essential to Christian Religion nor expresly prescribed by our Lord or his Apostles but to say nothing meanwhile how what are or are not such Essentials or so commanded shall certainly be known and decided Yet which acting the other necessarily presupposeth the stating of this But wisely little talk they have of this because such thing would inferr a Judge in these matters beside Scripture § 10 To limit the Authority of such Spiritual Guides that it obligeth not when any thing is repugnant to plain Commands of Scripture which it seems either these Governours cannot see or will dissemble or when any other way found not agreeable to Gods Word and then judging themselves when it is or is not so Or if their own judgment may seem too partial making an appeale to the judgment of Common Reason against these Guides as if both they and the Major part of the Christian World that follow them had no such faculty or that this Common Reason were only in a few Again that such authority obligeth not in any thing repugnant to the Evidence of Sense as if either such evidence were not considered by these Persons in Authority or that they had not their senses so perfect as other men To distinguish between the several Ages of the Church and allow more Authority to the Governours of the past as thinking themselves more out of their reach than of the present To annul as much as in them is the Subordinations of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy or render them arbitrary and dependent on Civil States and to level as much as may be their authority and Jurisdiction introducing such a Polyarchy into the Catholick Church as would not be endured in a Temporal Government nor is indeed suffered by wise Princes in a National Church within their own Dominions I will have one Doctrine and one Discipline one Religion in substance and in Ceremony said King sames ‖ Conference at Hampt Court § 11 To inveigh against the Immunityes and priviledges of the Church either given at first by our Lord or added by the favour of Princes when become her sons and subjects and to suggest to them an invasion of their Rights To mingle and confound the Jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical and Civil state and borrow aids from the one as need is to relieve their subjection to the other To require a joint concurrence in the Secular Power for the ratification of all Clergy-Acts though in purely Spiritual Matters whereby neither any Church-Doctrine nor Government can be established in such State which It prohibits and contrary Constitutions and Laws and Reformations are introduced into the Church as the secular Magistrate is variously inclined or informed and Ecclesiastical Controversies transferr'd into the Civil Courts they not so well observing the Consequences hereof when a Julian or a Constantius appears and that if the secular Magistrate should be of a Religion or Sect disliked by them suppose a Presbyterian or a Roman-Catholick such his Spiritual Authority turns to their disadvantage and that the same Ecclesiastical Rights of the Civil Power will destroy Protestancy elsewhere as here support it And that as S. Austin ‖ Epist 48. minded the Donatists preferring a Secular judgment in their Cause before the Church's Judicium Illius scil Principis quem Vestri elegerunt quem Judicibus Episcopis praetulerunt justissime contra vos custodictur § 12 To press much the Scriptures that may seem to relate the Corruptions and fallings away of the Clergy Matt. 24.4 5 23 24. Act. 20.29 30. 2 Thes 2.3 1 Tim. 4.1 1 Joh. 4.1 Gal. 1.8 that bid us to beware of false Prophets and to try the Spirits and to adhere to the Gospel by which they can only mean to that which in their own judgment is the sense of it though an Angel from heaven should teach the contrary to take heed of Seducers and false Guides that should appeare in Christs name applying such things to the Canonical Judicature of the Church and not to themselves rather and to tell the people of Antichrists that are to come and store of false Miracles that are to be done That they are bid to prove all things and hold that which is good i.e. what they judge so That if the blind lead the blind both must fall into the ditch That the Apostles claimed no dominion over mens Faith c. All these for a Dirumpamus vincula eorum projiciamus a nobis jugum ipsorum I mean that Yoke of Church-Authority committed to these our Ecclesiastical Superiours by our Lord Christ Jesus and for the gaining freedome of judgment and liberty of opinion and declining of Obedience All which things any way vilifying Superiours and having somthing Satyrical in them are ordinarily received with much applause by our corrupt Nature uncorrected by Grace which loves to have a Soveraignty placed in it self and to be made Judge of its Judges and relucts against nothing so much as a captivating of the Understanding § 13 But indeed the effects of such yoke thrown off and of such a Liberty established in stead thereof seem to be very sad For besides * the Sin of Disobedience to those our Lord Christ hath set ever us if indeed they be such Spiritual Guides to whom we owe Submission of Judgment * the heaviness of the Church's Censures and Anathemas if these should be justly incurred by us * the liability of the more illiterate and ignorant sort of Christians which are the most of falling into farr more and more gross and fundamental errours than can possibly come from Obedience and Submission to the Church-Governours though supposed also fallible and * the great sins both in a Christian's Practice and in the Divine Service which such errours may bring along with them Besides a continual unsettledness in a belief that is founded on our own judgment very mutable as things are differently represented to it and hastily resolving many times only because seeing few doubts and not because there are not but because we perceive not the difficulties Besides the solicitude and jealousy that such persons ought to have concerning their not having sufficiently studied the grounds of their Faith or used a competent diligence to inform themselves of the truth without which they may still miss of it Besides all these I say it happens that several judgments reading the Scripture and understanding it in a several way all assured of its Clearness in Necessaries and confident of their own Sincerity which they cannot be of another's hence Sects and variety of Opinions according to men's different capacities become infinitely multiplied Hence Censuring also and vilifying of their Spiritual Superiours whose errours they think they clearly discover which Spiritual Pride and conceitedness in Religion and Contradiction to Superiours saith Dr St. ‖ Serm. on Act. 24.14 are to be reckoned among the worst
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
in the Dr's Answers § 71 Lastly to the proof of the Church's Infallibility out of S. Austin mentioned before § 54. he returns an answer extended from p. 250. to p. 200. Where I find him p. 251. urging S. Austins words that In this matter we follow c. Sequimur sanè nos in hâc re i. e in Non-Rebaptization etiam Canonicarum authoritatem certissimam Scripturarum and there fore that men might attain a certainty of the sense of Scripture in this matter without the Church's Infallibility to decide it Thus the Dr. But this Father every where confessing the difference about Rebaptization to be a most difficult and obscure Question and not clearly resolved as to all apprehensions in the Scripture speaks this Sequimur sanê nos in hac re c. quite in another sense namely as he himself expounds it in the next words when the Donatists urged to him there was no proof or example thereof in Scripture Neque enim saith he parvi momenti habendum est quòd hoc per universam Catholicam ecclesiam quae toto orbe diffunditur observari placuit quod tenemus Explicating himself yet in the words following much more thus Quamvis hujus reicertè de Scripturis non proferatur exemplum â—arundem tamen Scripturarum in hâc re a nobis tenetur veritas cùm hoc facimus quod universae jam placuit Ecclesiae quam ipsarum Scripturarum commendat authorit as Commendat i.e. to be the true Church and then both S. Austin and the Donatâ—st were agreed that the true Church must or did in this matter hold and state the truth If this yet satisfy not see the same said again elswhere De vnitate Ecclesiae c. 22. where speaking of the non evidence concerning Rebaptization in Scripture Hoc apertè atque evidenter i.e. in the Scriptures saith he nec ego lego nec tu Nunc verò cùm in Scripturis non inveniamus c. putâ— si aliquis Sapiens extitisset cui Dominus Jesus Christus testimonium perhibet de hà c Quaestione consuleretur a nobis nullo modo deber mus dubitare id facere quod ille dixisset ne non tam ipsi quam Domino Jesu Christo cujus testimonio commendatur repugnare judicaremur Perhibet autem testimonium Christus ecclesiae suae Testimonium that we should follow its judgment facere quod dicit otherwise a testimony to it concerning somthing else would have been nothing to S. Austins puâ—pose Facere which is more than non-contradicere and which implyes also assentire verum esse quod dicit By all these passages we see the certissima authoritas Scripturarum is concerning the Church which is it i.e. the Catholick Church and then it discovered is concerning the matter in Question also as unerringly determined by it § 72 Again p. 253. he urgeth out of S. Austin That where the testimony of Scripture is very plain and clear we are not to regard what Donatus or Parmenianus or Pontius hath said for neither saith he are we to yield to Catholick Bishops themselves if they be at any time so much deceived as to hold what is contrary to Canonical Scriptures By which it is evident that he supposed no Infallibility in the Guides of the Church All which N.O. grants very true if understood as the Father speaks it of particular Doctors of the Catholick Church not of its General Councils Nor can one rationally plead the sense of Scriptures plain and clear on his tide where a General Council understands and expounds them contrary § 73 Ibid. He urgeth as S. Austins words That the true Church is to be proved and so the Dr would have it understood of other Controversies by nothing but plain Scriptures neither by the authority of Optatus or S. Ambrose or innumerable Bishops nor Councils nor Miracles c. But such words are not S. Austin's Nor doth he affirm that which is the true Church can be proved by nothing but Scriptures for himself saith elsewhere that he came to know the Scriptures from the Church first known to him and the Church by Miracles Nor speaks he here any thing derogatory to General Councils or the authority or infallibility of them of which see more in the Annotation on p. 251. l. 8. from the bâ— to But the Donatists with him allowing the Scriptures he urgeth the Church sufficiently demonstrable by their clear authority which if clear alone also sufficeth and therefore requires of them that he waving these other proofs viz of Councils Miracles c on his side wherein he had much the advantage of them by Episcopi innumerabiles and Miracula vera so they would wave the urging of their Councils far inferiour and their Miracles Visions c fallaciâ—us on their side which Arguments of theirs he calls morarum tendâ—â—ulâ— and that they should press Scriptures again 〈◊〉 Scriptures But if the Judgment of General Councils was denied by him to be any proof in Controversies why used he it as such in Rebaptization § 74 Again p. 254. he saith That all the proofs S. Austin brings for the Church relate to the Vniversality of it not to the Infallibility Where it is true that as to the Donatist the Vniversality of the Church was all the matter in controversy both sides bâ—â—â— fully agreed that that was the Truth in the Controversy of Râ—bâ—â—â—ization which the true Church which-soever it were held and taught Otherwise from the Church determining in its General Council this point of Rebaptization S. Austin could not have urged its determining a truth as he every where doth see the quotations in Note on p. 251. l. 8. from the bott and the Donatists would soon have replied that his General Council erred and that S. Cyprian's was in the right § 75 Again p. 255. he produceth that much-worn place of S. Austin Concilia plenaria sapè priora posterioribus emendari The Reader may view the place set down at large there by this Author which words of S. Austin p. 256. he afterward presseth cannot he understood of unlawful Councils of matters of fast or practice but do refer to the great Question then in debate about Rebaptizing Hereticks And that hereby S. Austin takes off the great Plea the Donatiâ—ts made from the authority of S. Cyprian and his Council which they continually urged for themselves But N.O. had already weighed this Common-place and replied to it ‖ Addit to p. 86. l. 11. That if such Plenary Councils as that which determined Non-Rebaptization were errable and amendable in these Dogmata fidei neither had S. Austin any reason to presume as he doth Ibid. c. 4. that S. Cyprian would have corrected his opinion concerning this Point or to charge the Donatists with Heresy for dissenting from it after the Determination of such a Council Nor had the 2d General Council any just ground to put it in the Creed Credo unum Baptisma in remissionem peccatorum No just cause I say
infallible assistance to the Guides of the Church in all ages of it for the direction of those who live in it Add here as to all Necessaries For it is thus frequently limited by N. O but such limitation every where omitted by Dr St. Pag. 96. l. 1.2 That without this infallible assistance there can be no certainty of the sense of Scripture No certainty add as to all Christians many of whom are unlearned yong or of small capacity Of the sense of Scripture add as to several points of faith Necessary not as to all For N.O. doth not deny the sense of Scripture as to several points of faith clear enough and amongst rational men not disputed Adde I say these and N.O. will own the Proposition Ibid l. 3.3 That all the arguments which overthrow the Church's Infallibility do destroy the Church's Authority There is no such thing said by N.O. Nay the contrary is often said by him that Church-Infallibility being destroyed yet the Church's Authority though fallible may upon many reasons justly challenge submission of judgement to her Decrees from her Subjects See N.O. p. 18. 26. 48. 50. and in the former Discourse § 35.37.39 But this is said by N.O. and must be still till the Dr better clears himself That some Arguments used by the Dr against Church Infallibility are as strong and stronger against Church-Authority as namely that made in his 19th Principle if any one please to read there Authority instead of Infallibility Ib. l. 16. If God hath not given an infallible assistance to the Guides of the Church the Principles laid down by me must hold No. For private judgments ought to submit to Church-Authority though fallible in all such points wherein such private persons have not demonstration against it much more if commanded to obey this authority and to follow its faith So where no infallible assistance yet we prudently submit our judgment to the advice of a more knowing friend and Children to the precepts and injunctions of their Parents though these fallible and that by the Divine command not enjoining them hereby to believe a lye or practise things unlawful but only to believe that to be most credibly true or just which their Parents and Superiours much wiser than themselves inform them to be so And where if there be some incertainty in following their Judgments this is not lesse but more in following their own Men rightly submit their Judgments to persons and things most credible as well as to the absolutely infallible Ib. l. 9 We do not dispute concerning the best helps for a person to make use of in a matter of this nature Whereas our Author here calls for the best helps a man can get naming these the directions of his Pastor the decrees of Councils the sense of the Primitive Church for the right understanding the Scriptures if he means in necessaries I appeal to the candid Reader whether the Reason given by him in his Principles for which he saith the sober enquirer cannot mistake in Necessaries doth not argue such helps needless namely this Princip 15. Because the whole will of God is in the Scriptures so plainly revealed that no sober enquirer can â—iss of what is necessary to salvation so that there can be no necessity supposed of any infallible I add much less of any fallible society of men either to attest or explain these writings So he then Which argues either no need of such Helps or if these usefull such Scriptures without them not clear And therefore if 1 such Helps are to be repaired-to for the true meaning of such Scriptures in Necessaries they ought to have been included in his Principle 2 But then the Quality or Profession and Condition of the farr greater part of Christians seems no way capable of using all such Helps 3 Or if they were yet all these helps being held by him fallible they will still after these be liable to errour in necessary faith All Christians then as to all necessaries to salvation are not free from erring without an infallibility in these points of their Guides neither the Scriptures being clear in these without Helps nor the Helps in them unliable to mistakes Pag. 97. l. 6. The decrees of Councils the sense of the primitive Church Surely such are not only helps for instruction of Christians but laws for Obedience Ib. l. 11. The foundation of this person's faith can be nothing else but a trembling quicksand The Foundation laid by the Dr thus expressed in his preface by N.O. viz. An Errability in Necessaries of the Guides of God's Church an Inerrability in the same by him attributed indefinitly to all sober Christians who without any necessary consulting and depending on their Teachers instituted for thâ—â— by God shall use their sincere endeavors to find out such Truths is rightly affirmed by N.O. Pref. p. 4. to be but a tottering and trembling foundation of their Faith N. O's words Ib. l. 17. The only certain way not to be mis-led I add where the sense of Scripture or Tradition is to any ambiguous will be the submitting our internal assent and belief to Church-Authority This is asserted Ib. l. 9 Here then two Questions necessarily arise 1. Whether there can be no certainty of faith i. e in several points of Faith where the sense of Scripture or Tradition is to any ambiguous and disputed without this Church-Infallibility 2. What certainty there is of this Church Infallibility The 1st is affirmed The 2d is spoken to below in Annot. on p. 113. l. 14. Pag. 89. l. 3. Every man hath in him a faculty of discerning truth and falshood What in all things of faith by his own sole ability No. Some helps I hope he must have in several things as Directions of his Pastor the sense of the Primitive Church Decrees of Councils as our Author saith p. 96. Annotations on his §. 5. N. O's Exceptions answered PAg. 98. l. 6 The Question now is whether a person not relying on the Infallibility of a Church may not be certain of those things which are contained in the Scriptures in order to Salvation Of some of these he may because there contained plainly enough of others not where rational Judgments dispute the sense Ib. l. 3 Our enquiry is not about the sense of the more difficult c But N. O's is Several points Necessary are difficult to many and controverted witness those contained in the Athanasian Creed Pag. 99. l. ult I desire to know whether things simply necessary ought not to be delivered with greater plainness than things which are not so No. But so as God pleaseth so he provide other ways for the explaining of what is obscure Pag. 100. l. 6. Whether our Saviours own Sermons were capable of being understood by those who heard them How capable soever of being understood they were not understood he said by all his Auditors in every thing nor by his own Diciples Ib. l. 5 Or can we have now
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
Therefore he will have in every age a Ministery that in necessaries doth not err Such that l. 4. c. 2. where he grants to Bellarmine expounding himself to mean Ni mine Ecclesiae non unum aut alterum hom inom Christianum sed multitudinem congregatam in quâ sunt Praelati Subditi he grants to Bellarmin I say That the visible Church i.e. such a one as the Cardinal speaks of consisting of Prelates Subjects never falleth into any Heresy so that saith he he is much to be blamed for idâ—â— and needless busying himself improving that which we most willingly grant Again l. 1. c. 10. Bellarmin laboureth in vain in proving that there is and always hath been a visible Church and that not consisting of some few scattered Christians without order of Ministry or use of Sacraments add what follows in Bellarmin sed in quâ sunt Praelati subditi for all this we do most willingly yield unto Expresly excepting there against the opinion of those Protestants that hold Though all other falling from the faith the truth of God should remain only in some few of the laity yet the promise of Christ concerning the perpetuity of his Church might still be verified See also l. 2. c. 2. where he speaks thus This entire profession of the truth revealed in Christ though it distinguish right believers from Hereticks yet it is not proper to the happy number and blessed company of Catholick Christians because Schismaticks may and sometimes do hold an entire profession of the truth of God revealed in Christ It remaineth therefore that we seek out those things that are so peculiarly found in the companies of right believing and Catholick Christians that they may serve as Notes of difference to distinguish them from all boâ—â— Pagans Jews Hereticks and Schismaticks The last of which Notes he saith there is this An union or connexion of men in this profession and use of these Sacraments under lawful Pastors and Guides appointed authorized and sanctified to direct and lead them in the happy ways of eternal salvation Again l. 4. c. 4. he describes this Church That alway retaineth a saving profession of heavenly truth such that by strength of Reasons force of perswasions timeliness of admonitions comforts of Sacraments and other means of saving grace it strengtheneth and stayeth the weakness of all them that depend upon it Language not suting to a Church but such as hath in it Pastors and people and there contends That it doth not only preserve the truth as a hidden treasure but by publick profession publisheth it unto the world and stayeth the weakness of others by the knowledge of it in which respect it is fitly compared to a Pillar and not as Bellarmine accuseth his Church unto an Ark or Chest And so â—lâ—o Ibid. c. 5. in the words here quoted by the Dr Thus then we think saith he that particular men and Churches may err damnably because notwithstanding this othâ—rs i.e. particular men and Churches may worship God aright but that the whole Church at one time cannot so err i.e. all particular Churches that are in that time for besides these particulars there is no whole for that then the Church should cease utterly for a time and Christ should sometimes be without a Church i.e. such as consists of an united Body of Clergy or Ministers and People as he had said before After which he begins thus his 6th Chapter Thus having spoken of the Church's assured possession of the Knowledge of truth in the next place we are to speak of her Office of Teaching and Witnessing the same The Church therefore which he understands to possess this truth is such also as teacheth and witnesseth it Thus Dr Field justifying some such Church always to be not erring in Necessaries but not always the same or the most eminent Or those that possesse the greatest places of Office and Dignity in it and I am sorry Dr St's mistaken glosses upon him have occasioned to me and the Reader this trouble Meanwhile since from this alledged here the mistaking of Dr Fields sense appears not on N. O's but the Dr's side this his own errour might have been attended with less exulting and triumph and exclaiming O the mischief of Common-place-books which makes men write what they find c. But yet here the Intelligent Reader may discern two great flaws in this opinion of Dr Field The one that though there is such a Blessed Society of Clergy in every age that doth not err yet private men cannot be secure that this society for a year or a month longer shall continue such since though some one or other always doth not yet any particular Church may err from Necessary faith whilst some other retains it The other that for knowing what particular Clergy doth not err in necessaries for he saith ‖ l. 1. c. 10. that those who passesse great places of office and dignity in the Church of God may depart from the soundness of Christian faith the private person muâ—â— first know its doctrines to be true which is one of the essential Notes he gives to distinguish iâ— by from all other Churches in he place before-cited l. 2. c. 2. from which true Doctrine in Necessaries retained to day it may also vary to morrow But then how shall they foreknow its Doctrines to be true who as he saith in his Preface have not leisure or capacity to examine Controversies and therefore who are advised there for these doctrines to rest in its judgment for these doctrines meant of points Necessary For those only are the points in which such a Blessed Society certainly errs not Ibid. l. 15. And is it now imaginable after all this that Dr Field should make any particular Church infallible The precedents shew Dr Field to make some Visible Church or other in whatever age not to err in necessaries Otherwise he saith Christ would sometimes be without a Church But Dr Field is urged by N.O. only as advising very differently from our Author that so few having time or lâ—isure or strength of understanding to examine Controversies in Religion of such consequence they should diligently search out watch amongst all the Societies of the world is that blessed Company of Holy Oâ—â—â— 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 contrary to the Dr's 13th and 15th Principle That Gods will in Necessaries is so clearly set down in Scripture as none endeavouring to understand the meaning of them can mistake in these And N.O. contends also though such society should not be infallible that yet it is the wisest course for a private man to follow Dr Fields advice and rather to acquiesce in their judgement as more skilled c than in his own As in a suit of Law we follow the directions and rest in the
find no command so plain in Scripture that we must believe the Guides of the Church in all they deliver as there is that we must not worship Images See the Scriptures declaring Church-Infallibility as to Necessaries and commanding obedience to it cited before in Note on p. 113. l. 14. The Scriptures that prohibit worshiping of Images do so of any Creature in heaven earth or under it but meane a Divine and Soveraign Worship of them not such a Worship as we say is lawfully given to Men or veneration as is given to Sacred Things Temples Altars Gospels c. He goes on Ib. l. 5. That we must pray with understanding Therefore are all publick Formes of Prayer that are thought necessary for the vulgar by Catholicks translated and published in the vulgar tongue and by those who can read communicated to others Ib. l. 6. That we must keep to our Saviours Institution of the Lords Supper Surely no Precept obligeth us to our Lords Institution or Practice in every thing not in communicating after Supper Sitting at table taking it into our hands washing of feet before it nor in communicating always in both kinds a thing sufficiently cleared by the practice of Antiquity and purest times which on several occasions and that where no absolute necessity gave it in one kind only believing our Lord's Body and Blood to be received in any one Species Now where a Divine Precept obligeth the contrary Practice in no time would be lawful The Eastern Churches also for the same reason as the West viz to prevent the many abuses and irreverences that have hapned since Christianity so exceedingly populous communicate the people not by their eating our Lord's Body and drinking his Blood apart but by giving them both these together taken out of the Chalice with a little Spoon and so putting it into their mouths and think herein they transgress no Precept So Jo. 6.53 is not understood as a precept extending to all for so it would to Infants Nor that Jo. 13.14 Or Jam. 5.14.15 Or Matt. 6.17 5.34 and such like Ib. l. 7. But if any Guides of a Church pretend to an authority to evacuate the force of these the Divine Laws c. Evacuate i.e. in the sense you take them in standing to no certain Judge concerning this sense Ib. l. 15. If they require things contrary to a direct command of God Contrary i.e. in your mistaken private judgment Ib. l. 18. If they the Guides can prove us mistaken we yield No surely Your own soberest Writers say you are to obey and submit your judgment to that of your Guides except you can prove and that demonstratively and that demonstration such as is allowed by all rational persons them to be mistaken Ib. l. 8 I would gladly know whether there be not some points of faith and some parts of our duty so plain that no Church authority determining the contrary ought to be obeyed And will not then those also be so plain as that no church-Church-Authority will determine the contrary This granted then that there are points of faith so plain yet it is contended that none wherein General Councils require our obedience are contradictory to any such plain point of faith How can that be maintained by any a plain truth to the common reason of mankind which a General Council and a major part of the Church accepting this Council denies as false And if it be said that passions and interests blind men we ought to imagine they do so private men or our selves sooner than General Councils In this 7th Proposition p. 149. what hath our Author said in defence of his Religion against Church-Authority that a Socinian or Arian may not say for his Pag. 152. l. 12. These Guides of the Church have declared each other to be fallible by condemning their opinions and practices Lawful General Councils have not condemned the opinions of one another And what former Councils have been held for lawfully General where any doubt is made it is fit private men should learne from their present supreme Ecclesiastical Guides Those Councils urged for this contradiction by Protestants are either Particular against General Councils or Councils stiled General that are not allowed to be so by the judgment of the present Church Catholick Or those definitions of them to contradict which do not in the foresaid judgment or opinions commonly-received only in some age urged for such defined Ib. l. 18. Suppose a man Living in the times of the prevalency of Arianisme when almost all the Guides of the Church declared in favour of it Arianisme at no time prevailed upon a greater part of the Church or its Governours That of S. Jerome Ingemuit totus orbis miratus est se esse Arianum only signifies that the whole Catholick world wondred that its Decree which passed in the great Council at Ariminum was interpreted by the Arian party which was favoured by the Emperour quite contrary to its meaning Doth the Dr as yet doubt of this He goes on Ib. l. ult Must he adhere to the Nicene Council but there were more numerous Councils which condemned it Yes he must Because those Arian Councils if any more numerous for the Bishops that were present in them Whereas there were but a very few of the Western Bishops present in the Council of Nice yet had not so general an acceptation especially in the Occidental Churches As for any illiterate vulgar that have not a sufficient means of distinguishing lawful General Councils from others not so that contradict them they are excused by their invincible ignorance till further light for any non-conformity to their Decrees And generally where any dispute concerning the authority of a Council is private men may so long suspend their obedience to their decrees till a sufficiently general acceptation or reprobation of such Councils by the Church-Governours and the Bishop of the Apostolick See of the same or the succeeding times have cleared such difficulty But such a general Acceptation and confirmation of this Council of Nice was manifest immediately after the sitting thereof And of this those who made any doubt ought to have informed themselves better But meanwhile by this Question doth not this Authour fairly free a Socinian from any obedience due to the decree of the Nicene Council concerning Consubstantiality Pag. 153. l. 4. Liberius went so far that Hilary denounced an Anathema against him N. 1 and all that joined with him The Relation in which this passage is found is none of S. Hilary's See thereasons given by Baronius A. D. 357. The Historians of those times differ in their Records concerning Liberius some speaking more favourable of him than others The Syrmian Confession subscribed by him may be taken in an orthodox sense and it is justified as such by S. Hilary ‖ De Synod And if he communicated only with such a party as those called Semi-Arians who joined with him in this profession though understood by them in a sense
different from his his fault seems hereby much extenuated as that of some Catholick Bishops doing the like after the Council of Ariminum was by S. Jerome See his Dialog adversus Luciferianos But however Liberius might miscarry no prudent Catholicks could then deliberate Whether they were to follow the judgment of him a single Pope rather than of a preceding Pope and a lawful General Council I mean that of Nice N. 2 Meanwhile by the following discourse in this Author here for twenty pages together we see notwithstanding what he had said before p. 148. That Protestants profess a great reverence c. to General Councils and reject the ancient heresies condemned in them And that the controversy between us is not about the authority of the Guides of the Church but whether the Guides of the Apostolical and Primitive times ought not to have greater authority over us than those of the present Church in things wherein these contradict them we see I say what way his Interest chiefly carries him in raking into the same Antiquity he so commends with great diligence even in the times of the first four or five General Councils to expose any Contradictions he can find in these times so to the common view as to reduce men drawn off from obedience to their Guides to the use and direction of their own Judgments perusing the Scriptures as the Socinians do for what tenent they shall rather hold in our Lords Consubstantiality with the Father after the Decision of Nice and. in the Two Natures and One Person of our Lord after the Definitions of Ephesus and Chalcedon telling us that neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was settled by the one nor the Two Natures and One Person by the other so but that the Guides of the Church after these Councils contradicted one another And meanwhile What advice saith he speaking of the times after the Council of Nice †p. 152. would N.O. give to a private man if he must not exercise his own judgment and compare both the doctrines by the Rule of Scriptures And ‖ p. 153. What remedy saith he can be supposed in such a case but that every person must search and examine the several doctrines according to his best ability and judge what is best for him to believe and practise Thus he after the setling of such doctrines by these General Councils Which if he speaks of persons suspending their judgments only during such time till there is a sufficient evidence of the supremacy and Legality of such a Council is not denied him But if he speaks of all times after the legal authority of such a Council is cleared as that of Nice immediatly was which only makes to his purpose all then are to yield submission of judgment to its decrees See Note on page 144. l. 9. and 11. And this eager agitating and pressing the differences and contradictions in Antiquity disclosing their infirmities and oppositions whilst Catholicks endeavour to unite and to reconcile them doth it not argue a party that is much pinched if I say not the Decrees and sanctions of the present but of the Ancient church-Church-Authority be maintained N. 3 An exact Review hereof our Authors Stories wherein he knows several Roman Writers much differ from him freeing both Liberius and Honorius from Heresy and wherein it is very difficult for any from his or my relations without examining many other Authors to discern the truth sutes not well with these short Notes and would be in discussing so many particularities very tedious to the Reader and lastly seems a needless task For 1 for the Infallibility of Popes the great Common place of Protestants and which he brings here into the dispute as one would think but that more may be expected from his Ingenuity that so in the great dust he raiseth about it he might run away from the direct matter of the Considerations it is a thing wholy declined by N. O nor is there a word of it in all his Considerations nor is he necessitated by any Position of his to defend it and I think Bellarmine in the discussion of it grants that if no Pope ever yet hath been a Pope possibly may be an Heretick N. 4 2 Next for the Question When Councils and Popes oppose and contradict one another which of these Guides Christians are to obey It is answered That submission of judgment is only required to such Decrees when these two are first united and agreed and I think our Author will not be offended at it if till such time Christians as to those points that are in debate between these two are lest to their liberty if Protestants will submit to the Decisions of such former Councils wherein there hath been no such opposition more is not required And in any contradiction that may happen between a General Council already confirmed by the See Apostolick and any succeeding Pope if any such difference should be the former Decree of a Pope joined with a General Council will doubtless prescribe to any contrary one of a Pope single Lastly If the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon were not generally submitted to and so as to some Party were ineffectual for the suppression of the heresies they condemned yet ought they to have been so admitted and obeyed by all after that their Decrees have received a sufficient validity from their being accepted by a much major part of the Church and confirmed by the Bishop of Rome and I hope our Author will not deny this lest Christians totter still in some of the Articles of the Athanasian Crâ—ied This said here I hope may save me some labour in respect of that which follows trusting the ingenuous Reader with the application P. 156. l. 6 I now desire to know what a person in that time should do who was bound to yield an internal assent to the Guides of the Church He is obliged to follow the judgment of the Church-Guides in such a Council after a sufficient Acceptation of it by the Church Catholick diffusive and confirmation of the See Apostolick As this Fifth Council had after some time by Vigilius and his Successors and by the Sixth Council Act. 17. and 18. and in after times both by the Greek and Latin Church in the Council of Florence Sess 5. at Ferrara And till such Confirmation or Acceptation appeared a private man might suspend his judgment or hold what to him might seem most probable concerning the Tria-Capitula their agreeing or disagreeing with the Doctrine and faith of the Council of Calcedon to the Definition of which both the differing Parties willingly consented whilst one endeavoured that the errour of such particular persons here concerned might no way prejudice the doctrine of that Council the other that the persons whom after some former errours this Council had approved might not be afterward condemned Pag. 163. l. 12. And after these to anathematize Honorius as agreeing in all things with Sergius and confirming his
Methodius and others and of the other qui substaatiam Dogmatis of the Trinity tenentes in consectarius quibusdam non nihil a Regulâ deflectunt he numbers only three Justin Martyr Athenagoras and Theophylus Antiochenus Praefat. c. 3. he saith also Longè plures extiterunt quibus aut scripto comprehensa aut sine scripto praedicata fidei verit as permanavit ad postâ—ros All is represented here contrary what trust may his Reader repose upon this Author's Citations Or what great regard seems he to have of the Credit of the Fathers or of the security of Tradition on which the Ancient Writers cited before lay so great weight for conviction of Hereticks even in the Delivering the Doctrine of the Trinity Whilst he writes here on this manner to weaken both The usefulness of Tradition I am told is for explaining the sense of Scripture But there begins a great Controversy in the Church about the explication of the Doctrine of the Trinity I desire to know whether Vincentius his Rules will help us here It is pleaded by S. Hierome and others That the Writers of the Church might err in this matter or speak unwarily in it before the matter came to be throughly discussed if so how comes the Testimony of erroneous or unwary Writers to be the certain means of giving the sense of Scripture And in most of the Controversies of the Church this way hath been used to take off the testimony of persons who writ before the Controversy began and spake differently of the matter in debate I do not deny the truth of the allegation in behalf of those persons but to my understanding it plainly shews the incompetency of Tradition for giving a certain sense of Scripture when that Tradition is to be taken from the Writers of the foregoing Ages and if this had been the only way of confuting Arius it is a great Question how he could ever have been condemned if Petavius or S. Hierom say true Thus this Dr. Ib. l. 2. It is pleaded by S. Hierome and others that the Writers of the Church might err in this matter or speak unwarily c. The Writers Our Author deals much in indefinite i.e. doubtfu terms S. Ierome speaks only of those few Ancients quoted by Ruffinus Of which Ancients too Origen is cited by S. Athanasius †De Synod Nicaen Decret is for the orthodox opinion and apologized for that Quae disputandi certandique gratiâ scripsit ea non quasi ipsius sint verba aut quasi ipse it a sentiat sed corum qui cum eo contentiosiùs disputarunt accipienda sunt And also the most considerable of them Dionysius Alexandrinus is amply vindicated by him writing a Treatise of it And some of the rest possibly may be defended on the same account as Dionysius who then opposing Sabellianisme a contrary Heresy to Arianisme had occasion to speak in vindication of our Lord's Humanity and might have their sense mistaken But however the errour of some may well consist with the Notion of Vniversality as taken by Vincentius and whilst some ancient Writers happen to be either unwary in their expression or also faulty in their opinion the certain sense of the Scriptures may be learnt from others more numerous and not only from the Writers which in the three first Ages were but few but from the general Doctrine of the other Church-Prelates And so it was learnt by the Council of Nice which pleaded the constant Tradition of the former times for the doctrine they defined See Athanasius in his Epistle to the Africans for the very expressions used by the Council Neque saith he hâc in parte sibi ista vocabula finxerunt sed a Patribus qui ante fuerunt ea didicerunt quemadmodum diximus and a little before mentions Eusebius Nicomediensis the ring-leader of the Arians confessing it Again Ibid Sufficit Nicaena quae cum veteribus Episcopis consentit And Si post tot documenta postque testimonia veterum Episcoporum c. Again in his Tract de Synod Nic. Decretis Est ibi saith he ut Patres tradiderunt verae disciplinae magisteriâ— urgumentum ubi eadem confitentur nec a se invicem nec a majoribus dissentiunt Qui saith he shewing the constancy of Tradition tametsi diversis temporibus vixerint aequè tamen simul eodem tendunt ut unius Dei prophetae ejusdem sermonis interpretes Quae enim Moses docuit eadem ab Abrahamo observata sunt quae porrò Abraham observavit eadem Noe Enoch agnoverunt urging Gal. 1.8 Si quis vobis evangelizaverit praeter hoc quod accopistis anathema sit And afterward contends Patres qui Nicâ—ae convenerunt non a se haec vocabula finxisse sed ab aliis olim accepisse quoting there several of the Ancients and among the rest Origen and Dionysius Alexandrinus concluding thus Ecce nos demonstramus istiusmodi sententiam a Patribus ad Patres quasi per manus traditam esse But lastly in a Tradition any way less evident as to the universality thereof in former Writers yet we are secure of these Supreme Church-Gover nours assembled their not defining an errour in Faith necessary both from the light they may have from Scriptures always principally consulted by them as the chief of Traditions and where their learning and practice therein may discern that clear which is obscure to others and from our Lords promised assistance of them with his Holy Spirit of which we have a most clear and evident Tradition Meanwhile is not Vincentius his Rule by this Authors discourse here made unserviceable in one of the chief points wherein Vincentius against the Hereticks relied on the evidence of former Tradition i.e. in the Divinity of our Lord And is not the Dr for strengthening the Protestant cause in some manner become an Advocate for the Arian Let the Reader review it Pag 246. l. 17. And if this The Tradition of foregoing ages had been the only way of confuting Arius it is a great question how he could ever have been condemned if Petavius or S. Hierome say true I think the Reader hath seen what little countenance our Author hath had from these two whilst he would here insinuate to his Reader that the former written Church Tradition was either on Arius his side or not against him What stone will not a contrary interest turn to unfix or dishonour our Holy Mother the Church Pag. 247. l. 5. And in this regard we acknowledge a great reverence due to the decrees of such General Councils as that was Acknowledge a great Reverence due But Quaere Whether yield assent and Submission of Judgment to all that all such lawful General Councils do or shall define And if so upon what account can this be save on the evidence that Scripture and Tradition yields of their perpetual assistance from our Lord in necessaries not to mistake either the sense of Scripture or truth of Tradition so as to convey
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
N.O. layes upon him of justly incurring the displeasure of his Ecclesiastical Saperiours as indeed all Chillingworths followers seeme to do corrupting somthing which formerly remained good in the Church of England and which being good all good men have reason to wish well to and that it may be preserved there for that which is good still preparing the way to something better may end at last in an happy reunion of the divided Church hes and this may serve to answer this Author 's Ironical descant here p. 261.262 but finds him omitting here to take any notice of N. O's Reason for it immediatly preceding viz. Here i.e. in his 29th Principle first observe That what no Christian is obliged to believe under any pretence of Church-Infallibility he is much rather not obliged to believe under any pretence of Church-Authority and that the Dr's freeing the Church's subjects here i.e. as to their believing what these Governours teach them from the former doth so from the latter Thus N.O. Neither replies he any thing to this The 3d Quotation out of p. 84. is applied to one particular Consequence of the Dr's ‖ Conseq 1. In which he saith There is no necessity at all or use of an Infallible Society of men to assure men of the truth of those things of which they may be certain without and cannot have any greater assurance supposing such Infallibility to be in them Which Consequence of his N.O. saith concludes the uselesness as well of any Ecclesiastical Authority to teach men as of an Infallible to assure men of the truth of those things which by using only their own sincere endeavour according to the Dr's pretence Principle 13. they may know without them To this likewise the Dr answers nothing And here also Whereas N.O. speaks in particular This Consequence concludes he puts instead thereof that N.O. saith his Principles against Infallibility conclude c. In the 4th quoted out of p. 98. where N.O. after the words cited by the Dr viz. That the Principles laid down by him do not afford any effectual way or means in this Church of suppressing or convicting any Schism Sect or Heresy or reducing them either to submission of judgment or silence proceeds to give the reason of this Fâ—r where both sides contend Scripture clear from then selves the clearness of such Scripture how great soever it be on one side can be made no instrument of conviction to the other the Dr mentions not this Reason nor speaks he to it In the 5th Quotation out of p. 99. where after the words quoted by the Dr that the Authority of the Church of England is much debilitated c by this new way taken up of its defence N.O. thus gives the Reason of them in what follows viz. where he thinks himself its best Advocate and defender of its cause who doth most endeavour to set forth the defects and failiâ—gs of all such Ecclesiastical Societies Prelates and Councils and best proves no Scripture-Promises made to them Neither from this doth he clear himself or others But instead of taking notice of these particulars urged against him he extracts from the foresaid Assertions in N. O stript of the particular Reasons and Arguments annexed this Universal Proposition that N.O. maintains that the same Arguments i.e. all the same arguments for I suppose he would here have his indefinite terme understood universally by his Reader which overthrow Infallibility do likewise destroy all Church-Authority all Church-authority saith he i.e. all parts of it not that only of their Office as they are the Preachers and Expounders of Christs Gospel to the People of which only N.O. speaks and then on this he frames a new Discourse first divided into Heads But any such proposition N.O. disclaimes Yet this He affirms that some of the Dr's arguings in his Principles which he brings for destroying Church-Infallibility do also destroy Church-Authority as to one part of it and also names those arguings of his and wisheth that this Author in pretending an Answer had cleared them from this charge Pag. 262. l. 8. If they thought they could not sow mischief c A rent already too wide is by our Author 's new Principles still made wider and so less hopes of quite closing it And this is justly resented by N.O. as contrary to his chiefest Interest Ib. l. 10. It is a pretty plot c. True designes of defending may possibly undermine and those may be the truest Friends who are taken for professed Enemies This the Future Judgment will shew Ib. l. 15. 3. Vndermine all Church-Authority and authority wholly useless All and wholly are none of N. O's expressions his words must be added-to that they may be refuted Pag. 263. l. 1. Such malignant influence must be from one of these things Either because I deny infallibility in the Guides of the Church You deny Infallibility as to necessaries whereby none can securely yield assent to any thing that the Church defines Ib. l. 2. Or because I say that the Scriptures are plain in things necessary to salvation You say Plain to all so far as that none using his own endeavour i.e. according to his condition can mistake in them which makes men being confident of the plainness of Scripture and of their own diligence and judgment neglect repairing ro the Church's direction and guidance in matters that most concern them And hence grow such an infinite number of Sects after the direction of their Spiritual Guides cast off Independants Quakers Presbyterians Anabaptists Antinomians Solifidians Socinians and I know not what But note here that N.O. no where saith which our Author here seems to impose that One to make use of another's guidance or direction must have him infallible But saith only this which no way infers the other that where all things necessary are affirmed plain to a man only using his own endeavour to understand them One wherin he thinks he useth his own just endeavour may justly think also therein anothers guidance whether this fallible or infallible to be unnecessary Unless the Dr will here relieve himself by one of these two ways Either that though a sufficient self-endeavour sufficeth yet none can know certainly when he hath used it Or that in mentioning a mans using his endeavour this Author involves principally the repairing to his Guides for their instruction But then this latter argues the Scriptures wherein he consults them not plain but obscure rather as hath been often said and so defeats what he would chiefly maintain Ibid. l. 4. Or Because I deny the Authority of the Church of Rome You deny not only the authority of the Church of Rome as contradistinct to other Catholick Churches but the Authority of the Church Catholick as to its justly requiring submission of private mens judgments to its Definitions in matters of Necessary Faith Ib. l. 6. Or because I am not for such an effectual way of suppressing Sects and Heresies as is in use in
and Doctors met in Oecumenical Councils in all ages I would you could prove a truly Oecumenical Council in any age He proceeds Ib. l. 17. But we cannot endure to be abused by meer names of Titular Prtriarchs with Combinations of interested Parties instead of General Councils You do well in this But not so if you charge any such things on those former Councils whereof the more universal judgment of other Metropolitan Churches cleareth them in their accepting them for lawful and obliging and conforming in their belief and practice to their Decrees which general acknowledgment of them supplies also any defect that might have been in the management of them Ib. l. 3 If we then oppose so general a consent of the Christian Church let them charge us with not submitting to all the Authority extant of the world And what then when you are so charged Then you will say as you have said ‖ p. 241 242 That the Church in any one or more ages since the Apostles times may be deceived And That universality in any one age without the Consent of Antiquity which Consent you not It shall judge of is no sufficient Rule to interpret Scripture by nor consequently to decide the Controversies arising therein Pag. 285. l. 6. And every free Church c. See Note on p. 281. l. 1. It follows Ib. l. 9. Hath a sufficient power to reform all abuses within it self when a more general consent cannot be obtained But not to reform any thing contrary to such doctrines c to which a more general consent hath already been obtained in several Councils that before the Church was divided were generally received A Metropolitan Church may have a sufficient power to reform somthing without but nothing contrary to the Decisions or Canons of a Superiour Authority Ib. l. 14. How very pitiful an advantage can from hence be made by the dissenting parties among us For the advantages dissenting parties make hence see before Note on p. 180. l. 9. p. 263. l. 2. p. 271. l. 2 It follows Ib. l. 12 Who decry that Patriarchal and ancient Government as Antichristian which we allow as prudent and Christian But doth this Author allow it as of Divine Institution and necessary I mean the Government of the Church by Bishops Ib. l. 9 N. O. saith my Principles afford no effectual way or means in this Church of suppressing or convicting any Schisme Sect or Heresy or reducing them either to submission of judgment or silâ—nce Therefore my Principles are destructive to all Church-Authority Destructive to all authority N. O. makes no such Consequence But the immediate words following those cited by our Author are these ‖ Princip Consid p. 98. For where both sides contend Scripture clear for themselves the clearness of such Scripture how great soever on one side can be made no instrument of conviction to the other Here therefore things must be prosecuted further than Scripture to a Dic Ecclesiae And then for the convicting and suppressing such Heresies and Schismes this Church appealed and complained to must have authority and infallibility at least as to necessaries to decide truly such contests about the sense of Scripture which may happen to be in them and justly to punish with her censures as the useth to do those that are Hereticks i. e. dissenters from her definitions and so preserve the Church in the unity of the true Faith things denied to it by the Dr. Ib. l. 2 The design of my Principles was to lay down the Foundations of faith and not the means of suppressing heresies But his Principles laying down the foundations of Faith if good must be such as consist with the foundations of Peace also and with the means of suppressing Heresies And to his Instances I say Aristotle may be justly blamed for his Logick or Hippocrates for his Aphorismes if the one be found to contain any thing contrary to Civil Government or the other to the Colledge of Physicians Pag. 286. l. 2 We are sure the meer authority of their Church hath been no more effectual means of suppressing sects than that of ours hath been N. 1 I think He hath yielded the contrary before p. 136. where being pressed that the subjects of the Roman Church however their other private opinions may differ do all submit their judgments to the determinations of her Councils which takes away all Divisions in her as to such matters this being not so in the Church of England he hath these words I do not say that the Church of Rome hath no advantage at all in point of Vnity but that all the advantage it hath comes from force and fraud viz. such force as the Council of Niee used to its subjects viz. Anathemas to Dissenters And We do not envy them the effects of tyranny and deceit It is the Vnion of Christians we contend for not of Slaves or Fools And I freely yield that they have a juster pretence to Vnity without Truth than we Where this effect a greater Vnity is granted by him but that this is without Truth is denied by us But N. 2 setting this aside we contend that where it is affirmed 1. That Scriptures are so cleare in all necessaries that none of what condition soever using their right endeavour to understand them can mistake 2. And again that there is no other Infallible Judge to determine certainly any sense of Scripture in such necessaries where it is controverted nor which may require submission of judgment from their subjects to their sentence and so the people left to their own judgment one man upon using as he thinks a just endeavour being confident of one sense of Scripture plain to him another of the contrary which judgment of particulars the Church fallible hath no power to sway or correct Nor on the other hand the Scripture doth decide to them at all on which side it is clear Here we say is left no effectual way which yet always the Church must have one or other for clearing and purging itself of Heresies and Schisms by which the opinion of either of these and so of any Sect of them erring in some necessary points or by which any Heresy may be suppressed or the persons so perswaded severed from the Church's Communion and so the Principles must be unsound that inferr such Consequences N. 3 But there is such an effectual way in the Church which is maintained to have power as it is by Catholicks to determine in all Controversies about necessaries and in this amongst others concerning the Apostolicalness of a former Tradition or the legitimacy of a former Council what doctrine is true and Apostolical and to Anathematize all Dissenters whereby she either reduceth Sectarists if submitting to her judgment or separateth them from the Church if opposing it And such way accords very well with our Lords Sit tibi sicut Ethnicus Publicanus Mat. 18.17 2 Cor. 10.6 Tit. 3.10 and with S. Paul's In
so adoring iâ— as they ought should it be so how come they I say to commit such gross Idolatry as the Dr. in his Book charges them with and so all without Repentance of it if Idolatry be a Mortal Sin miscarry in their salvation And if from a Major part of the present Church interpreting Scripture an Appeal be made to a Major part of the Ancient Church pretended to interpret them on the Protestant side Consid p. â—â— neither will this relieve the Dr because since this also 〈◊〉 what side Antiquity stands is a thing in Controversy foâ—â—d â—â—â—râ—omg of it we are to presume here like wise that a sincere â—nâ—â—â—â—owr being allowed to all parties to understand the sense of the former Church this also stands on that side as the Major part apprâ—â—â—e 〈◊〉 it Now the present much Major part of Christianity preâ—e â—â—oth 〈…〉 the sense of the Ancient Church inâ—â—â— pâ—â—â—ing this Scripture 〈◊〉 a Corporal Presence § 7 To this Query of N. O How the Controversy shall bedecided when in a matter of Necessary Faith two contrary Pâ—â—ties say the Scripture is â—lear on their own undeâ—â— I and this Author answering first p. â—92 〈…〉 of determinine Controversies in Religion by a Living Judge is not built on any sufficient Foundation of Scripture or Reason i.e. as I understand him there is no necessity of it Mr Chillingworth made such an Answer before him but more clearly in these words ‖ p. 59. That those places of Scripture which contain things necessary and wherein errour were dangerous need no infallible Judge or Interpreter because they are plain and thâ—se that are obscure need none because they contain not things necessary neither is errour in them dangerous But the Reader may observe here that the Dr. saith only of determining Controvdrsies in Religion leaving this term Controversies indefinite as is usual with him when as N. O. speaks not of Controversies in general many of which he grants not necessary to be decided but expresly of controversies in points necessary that it is requisite the true sense of Scripture herein be some way or other cleared else Christians cannot know what to believe in them Upon which reason the Dr. himself also in his Principles ‖ Princ. 13. pleads a necessity that the Scriptures be clear in them § 8 2ly He tels us p. 197. That there are means ef attaining the certain sense of Scripture in doubtful places without the supposition of an Infallible Guide and so makes a long discourse from p. 197. to p. 260. concerning the Means used in the Primitive times and the many good Rules given by the Ancients for this As a diligent comparing of Scriptures Considering the scope designe connexion whether the sentence be literal on figurative illustrating the difficult by places more plain few by many recurring to the Original Tongues c. Where 〈◊〉 N. O. eâ—quiâ—eâ— how necessaries may be decided for those persons who after all these means used remain still in some suspense or also for those whose low and mechanick condition or weak judgment cannot examine these things can neither compare Scriptures nor search the Testimony of Antiquity Whether 1. 〈◊〉 q. for such it is not much safer to adhere to their Guides though fallible who also have used all those other helps the Dr mentions for deciding these than to be committed to their own judgment much likelier to erre herein than the others § 9 Next I find him when some twenty leaves have been spent in shewing thiâ—â—â—riety of means p. 249. delivering this as the sâ—â—se of the Fathers formerly pâ—toted by him and so also I suppose his own That If after examining and comâ—ering Scriptures c. the dispute still continues and that it be not against the Rule of Faith in express words but about the sense of it then if ancient General Councils have determined it which had greater opportunities of knowing the sense of the Apâ—stolical Church than we it is reasonable we should yield to them but if there have been none such then that the unanimous consent of Fathers is to be taken so it be in some new and upstart Heresies And so saith he There is no necessity of Infallibility in the Guides of the Church to give us a certain sense of Scripture which was the thing to be proved § 11 But here are several things that leave us still without a Determination of such Controversies so as in them to have any settlement of our Faith For 1st he saith If Ancient General Councils have determined it c. But I ask When may Antiquity and such obliging authority expire and What if such ancient General Councils have not and some latter General Councils have determined it whether is it not reasonable we should yield to them and Whether the Church in all ages since the Apostles hath not the same and equal Authority Otherwise if a certain distance from the Apostle's times doth alter this Authority why may not the Arrians put in such an exception against that of Nice not held till after 300. years and so much more against other Councils later than Nice Again since new Controversies in Necessaries may arise in latter times which such ancient Councils have not considered or decided as there did after 300 years several such as had not been discussed or so resolved before thus we shall have no Judge left for deciding them lastly when any Controversy ariseth concerning the Determinations of ancient Councils or Consent of Fathers in any such Point surely some Judge we must have for determining this before the Controversy can be determined 2ly The Terms he useth It is reasonable we should yield to them are general and ambiguous Doth he mean It is reasonable to yield our assent unto them Else how do such Decisions direct our faith or belief at all in these necessaries 3ly He saith So it be in some new and upstart Heresies But why may not this unanimous consent of Fathers be taken against whatever opinions Elder or newer that contradict them But if this Authour means reasonable to yield our assent unto them and if to lawful General Councils of whatever times he allows the same and equal authority and will admit the authority of the latter to resolve any disputes touching the consent or statings of the former what other thing is this but to come home to N. O's Infallible Guide which is lawful General Councils or other known unanimous consent of the Church-Governours Ancient or Modern Which Councils also for the matters they do decide are a standing Guide not only to those present times when they sit or wherein they live but to all Posterity And so this Author at last hath pitched upon that very means of ending Controversies in Necessaries where the sense of Scripture is disputed and other means the comparing of Scriptures c. as to many are either not practicable or effectless which he had endeavoured to avoid the truth of which