Annotations on Dr Stillingfleets first Section.
Dr St's Answ. to Consid. p. 75. l. 13. I pass by therefore all those un­handsome Reflections, &c.

Numb. 1 THe unhandsome restections, if any such there be in N.O's Pre­face, it is a commendable charity in the Dr to pass by, and not exaggerate: But, two things in the same Preface, that seem very considerable, I wonder he passeth by also & speaks not to. The one contained in these words, p. 1. That he accuseth the whole Catho­lick Church of God both Western and Eastern (for, the same practi­ces, as to several of his Idolatries, are in both) for so many ages before Luthers time, of Idolatry; and this Idolatry as gross as that of the Heathens. See Rom. Idol. p. 69, 134. &c. 142, 159, 861. Which accusation, surely, must unchurch this great Bo­dy, and quite divorce this Adulteress from Christ. For we cannot think but the Dr will maintain the teaching so manifold an Idolatry in this Church [viz. Teaching the lawfulness of adoring the Hoast, of Invocating Saints, of Worshiping Images] to be a Fundamen­tal Errour. Thus N. O there. Now, of this Church Catholick in every age we say in our Creed— Credo Ʋnam Sanctam Catholicam & Apostolicam Ecclesiam. But, how is it Sancta (as Arch-bishop Lawd said concerning Heresy §. 21. n. 5.) if it may fall into, and also teach, so gross and so manifold an Idolatry? as gross (saith this Author) as the Idolatry taught and practised by the Heathen: which Idola­try, charged by him on the Church of Rome, must needs be a mor­tal sin, and so, unacknowledged, or unrepented of, not only hazard, but destroy, salvation: and therefore must the teaching also of the lawfulness of such a practice by any Church, so expres­ly contrary to the Divine Command, be a fundamental errour; if an errour that excludes from salvation may be called so.

N. 2 I find indeed elsewhere our Author in his Answer to Mr I.W. Dr Stil­ling. against Dr Stil. denying, that the teaching of the Lawfulness, (or also the Duty), of such an Idolatry as is practised in the Roman Church is a Fundamental Errour, or such as, held and practised without a­ny retractation, absolutely excludes from salvation. So he saith there p. 20.— That some kind of Idolatry is consistent with the be­ing [Page 76]of a Church. And— That kind only, which implies more Gods than one, doth unchurch a people. And so p. 22.— That all sorts of Idolatry do not necessarily destroy the essentials of a Church;— Al­though (saith he p. 21.) That of the Roman Church makes the salva­tion of persons in her Communion extremely hazardous. Thus he. Now, by any Society that professeth Christianity its being un­churched, or wanting the being or essentials of a Church, I sup­pose, he means its ceasing to be any longer a true member of the Catholick Church which is mentioned in our Creed.

N. 3 Now then, the better to discern how con-or incon-sistent it may be with salvation and the Being of a Church, let us first see, how he represents this inferiour sort of Idolatry, as he calls it here, p. 20. (opposed to a grosser, which doth unchurch men), which is taught and practised in the Church of Rome, and which his charity thinks hinders it not from having still all the essentials of a true Church. In his Roman Idol. p. 69. speaking there of the Roman Idolatry in Image-worship he saith— It seems much more reasonable for me to worship God by prostrating my self to the Sun or any of the Heavenly bodies, nay to an Ant or a Fly, than to a picture or an Image: For in them I see great evidences of the power and wisdom & goodness of God, which may suggest venerable apprehensions of God to my minde; whereas these can have nothing worthy admiration, unless it be the skill of the painter or Artificer. And I cannot for my heart understand, why I may not as well, nay better burn Incense, and say my prayers to the Sun, having an intention only to honour the true God by it, as to do both these to an Image. And afterward p. 70. — I should have been tempted to have laughed at their folly and despised their weakness, who should plead for the worship of God in or by a dull and rude Image, and condemn me for honouring God in the most no­ble parts of the Creation. Where, doth not he make the Heathens Idolatry, in their prostrating themselves, saying their prayers, and burning incense to the Sun (which surely is a mortal sin in them, though meanwhile they held this fundamental truth that the honour which is due only to God is not to be given to a meer Crea­ture) more rational and more excusable than the Roman's com­mitting the same Idolatry to an Image?

N. 4 Again, concerning the Roman Idolatry in their Adoration of the Hoast Ibid. p. 134. he compares it with the Manichees ado­ration of the Sun, and makes this the worse of the two— If (saith he) a mistake in this case will excuse them, it would excuse the grossest Idolatry in the world.— Let us consider two persons equally perswaded [one] that the Sun is now the tabernacle of Christ, and that he is really present there— he being so often in Scripture called [Page 77]the true light, Jo. 1.8.9. and another, that he is really present by Transubstantiation in the Sacrament; I would fain understand why the one should not be as free from Idolatry, as the other. Saith he not here again, That, if their mistake [i.e. of Christ's Corporal Pre­sence in the Eucharist] will excuse the Idolatry of the Roman Church, it will as much excuse the grossest Idolatry in the world? and, that therefore this Roman Idolatry is without all excuse? And p. 136. he makes— the worshiping false Gods, supposing them to be true, as venial a fault, as worshiping that for the true God which is not so [supposed by him the Roman case in Adoration of the Hoast]. Now here, in his Answer to Mr. I.W. p. 24. he saith— When many false Gods are joined with the true in the same worship, the true God is rejected: and that this cannot consist with the essentials of a true Church. I subsume, then, neither can the crime of the Roman Church equalling it.

N. 5 Again, concerning the Roman Idolatry in the Worship and Invocation of Saints, thus he in Rom. Idol. p. 159.— Ʋpon the same account that the Heathen did give divine honour to their inferiour Deities, those in the Roman Church do so to Angels and Saints. For the Heathens made a difference in their sacrifices to the supreme God; and their inferiour Deities and their Heroes: so that if the putting any difference in the way of Religious Worship doth excuse the one, it must do the other also. Did the Heathen use solemn Ceremonies of making any capable of Divine Worship? So does the Roman Church. Did they set up their Images in publick places of Worship and there kneel before them, and invocate those represented by them? so does the Roman Church. Did they consecrate Temples and erect Altars to them, and keep Festivals and burn incense before them? so does the Roman Church. Lastly did they offer up sacrifices in those temples to the ho­nour of their lesser Deities and Heroes? So does the Roman Church. And p. 161. he saith— It is evident that the Roman Church hath re­served no part of Divine worship peculiar to God himself any more than the Heathen did. And— That there can be no material differen­ce, that the Heathen called those they worshiped Gods, but they do not so in the Roman Church. I say then: Are not all the complaints and aggravations, made in Scripture of the Heathens Idolatry, as ap­plicable to the Roman: and they both, as to this Crime, at the same distance from Salvation or the Divine Mercy: Unless the Roman be at a greater, from having so much more light? Thus then is the Roman Idolatry, in that Discourse, frequently repre­sented by Him.

N. 6 Now, after all this, would not one wonder at the great­ness of this man's Charity, in maintaining in his Answer to Mr. [Page 78] J. W. such a Church, as in all these Idolatries equals the heathens, yet to retain still all the essentials of a true Church; and such Opinions and Practices; without any retractation of their errour, or refor­ming their fault, to hazard only, and not destroy, men's Salva­tion? And must not this his Charity be enlarged further, to the Heathens also; that they in worshiping and sacrificing to their false Gods and Heroes, and the Manicheans in worshiping the Sun, offended nothing in this matter against any essential of Gods true Religion; nor by such a worship forfeited their salvation? Whilst they also, as well as the Church of Rome, in general make profes­sion of this fundamental point in Religion; viz. that the Honour, which is due only to God is not to be given to a meer Creature; and, that, if given to any Creature, it is Idolatry.

N. 7 But now, to examine these things a little more closely, 1. First, Whereas he saith p. 22. — If those of the Roman Church can prove that all sorts of Idolatry do necessarily destroy the essentials of a Church, the consequence is, we must have less charity for them than we had before; and such a concession from us [that they do not] doth not shew their guilt to be less, but only our charity to be greater; It may be observed, that N. O. here charged him not of making the Church of Rome only but the whole Catholick Church, & both the Western and Eastern, as is shewed in the 3d Discourse touching the Guide in Controversy ch. 8. guilty of such an Idolatry: which if so, and this Idolatry he imputes should be affirmed by him a fun­damental errour or mis-practice, then he must, by his rendring the Church Catholick guilty thereof, unchurch It also for many ages; and so deny an Article of our Creed. From whence it appears, that he, how farr soever inclined by charity, yet is also upon neces­sity forced, in his fastening such an Idolatry on the Roman Church, as extends also to the Catholick: forced, I say, (in defence of his Creed) to maintain such species of Idolatry not to unchurch a Body, or diminish any of the Essentials of a Church; nor to destroy, but only to hazard, salvation; lest he should destroy salvation in the Catholick Church, and also unchurch It for several Ages. Now (as the Archbishop p. 141.) — All Divines Ancient and Modern, Romanists and Reformers, agree in this, that the whole Militant Church of Christ [i.e. in any age; and that as to the Religion pro­fessed in it] cannot fall away into a General Apostasy. And so this, if proved against him by Catholicks, that such Idolatry doth un­church any Society that teaches and practises it, must constrain him to free the Roman Church of such a charge, and so to confess his own arguments whatever brought to such a purpose to be faulty and unconclusive. And, indeed, the favour here the Church of [Page 79] Rome, notwithstanding such heavy charges as these upon her, re­ceives from Protestants, of being affirmed still a true Church, seems to be on this account, because else they should miss a Catholick Church for divers ages before Luther; and derive the succession of their Clergy from a Body already unchurched. Thus, we see what obligation the Church of Rome hath to his Charity, in maintaining some sorts of Idolatry to consist with a true Church: Where indeed, it appears both the Catholick's interest to prove the Idolatry impu­ted to it not consistent with the being of a true Church; whereby they free the Roman Church from any such Idolatry; and the Dr's interest, to shew such Idolatry no fundamental errour or miscarri­age, so to retain still the Roman Church a true Church, viz. That so also the Catholick of some ages, and the present also, that is beside the Protestant Churches, may be so.

N. 8 2. Next, to examine the Reasons he brings for justifying such his Assertion. In that Answer to J. W. p. 30. he saith— That the very being of a Church doth suppose the necessity of what is required to be believed in order to salvation: [i.e. that all things necessary to salvation are believed in it; which is granted]. 2ly saith— That whatever Church ownes those things which are antecedently necessary to the being of a Church cannot so long cease to be a true Church. Which also is granted: But what are these things that are necessary to the being of a Church? For explaining this p. 31. he saith— That these Articles are such as have the testimony of the whole Christian world of all ages: [and so of the Roman Church]. Again Ibid. — That nothing ought to be owned as necessary to salvation by Christian Societies, but such things which by all those Societies are acknowledged antecedently necessary to the being of the Catholick Church. Where, if the belief of nothing is to be accounted necessary to salvation, or to the being of the Church Catholick, but what hath the testimony and approbation of the whole Christian world of all ages; or, what by all Christian Societies is acknowledged necessary to such a being, it seems to me to follow, that all Christian Societies must be true Churches or true members of the Catholick; and so * that none are or can be Heretical; since all Heretical Churches are non-Catholick: (See Archbishop Lawd p. 141.): and, * that no such point can be essen­tial to such Being, wherein any Christian Society hath dissented from the rest; and so, though this dissent be in some Heresy, yet neither will this render any such Church not to be Catholick still; which it remains to be by vertue of those points that have also its consenting with all the rest; (for, it seems, those points only wherein it consents with the rest constitute the Church Catho­lick:) and so the Arian, Nestorian, Pelagian, are true Churches, [Page 80]and parts of the Catholick.

N. 9 But, this being passed by, the Question will still be, What in particular those points are, that are essentials to the be­ing of a true Church? and, Why the contrary to what the Church of Rome teacheth and practiseth in the matter of Idolatry, as we see our Author hath described it before, is not one of them? To this purpose therefore he saith p. 32. — That the ancient Creeds of the Catholick Church are the best measure of those things which were believed to be necessary to salvation [or to the being of a true Church]: and p. 28. he saith— The main fundamental points of doctrine are contained in the Apostles Creed: and p. 33. — When we enquire into the essentials of a Church, we think it not necessary to go any farther than the doctrinal points of faith; the reason is because Baptism adn its men into the Church upon the profession of the true faith in the Father Son and Holy Ghost: and whatever is sufficient to make a member of the Church, that is in it self sufficient, being em­braced, to make a Church. Thus he. From whence he collects, that the Roman Church's teaching some kind of Idolatry that de­stroys no Article of the Creed professed in Baptism, and so no essential of the true Church, cannot therefore render it no true Church.

N. 10 But here, 1. First, may not the same be said of teaching any kind of Idolatry whatever, that it is not against any Article of the Creed; which speaks only of matters of Belief, not Worship? Yet he grants that some kind of Idolatry such as this, teaching people to joine false Gods with the true in the same worship is a a fundamental errour, p. 24. and destroying the being of a true Church. Now, If he saith this is, by a clear consequence, against the Creed; must he not say the same of the Roman Idolatry in a­doring the Eucharistical Bread? of which he affirms p. 136. in the words forecited— That the worshiping false Gods supposing them to be true is as venial a fault, as worshiping that for the true God which is not so: [as he saith the Roman Church doth]. Again; will not this also be an errour against the Creed, if any acknowledging one Supreme God, yet reserve no part of Divine Worship as peculiar to him which they do not teach may be lawfully given to a meer Creature, which thing he chargeth also on the Roman Idolatry Rom. Idol. p. 161. in these words— It is evident they [of the Church of Rome in those Honours which they teach may be given to Saints and Angels] have reserved no part of Divine Worship peculiar to God himself, any more than the Heathen did. Here is a true Church then, without retaining any peculiar worship in it, that is given to the true God.

N. 11 But 2ly. Supposing the Idolatry taught in the Church of Rome to trespass against no Article of the Creed, Can no Doctrine render a Society no true Church (by no true Church I mean, and so, I suppose, doth he, no true part or member of the Church Ca­tholick, though it should be still a Church professing Christianity) save only such? The Creed speaks not of matters belonging to Gods Worship, nor of the Ten Commandements, the First and Se­cond of which prohibite Idolatry: Yet is the Worshiping of God as essential to a true Church, as Believing in Him; and the obser­vance of the Tenn Commandements as necessary to Salvation, as the belief of the matter contained in the Creed; and Teaching the contrary to them, by any Society, (as for example, to teach it lawful to commit Murders or Adultery; or Theft) as de­structive to the essence or being of a true Church: and the Dr in his 30th Principle denies, Errors in Opinion to be more dangerous to mens Souls, than a Vicious life is. Neither are any in Baptism admitted into the Church simply upon professing of the Creed, (pressed by the Dr Stillingfl. against Stillingfl. p. 33. as if nothing els were necessary) but also on the promise of yielding obedience to God's Commandements. No Heretical Church is any true member of the Catholick; And would not such doctrines teaching contrary to the 10. Commandements be great Heresies? as we know, Denying the lawfulness of Marriage hath been anciently condemned as such? And then, will not the Idola­try taught in the Roman Church be such an Heresy; which ex­pressly opposeth (as he will have it) the Second Commande­ment? Of which he saith Rom Idol. p. 59. — It cannot enter into my mind how, God should have forbidden the worship of Images by more express and emphatical words than he hath done in it. Which leaves the Roman Church void of any excuse of involuntary igno­rance, to free her herein from a mortal sin. The Catholick Church, and all the parts of it are believed in our Creed to be Holy, as well as Orthodoxe, and the one to be of its Essence, distinguishing it from other Christian Societies, as well as the other: To be Ho­ly, at least so far, as to teach the lawfulness of no Mortal Sin, such as unrepented of destroyes Salvation. And, whether the Roman Idolatry, as he hath described it before, contrary to the express words and sense of the Second Commandement, and no more ex­cusable by any involuntary ignorance than the Heathens, can be any thing less, I leave to his better consideration; And this, for his recalling his Charge, upon it, of so great a Guilt; since, he cannot, his Assertion of its being a true Church. Whilst I con­clude with Mr. Thorndike's Admonition Justweigh. oh. 2. p. 11. to those Protestants, who charge the Pope to be Antichrist, and the Papists Idolaters— Let [Page 82]not them (saith he) lead the people by the nose to believe that they can prove their supposition, when they cannot; and then expect that it be maintained by them, that owne the Church of Rome for a true Church; and therefore, that must contradict thomselves if they maintain it, [i.e. their supposition of Papists being Idolaters].

N. 12 As for our Author's distinguishing p. 31. & 23 between the Essenti­als of a Church, and the Integrity or soundness of it; and saying — That a man is a true man, though he have the plague upon him. To this I answer: 1st. That, if the plague be mortal, the man must necessarily cease thereby to be a man. And 2ly. That, what­ever may be required to the integrity or soundness of a Church, right Doctrines in Practicals are as necessary to its essence, as in Speculatives; if Mortal Sin exclude from salvation, as well as an erroneous Faith. This of N. O's charging him in his Preface— For accusing the whole Catholick Church of God, both Western and Eastern (for, the same practices, as to several of his Idolatries, are in both) for so many Ages before Luther's time of Idolatry, and this Idolatry as gross as that of Heathens: and for his thus unchurching this great Body, and quite divorcing this Adulteress from Christ. From which charge that which he hath said in his Answer to I. W. seems no way to free him.

N. 13 The other Considerable in the same Preface p. 6. which he hath passed by and said nothing to, is this: That Mr. Chilling-worth, See ch. 4. §. 18. and, since him, several Divines of the Church of England, (and among these Dr St.) in their denying Superiour Councils to have the just Authority of obliging their Subjects to the yielding of Assent to their Declarations, are constrained also to dis­claim such a Submission of Assent to the Articles of Religi­on, and Book of Common-Prayer passed in the National Sy­nods of the Church of England; Yet which Submission of Assent this Church hath formerly challenged in her Canons; and severely, even with Ecclesiastical Death, punished the Refusers untill they should repent (not their external disobedience or contradiction, but) their wicked errour: The 39. Articles being declared in the same 5th Canon— To have been by this Church agreed upon for the avoiding Diversities of Opinions, and the establishing of Consent touching true Religion. To which I add; that Consent touching true Religion is Consent, surely, touching matters of Faith: and again; that establishing of Consent is to be understood, amongst all the Members of the said Church, (all whom it concerns to be united and established in the true Religion), as well as amongst the Clergy. Therefore the Stile of the two Canons runs generally: Whoso shall hereafter affirm the Articles &c, in any thing erroneous: [Page 83]And the excommunicating of those, who will not abjure their holding Popery or Socinianisme (see Synod 1640. Can. 3. and 4.) is not of the Clergy, but any whatever. [Which may be confirmed also by the practice of the Synods of other Reformed Churches abroad proceeding to the excommunication of Dissenters from their Doctrine. To this purpose in the Ecclesiastical Discipline of the Reformed Churches of France the 31. Article of the 5th Chap­ter Du Consistoire runs thus— Si un ou plusieurs &c. If any one or more of the people shall raise any debate, to the breach of the Church's Ʋnity, concerning any point of Doctrine, the Form of the Catechism, Sacraments, Publick Service &c. [if matters cannot be otherwise composed, in the last place] a National Synod is to be assembled, which shall give them an hearing with all holy liberty; and in it shall be made a full and final Resolution by the Word of God, to which resoluti­on, if they refuse to acquiesce in every particular point, and with an express disavowing their errours recorded [now surely this disavow­ing their errours is assenting to the contrary truths] they shall be cut off from the Church. Here then is required a punctual assent to what the sentence of the Synod, not the persons convented, shall judge to be the sense of God's Word, as it is also there cautioned before; sans que la decision en appartienne a autrez qu' au Synode. And the same course is taken against the Remonstrants by the Sy­nod of Dort. See Acta Synod. Dordrecht. Sess. 138. — Synodus haec Dordrechtana, pro authoritate, quam ex Dei verbo in omnia Eccle­siarum suarum membra obtinet, in Christi nomine injungit omnibus & singulis in Foederato Belgio Ecclesiarum Pastoribus &c, ut hanc sacram veritatis salutaris doctrinam [viz. that delivered in the 91. Arti­cles concerning the five points in controversy] sinceram & invio­latam conservent, illam populo & juventuti fideliter proponant, & explicent &c. [which surely includes the requiring their assent to, and belief of, thesh Articles]; excommunicating the disobedient — donec per seriam resipiscentiam, dictis, factis, studiis contrariis comprobatam, Ecclesia satisfaciant, atque ad ejus communionem re­cipiantur. This I have added, to shew the same proceedings of other forreign Synods of the Reformed with these of England. To which now to return] Either in the forementioned expressions these English National Synods do excommunicate all those, who­ever affirm, any thing in the former Common-Prayer-Book to be repugnant to the Scriptures, (as all those must do, who affirm, the imposing, something there to be done or used in God's worship which he hath not commanded, to be a thing repugnant to the Scriptures) or who do affirm any thing in the 39 Articles to be erroneous; and then, what a number of persons are there [Page 84]at this present in this Kingdom of England that are excommunica­ted by the Church of England? Or, if no consent to her Articles is required in general of all her Subjects, what an indulgence is here for variety of Sects, every one being left in matters touching true Religion to Liberty of Opinion? Yet, for the avoiding of which, this Church saith, she composed these Articles. This of the Doctors Passings-by in the Preface.

Pag. 76. l. 3. The Controversy in short is this; Whether Pro­testants who reject the Roman Church's Authority and Infallibility, can have any sufficient Foundation to build their faith upon? — There is no such Question proposed by N. O. And, if there had, it would have been proposed on this manner, in order especially to the Doctors 13th and 15th Principles; Whether a Protestant, in refu­sing the submission of his judgment to the Authority or Infallibili­ty of the Catholick Church in her Councils, can have, in several Articles of Necessary Faith, wherein the sense of Scriptures is controverted, as sure a foundation of his Faith, as he who sub­mits his judgment to the foresaid Authority, or also Infal­libility?

Ibid. l, 11. Those of the Church of Rome charge us; That we can have no certainty of our faith as Christians without their In­fallibility. The Certainty pretended by this Author in his Princi­ples, and opposed by N. O. is such a Certainty, from the Clear­ness of the Sense of Scriptures in all points of necessary Faith to every person, as that no person whatsoever, what useth his best en­deavour (I suppose he means such endeavour as consists with his Vocation), to understand them, can mistake therein. And this is denied by Catholicks, and sufficiently confuted by Experi­ence.

Ib. l. (9.) The occasion was my Adversaries calling for Grounds and Principles, &c. This account that follows nor con­cerning N. O; and, those worthy Persons, whom the Doctor op­poseth, being much better able to return an answer for them­selves, if perhaps they think this worth their pains, I shall pass on to p. 79.

Annotations on § 2. Of the Notion of Infallibility.

PAge 79. l. ult. Sometimes they apply Infallibility to the Object that is believed. And hath not our Author used this language of an Objective Infallibility himself in his 20th Principle, where he saith— Assent doth not depend upon the objective infallibility of any thing without us? Whereby it appears, himself hath a share in the Jargon. And what thinks he of that of his Archbishop Lawd? p. 125. — We must distinguish of Infallibility. For first a thing may be presented as an infallible object of belief; when it is true and remains so, &c. Doth not this make the Arch-bishop also one of the Jugglers he talks of?

P. 80. l. (10.) Infallible is that which cannot be deceived, Now, if no one will say, that a Proposition cannot be deceived, it is absurd to say; That it is infallibly true. Infallible is that which cannot be deceived. I add, or, as applyed to things, is that, wherein we cannot be deceived: and so may Propositions be infallible. And is it then such a great absurdity to say; This proposition, Homo est an [...]mal, is infallibly true? Doth not himself say: the Scriptures are writings infallible? See his Princ. 12. And is not this, [...]re infal­libly true?

N. 1 P. 84. l. ult. And being deceived—In these two or three leaves the Dr hath been [...]a [...]ing and fixing (as he saith) the Notion of Infallibility (where leaving the study of his notions to the un­der [...]tanding Reader) I shall only add these notes after it, (though the same hath been said already by N. O. and not taken notice of,) if they may serve to remedy any of his scruples and difficulties found herein.

N. 2 1. That a Christian hath always for the Object of his Faith, and that whereon it formally relies and finally rests, Divine Reve­lation, or God's own Word. Which Word of God is most abso­lutely infallible: and so to which as infallible (after whatever manner declared to him) the believer may most firmly adhere.

N. 3 2ly. That such things, as are proposed to him for Divine Revelation or God's Word, are so indeed (and among the rest, that of Church-Infallibility as assisted by the Holy Ghost, and the Canon of Scripture, both here believed infallible), the Believer is, or may be, antecedently, as to these, sufficiently assured from the Tradition thus commonly discribed, viz. the Testimony of a multitude in all ages of illustrious Persons qualified with the ma­ny Motives of Credibility, their Wisdome, Sanctity, Martyrdomes, [Page 86]their being honoured with Miracles, relating things contrary to carnal appetites and their secular-interests, unanimous consent in so many ages &c, which Tradition carries a sufficient self-evidence in it: And that any further external and rational evidence of, or introductive to, his faith than that Certainty, whatever it be stiled, which this Tradition affords, no Christian needs to have, or also can have antecedently to all the Articles of his Faith, unless God to attest them should send a Voice from Heaven, or Miracles; and these so, as to be seen by every particular person. For, else, Tradition also must witness these Miracles to others. As likewise in the Apostle's dayes it is most credible, that the major part be­lieved upon Tradition, without seeing Miracles. As for the Certainty which such a Tradition yields us, if it be urged, that it is not such, as the Christian Faith necessarily requires for the suf­fering all manner of deaths and Martyrdomes in attestation of the truth thereof, namely an assurance or certainty cui non potest subesse falsum, as this is taken in the most rigid sense; we may here con­sider, that neither such would our certainty be, if we all had it, like to that of S. Thomas [quia vidisti credidisti], and belie­ved only that which we first saw with our eyes. For, the Cer­tainty of our Senses (even when all things naturally required to a true sensation are present, and where no Divine Revelation dis­covers to us their mis-apprehension or mis-arguing collection, as it hath in the Angles their coming to Sodom) is not such, cui non potest subesse falsum, if taken in the highest sense. For, if not by the ordinary power of Angels (God's permission supposed), yet by the supernatural effects of the Divine Power all the senses of the whole world at once possibly may be deceived, either by thinking they see those colours, or other proper object of them which they do not; or, by collecting from these truly seen, som­thing to be joined with, or the subject of, them, that is not so. As the men of Sodom were, and all the world might have been, de­ceived in the sight of the truly- Angels their appearing as Men in their entring Sodom. Since then none desires or needs a greater evi­dence of his faith, for example, concerning our Lord crucified, or risen again, than Sense may afford us, or S. Thomas by his Sense had, consequently must we not say, either that an evidence cui potest subesse falsum, as this is taken in the strictest sense, is abundantly sufficient for a ground or Reason of faith; Or, that a ground of faith cui non potest subesse falsum ought not to be taken in any higher notion than it is verifiable of our Senses? And such a Ground is the Tradition we speak of; a ground cui non potest subesse falsum, considering the Nature of Man; which Nature in [Page 87]such a Tradition improved with such circumstances cannot have the least inclination or inducement to deliver or propagate to po­sterity so general an Ʋntruth.

N. 4 3ly. That an infallible assent is said, in a Divine Faith, to be yielded to Divine Revelation or Gods word, as well by Prote­stants, as Catholicks; See Archbishop Lawd p. 360. where he saith— That A. C. concludes well; that an infallible certainty is ne­cessary for that one faith which is necessary to salvation. And of that [faith, saith he] amost infallible certainty we have already in the Scripture, the Creeds &c: And again see p. 330. where he saith— I believe the entire Scripture infallibly, and by a Divine infallibility am sure of my object: and below— that he is infallibly assured of his Creed. So that, if hence any difficulties press the Catholicks in the Resolution of Faith, how they come to yield an infallible assent thereto, the same do the Protestants. Now by such infallible as­sent, asserted by both, I say, may either be meant,

N. 5 1. An Assent grounded on the Infallibility that the fore­named Tradition affords; being the greatest self-evident testi­mony of a thing past, as, of that which our Lord and his Apostles did, said, or writ, that can be had, except Miracles. [Of the infallibility of which Tradition thus the Archbishop p. 124. — A man may be assured, nay infallibly assured, by Ecclesiastical and Hu­mane proof. Men that never saw Rome may be sure and infallibly believe, that such a City there is by Historical and acquired faith. And in the next page— Certain it is (saith he) that by humane au­thority consent and proof a man may be assured infallibly, that Scrip­ture is the word of God.].

N. 6 2. Or, by infallible Assent is meant an Assent yielded to an Object that, as being Gods owne word, is believed to be most supremely Infallible and immutable. [As the Archbishops words seem to explain themselves where he saith— p. 86. That Faith is an evidence as well as knowledge; and the belief is firmer than any know­ledge can be, because it rests upon Divine authority, which cannot de­ceive. And so Dr Potter p. 199. — The assent of Faith is more certain (if it be possible) than that of Sense, or Science, or Demonstration, because it rests on Divine Authority which cannot possibly deceive. And, as some Catholicks also explain themselves; when they say that no Divine Faith without an infallible assent; i.e. an assent to an object that is most infallible, Gods Word; not without a Proponent or Expositor of the sense of this Word, where ambiguous, that is also really infallible. And thus, they say, the illiterate and vulgar sort among Catholicks are infallible in the assent they give to the Articles of their Faith, not formally, by an infallible knowledge or [Page 88]certainty that the thing, or person, they believe is so true or in­fallible; but materially, by their adherence to that which is a reall truth: who therefore, from the Object of their Faith, Gods Word, and the Proponent of the sense of it, where disputed, viz. the Church, being both infallible, are alwayes actually preserved from erring in their Faith, (though all such persons are not infal­libly certain either of the Object of their faith, that it is Gods Word; or, of the Proponent, that he is not liable to errour): whilst on the other side a Protestant having or believing no such certain and infallible Guide in the Sense of doubtful Scriptures, and following his own judgment in the interpretation of them, either actually errs in some part of his Faith, or casually hits right, and fluctuates to and fro; the same man, as he meets with several ar­guments, differing from himself, and one from another, in those matters, wherein all Subjects to the Church's Authority are agre­ed. To which purpose a late Adversary of the Doctor's perceiving him to mistake the meaning of Catholicks in the former proposi­tion, explains himself in Errour Non-plust, p. 133. 139. 143. &c. the same Author mean while affirming; that all Catholicks may be, and that the learned are, formally infallible in their assent to the object of their faith: i.e. have an infallible certainty of the Infalli­bility both of the Scripture and the Proponent thereof; viz. from Tradition; the evidence of which Tradition is accounted by him to be impossible to be false, but so also it is (as to this Author's sense of impossible) by Archbishop Lawd p. 124. but now cited. And perhaps, Infallible Assent thus taken by Catholicks in a various sense occasions the Dr's apprehending in them contradictions.]

N. 7 3 Or, by this infallible Assent may be meant an Assent in respect of the Subject having a Certitude of Adhesion to the matters believed exceeding that to a Science, according to that of Bi [...]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 la [...]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 [Page 89]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 mo [...]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 [Page 90]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 more subject to mis­interpretations; and where, for the thorow studying the one or the other, the vocations and employments of most Christians ad­mit not a competent vacancy. 5 Lastly, the Questions that tend to void Church-Infallibility from the sufficiency of Tradition may as well serve for rendring useless the Infallibility of Scripture on the same account: and the same Question that demands, Why the Church is believed more infallible than Tradition, which Church-Infallibility is proved only by Tradition, may as well be put concerning the Scriptures; Why these held more infallible than Tradition, the strongest proof of which Infallibility of Scriptures among Protestants is from it.

Annotations on his §. 3. of N.O's Concessions.

PAge 85. l. 14. N.O. yields, That there is no necessity at all of In­fallibility under natural Religion. ¹ There are no words so put together in the Doctor's 2d and 3d Principle conceded by N.O: but by taking his own Principles in what sense he pleaseth he may represent N.O's Concessions of them what he pleaseth. 2 If by what he saith N.O. yields he means this (see his p. 86. l. 5.) That we may have a sufficient certainty of some Principles in Religion, without, or antecedently to, the Infallibility of the Church, as it is assisted by Gods Spirit first known to us, it is willingly granted him. But, meanwhile, from the Beginning, besides the Law of Nature teaching in general the Worship of a God, there were al­so Positive Divine Laws concerning his Service conserved in that Body which constituted his Visible Church. So we finde early in G [...]nesis, mention of Sacrifice, Firstlings, Holocausts, Peace-offer­ings, clean and unclean beasts, birds in Sacrifice not divided, not eating the bloud; mention of Holy Times, Places, Persons, Priests, Prophets; of Tithes paid to the Priest, Purifyings, Cleansings, chan­ging their garments, Vows; Prohibition of Polygamy (as we may gather from Matt. 16.4, 8.) of contracting Marriages with un­believers, as may be gathered from Gen. 6.2, compared with 1. Excommunication or expulsion out of the Church, as we may gather from Gen. 4.12, 14, 16. And these Laws we may presume were received from an infallible external Proponent; and were pre­served by the Ecclesiastical Superiours and Teachers of these laws in such a manner as those delivered since: and for the certainty of Religion, there seems an infallibility in these as necessary, if not more, for solving the great doubts arising therein before, as after, the times of a Written Law. These laws and statutes are made mention of, Gen. 26.5. when God promised his blessing upon I­saac and his seed; because that Abraham had obeyed his voice and kept his Precepts and Commandments, observed his Ceremonies and Laws: Whose Service had been performed more publickly and solemnly from the times of Enos Gen. 4.26., and after that the days of A­dam were half run out. And of these Positive Laws, and the Tra­dition of them, and of these Ecclesiastical Superiors, thus S. Atha­nasius De Synod. Nicen. De­cretis., — Quae Moses docuit eadem ab Abrahamo observata sunt; quae porrò Abraham observavit eadem Noe & Enoch agnoverunt—Abel quoque hujus rei testis habendus est, qui ea, quae ab Adam perceperat, Deo obtulit; Adam autem Magisterio Dei instru­ctus fuit.

Pag. 86. l. 8. He yields, That Reason is to be Judge concern­ing Divine Revelation. i. e. as I understand him, Judge, whe­ther that which is pretended, be a true, Divine Revelation: or, if such, Judge again, what is the true Sense of it. To this I say; 1. That, whereas He collects this from N.O's granting his 4th Prin­ciple, there is no mention at all of Reason in this 4th Principle, from which this Author deduceth such a Concession. 2. That N.O. up­on the Dr's 5th. Principle, hath delivered the just contrary to this Concession imposed upon him, in these very words Consid. p. 6. — Here, if the Dr means, that every Christian hath a faculty in him, which as to all Revelations whatsoever proposed to him can discern the true and Divine from others that are not so; and, when a Revelation cer­tainly Divine is capable of several senses, can discern the true sense from the false, and all this exclusively to, and independently on, the instruction of Church-Authority: This Proposition is not true. For then, none will need, (as experience shews they do) to repair to any other Teacher for instructing him in a dubious Revelation, or the sense of any Divine Revelation controverted, which is the true, Revelati­on; or which is the Sense of it. 3. Yet however, this shall be granted him in relation to that Principle, that nothing ought to be admitted for Divine Revelation which overthrows the certainty of, or is contradictory to, true Reason. But, if the Revelation be of somthing above Reason, Reason may be no fit Judge of it.

Ibid. l. (12) He yields, That the will of God may be suffici­ently declared to men by writing. This and the following Con­cession That the written will of God doth contain all things simply ne­cessary to Salvation I have re-considered, and [...]nd no advantage to our Author's cause from N.O's yielding them.

Pag. 87 l. (9.). But he quarrels &c. Whether the Dr's consequence Princip. 21. drawn by him from what was said Princip. 20. be well deduced, or no (which is called N.O's quarrel here) I appeal to any judicious Reader, reviewing these Principles af­ter this our Author's defence.

Pag. 88. l. 11. As for instance, that the Church is infallible, is in the first place to be believed upon their principles. Their Prin­ciples affirm no such thing &c. See N.O. Consid. pag. 37. saying the contrary, in these words— A Christians faith may begin ei­ther at the infallible Authority of Scriptures, or of the Church: and this infallible Authority of either of these be learnt from Tradition, and that of the other from it.

Ibid. l. (10.) The Ground on which a Necessity of some ex­ternal infallible Proponent is asserted must rather make every particu­lar person infallible, If no divine faith can be without an infallible [Page 93]assent; and sorenders any other Infallibility useless. Any in­fallible assent, necessary to the right believing this Artiele of our faith the Church's Infallibility, more than that which Tradition affords, N.O. affirms not. See what the Dr puts in the next page for N.O's 6th Concession. As for the Dr's arguing here; The ground on which &c, it is not good. For, every particular person's being, antecedently, infallibly assured, i.e. by Tradition, of this particular point of faith that the Church is Infallible, renders not at all the Church's Infallibility useless as to the same person his being assured of several other points of faith only by the Church's Infallibility, which (according as the person's condition needs in­struction) may both ascertain him of many more points of Faith, and more clearly ascertain them to him than Tradition doth.

Ibid. l. (3.) Our only Question is about Infallibility, whe­ther that be necessary or no? Writing thus 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 [Page 94]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 [...]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 Ʋniversal 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 je [...]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 [Page 95]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 evid [...]nce, as, if I question it, I may, upon equal grounds, question every thing which mankind yields the firmest assent to, because I cannot imagine, that so great a part of the wisest, and most conside­rative part of the world should be so grosly deceived in a matter of such moment (especially supposing a Divine Providence) then I freely and heartily assert, We have such a kind of rational infallibility; or ra­ther the highest degree of actual certainty concerning the truth of the Canon of Scripture; and that the Catholick Church hath not de facto erred in defining it. But, without all this defence, our Author knowing N.O's meaning, what needs he quarrel about his words, unless it were to gain this poor victory, that N.O. hath in som­thing spoken improperly? But one material thing here may be observed by the Reader; that this moral Infallibility, where mentioned by N.O. is always applied to the said Traditi­on viz. the Testimony of so great a multicude of learned and pious men: but never to Church Infallibility as a Body assisted with the Holy Ghost; which Church is always believed not non-morally on­ly, [Page 96]but non-possibly, fallible; as also other Articles of the Christian Faith are, as being all Divine Revelations: but these certainly known or proved, by a rational evidence, to be Divine Revela­tions, only from Tradition. And Lastly that N.O. in his applying Moral Infallibility to Tradition, leaving every one to express it otherwise, adds; or, whatever certainty that may be called, which Tradition affords. Consi. p. 56.

Pag. 91. l. 6. This were well enough, If in the precedent page he had not said &c. An infallible assent in the former page, and a morally-Infallible assent, whereby in the latter it is explained, do not contradict.

Ib. l. 7. Had not said, That a particular person may be in­fallible in his assent. That is, sufficiently infallible, as N.O. explains himself afterward, and the Dr confesseth it.

Ib. l. 14. I would fain understand, if the Evidence be only sufficiently or morally infallible, How the assent which is built upon it comes to be more than so. Any assent that is built only upon a sufficiently or morally infallible evidence never comes to be more than so. Assensus cognoscitious non excedit Certitudinem Principii, quo nititur. See Note on p. 84. l. ult. n. 2.

Ib. l. 17. Late Writers of their Church are perplexed about this word Infallibility. Our Author frames to himself strange Chimera's of Infallibility, notwithstanding the pains taken by Catholicks to undeceive him and others therein: whenas the Infallibility maintained by Catholicks is only that of the Church Catholick in a General Council in the defining of necessaries. For the proving of which Infallibility, they urge the Practice of former General Councils (approved by the whole Catholick Church), defining such points; and putting them into the Creeds; and ana­thematizing any Dissenters. Behold now this terrible monster of Infallibility, which this Author saith— Mr Cr. and other late Roman Writers retain like a wolf by the ears, cannot tell how to hold it, and are affraid to let it go; and N.O. at last quitting the thing contents himself with the sound of it. And yet a few pages hence p. 95. the Dr tells you, that the first Principle N.O. sets up in op­position to his, is this Infallibility viz. That God hath given an infallible assistance to the Guides of the Church in all ages of it, for the direction of those who live in it.

Ib. l. (10.) Loth to part with the sound of Infallibility. See Note on p. 90. l. (5).

Ib. l. (6.) He yields, that moral certainty is a sufficient foundation for Faith. Such terms neither occur in the Dr's 27th Proposition, here referred to as conceded by N.O. nor in any [Page 97]words of N.O. nor any thing equivalent to them, without some qualifications annexed. The proper Foundation of a Christi­an's Faith, or that on which it mainly relies is Gods word, or Di­vine Revelation. But, if it be asked concerning the rational Cer­tainty that Christians have, or may have, that such as they believe to be, truly are, Divine Revelations, this is affirmed to be the Certainty, which the Tradition so often forementioned affords: call this Certainty by what name any one will. This Tradition, as the Reader may find in the Dr's next page, is said by N.O. (for which citation N.O. is obliged to the Dr that his Reader may sometimes at least find N.O.'s tenents in his own words) to be the first rational introductive of our Faith. And is so acknow­ledged not only by N.O. but generally I think by the whole Chri­stian world, at least by all Catholick Controvertists. And yet our Author gazeth upon it as a new coined Position; and frequently also calls it yielding the cause. It is necessary to mistake or mis­represent the Catholicks Tenents, thus to have somthing to say against them.

Pag. 93. l. (11.) By which he fairly gives up the cause of Infallibility, as to the necessity of it in order to faith. I ask, of what Infallibility? Church-Infallibility? N.O.'s next words fol­lowing those quoted here by the Dr out of p. 67. are these— But, notwithstanding this, Christians may be deficient in a right belief of several necessary Articles of this Christian Faith, if destitute of that External Infallible Guide therein. And the perpetual Divine As­sistance, and so Infallibility, in necessaries, of this Guide being de­clared in the Scriptures, a Catholick having once learnt this point of Faith, from its definitions and expositions becomes secure and settled in the belief of all those controverted Articles of his faith, wherein others, steered only by themselves, do fluctuate, totter and vary one from another, whilst the Scriptures in such points (at least to persons unlearned or of weaker judgments, which are the greatest part of Christians) are ambiguous in their sense, and drawn with much art to several Interests. See before Note on p. 84. l. ult. n 4. And I ask, Will it follow from Dr St's holding a moral certainty of Traditi­on to be a sufficient introductive to believing the Canon, or In­fallibility, of Scriptures, that he therefore gives up the Canon or the Infallibility of Scripture, as to any necessity of it in order to matters of faith? If not; neither doth N.O. give up Church-Infal­libility. Or means he, gives up the cause of an absolute Infallibility its being necessary ex parte subjecti to the having a right faith? N.O. doth so; yields it up, as not being the Catholicks cause, and stands to it: but so doth he also yield up this of a moral infallibility ex parte [Page 98]subjecti its being necessary to every one for having a right faith.

Pag. 94. l. (12.) I desire N.O. and E.W. to agree better, &c. Perhaps what is said before in Note on p. 84. n. 3. may satisfy our Author in this matter. If not, the Reverend Per­son E.W. (if it be though fit) is able to give a much better ac­count of himself, than N.O, to whom therefore with all respect he leaves it. But this I say (and let the Reader judge) that, if this Author gives no fairer account of E.W's propositions, than he doth of N.O's, his Reader hath little reason to credit other mens Positions upon his Relation: who, by his first changing N.O's notions, and then confuting them, puts him to the trouble of these reflections.

Ib. l. (6.) N.O. here makes moral certainty a sufficient ground for Divine Faith. See Note on p. 91. l. (6.)

Pag. 95. l. 11. By these Concessions it appears that the Cause of Infallibility is clearly given up, &c. No. See Note on p. 93. l. (11.)

Annotations on his §. 4. Touching N.O's Principles,

PAg. 95. l. (4.) The Doctor represents N.O.'s Principles thus. 1. That God hath given an infallible assistance to the Guides of the Church in all ages of it, for the direction of those who live in it. Add here, as to all Necessaries. For, it is thus frequently limited by N.O; but such limitation every where omitted by Dr St.

Pag. 96. l. 1.2. That without this infallible assistance there can be no certainty of the sense of Scripture. No certainty; add, as to all Christians: many of whom are unlearned, yong, or of small capacity. Of the sense of Scripture; add, as to several points of faith Necessary; not, as to all. For N.O. doth not deny the sense of Scripture as to several points of faith clear enough, and amongst rational men not disputed. Adde, I say, these; and N.O. will own the Proposition.

Ibid l. 3.3. That all the arguments which overthrow the Church's Infallibility do destroy the Church's Authority. There is no such thing said by N.O. Nay; the contrary is often said by him: that, Church-Infallibility being destroyed, yet the Church's Authority, though fallible, may upon many reasons justly chal­lenge submission of judgement to her Decrees from her Subjects. [Page 99]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 [...]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 [Page 100]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 th [...] 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 [Page 102]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 its 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 [Page 103]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) sh [...]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 id [...] and needless busying himself, improving that which we most willingly [Page 104]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, bo [...] 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 [...]l [...]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] oth [...]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 [Page 105]— 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 mu [...] first know its doctrines to be true (which is one of the essential Notes he gives to distinguish i [...] 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 l [...]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 [Page 106]Company of Holy O [...], 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 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. Ʋpon 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 [Page 107] 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, [Page 108]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 [Page 109]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 [preser [...]ing the Apostles Rules Traditions and Doctrines], and Ʋna [ 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 S [...]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 Ʋnity 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 Ʋnity 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 su [...] 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 warran [...] and secure such a sense against all contradiction, Therefore N. O. [Page 111]p. 57. tells the Dr, that Catholicks are not necessitated, in arguing against Protestants, who grant the Scriptures to be Gods word, to use any other Testimony than that of these Scriptures for a suf­ficiently clear proof of Church-infallibility. For that he may safely call this a clear proof, even according to the Dr's common reason of Mankind, which by the most of the Christian world is taken to be so, notwithstanding that a Party, engaged by their Reformation in an apparent contrary interest, do contradict it. [And indeed, if we look after the fact it self and the fulfilling of such a sense of them as applied to S. Peters Successor, and to the Roman & other Churches united to it, the Dr I think grants, that these Churches or their Prelats assembled in their most General Councils, from the Apostles days to the present de facto never have erred in points Necessary to the Being of a Church. Of which see what is said in the former Discourse §. 53. and the places cited out of him in Note on p. 75. l. 5. N. 8. And he seems necessitated thereto for the reason given before Ibid. N. 7. Now, if this Being of a true Church or a member of the Catholick be stated as it ought, or as Dr Field l. 2. c. 2. and l. 4. c. 2. hath stated it, it must be affirmed that these Churches, being allowed members of the Catholick, have hitherto never fallen into any Heresy.]

N. 5 This Plea of N. O. I desire may be applied by the Reader to the Dr's Discourse, so often as he questions such a sense of these Scriptures and Promises of our Lord, or such a Tradition, and that the Reader would well examine, what satisfaction he finds from the Answers the Dr hath here returned to it. Which former practice of Church and Councils, if once allowed, Chillingwor [...]h p. 200. saw pressed so far for Church-Infallibility, and a proportionable Obedience to it, that, as N. O. hath observed in his Preface, he plainly declares— That what warrant the Fathers of the Church in after times to the Apostles, had to oblige others to receive their Declarations under pain of damnation [which they did] he knew not: and that he that can shew either that the C [...]urch of all a­ges was to have this authority, or that it continued in the Church for some ages and then expired [this, because some Protestants, amongst whom this Dr, would willingly submit to four or five of the first Councils, for which yet Chillingworth could see no just reason why such Post-Apostolick Authority for some time admitted should not be so always], he that can shew either of these things (saith he) let him; for my part I cannot. [He goes on] Yet I wil­lingly confess the Judgment of a Council, though not infallible, yet so far directive and obliging, that, without apparent reas [...]n to the contra­ry, it may be sin to reject it, at least not to afford is an outward sub­mission [Page 112]for publick peace sake. Where the words though not infalli­ble shew that he held, the practice of former Councils, disallow­ed by him, clearly inferred Infallibility; the thing N. O. urgeth.

Mean while, whatever satisfaction he may find for either opinion here debated, the Reader may observe; that, both from Scripture and Tradition N. O. contends for the Infallibility of Ge­neral Councils in Necessaries, and accordingly requires Submis­sion of judgment to their Definitions; the Dr opposeth it: and the Reader hath also just cause to think there is some reason and interest in the two Religions, of N. O. and of Dr St. and Mr Chil­lingworth, for this defence made by the one, and Opposition by the other: and lastly any plebeian may discern, what are the two necessary effects, of the submission of private mens judgments to General Councils, as such; or withdrawing it from them, as not such: viz. Ʋnity, and Division.

Pag. 113. l. 19. How easily might all the contentions of the Christian world have been prevented, if Christ had said, &c. We must not prescribe to God, but humbly leave to him the way, how he shall be pleased to manife [...]t his Will to us, (sure to be, one way or other sufficiently made known), by the clearness of his Scriptures, 1 Cor. 11.19 or expositions of his Church. For also— Oportet esse hae­reses, ut qui probati sum, manifesti fiant. Would not the Creed of Pius 4. or the 39. Articles of the Church of England, delivered by our Lord or his Apostles have prevented many Controversies now extant? See in the former Discourse §. 1.

Pag. 115. l. 5 If this point [viz. of an infallible Judge] be not clearly proved, we are never the nearer an end of controversies &c. Yes. If such an unappealable Judge be proved, as none may oppose, or reform against.

Ib. l. 18. Let them if they can produce one clear Text &c. I referr to the Texts forementioned Note on p. 113. l. 14. numb. 4., interpreted by the common practice of Councils, and of the Church in all ages, grounded upon the traditive understanding them in such a s [...]nse.

Annotations on his §. 7. The Arguments from Scripture for Infallibility.

PAg. 116. l. 1. When I came thus prepared to find wh [...]t the Consi­derator would produce in a matter of such consequence, I so [...]n dis­cerned, how little mind he had &c. N. O. [...]s not obliged to say every thing in every place. This Author will needs transform. [Page 113] N. O's brief Considerations on his Principles into a set Discourse of Infallibility, and then shew its Defectiveness, as such. One would think, if he had not the reputation of a learned man, done on pur­pose to divert his Reader from any other matters that are debated there by N. O, and to release himself from prosecuting the ne­cessary vindication of his own Principles from the several deficien­cies charged on them, in the Considerations.

Ib. l. 10. But however, this [Deut 17.10.] is thought so considerable as to be twice produced. Upon our Authors men­tioning the clearness of Gods Law given to Moses, N. O. menti­oned these Judges also appointed to expound it: and the one is twice repeated, because the other twice urged.

Ib. l. 13. It is so unlucky, as it proves the Judges in West­minster Hall to be infallible. Of this Comparison of the Sanhedrim to the Judges in Westminster Hall, and how the great causes between Church and Church are fit to be handled there, See his E­pist. Dedica­tory. let our Author, if he can, give a just account. These Judges were appointed by God to decide the true Sense of the Law not of Prin­ces, but of God, given to Moses; and all persons obliged to ac­quiesce in the sense they gave of it; and to do and forbear to practise as they (fallible, or infallible) stated such matter to be commanded or prohibited by it; and that upon pain of death. This Obedience let Protestants yield to lawful General Councils; more is not desired.

Ib. l. (11) Doth this imply infallibility? No, that he dares not stand to, but absolute obedience. I think the Dr grants here, the people yielded absolute obedience to these Judges: i.e, I suppose, assent to their sentence, deciding to them what was the true sense of Gods Law; which is all N. O. presseth (and indeed, unless they first yielding this, the people could not lawfully act whatever these Judges commanded). Do the people then the same to the Judges in Westminster? i.e. hold themselves obliged to do whatever these tell them is lawful, or commanded, I mean by God's law? Let him review here what he hath said in his Ratio­nal Account, if he pleaseth, p. 239. to the contrary; allowing an obligation to submission or acquiescence, but not an obligation in conscience: and, if he please too, that which Mr Chillingworth c. 2. §. 17. hath observed of the difference between a Civil and Ecclesiastical Judge: Viz. that in civil controversies we are obliged only to external passive obedience, and not to an internal and active. We are bound to obey the sentence of the Judge, or not to resist it; but not always to be­lieve it just. But in matters of Religion such a Judge is required, whom we should be obliged to believe to have judged right. So that in [Page 114]civil controversies every honest understanding man is fit to be a Judge; but in Religion none but he that is infallible [at least in all necessary matters]. Thus he.

Ib. l. (9). Which absolute obedience we are ready to yield, when we see the like absolute command for Ecclesiastical Judges of con­troversies of Religion, as there was among the Jews for their Supreme Judges in matters of law. What thinks he of our Lords Dic Ecclesiae—and— Si Ecclesiam non audierit, sit tibi sicut Ethnicus &c, in the sense wherein Church-Tradition hath understood this Text as applied to the highest Courts of the Church, and to their cutting off by a spiritual death the disobedient, whether contra­dicters, or dissenters? Is there more injustice and tyranny in this, than inflicting a corporal death on the dissenters or contradicters, under Moses his law? This Discourse of the Dr, as also what he hath said of the same matter, Rat. Account. p. 239. I had occa­sion to examine in the former Discourse, §. 22. &c, to which I referr the Reader for what is here omitted.

Pag. 117. l. 7. Such a pretence, implying an infallible as­sistance of the Spirit of God, there were but two ways of proving it, either 1. By such Miracles as the Apostles wrought to attest their In­fallibility; or 2. By those Scriptures, from whence this Infallibility is derived. What thinks he of a third way of proving it, viz. By Tradition? But then, If the Church-Guides give this evidence of their being infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost in necessaries, namely the clear Testimony of the Scriptures, I ask, is not this sufficient for the world to credit them to be so, without their do­ing Miracles? Doth not this Author, of the two ways to prove it named just before, allow either of them sufficient? Now see this latter proved before in Note on p. 113. l. 17. and so I hope we may peaceably take leave of Miracles.

Pag. 118. l. 2. When I speak of infallibility in fundamentals, I there declare that I mean no more by it, than that there shall be al­ways a number of true Christians in the world. Now, whence learns he this, that true Christians shall never faile? I suppose, whence other Protestants do: viz. from the Promise of our Lord in Scripture, that the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against his Church. See Archbishop Lawd p. 140.— That the whole Church (saith he) cannot err in doctrines absolutely fundamental seems to me to be clear by the promise of Christ Mat. 16. That the gates of hell &c. [And it is as clear, that the Arch-bishop meant it not only of a number of true Christians, as our Author doth here; but, of true Pastors also and Doctors of the Church.] If this Promise then be enough for believing of this, the non-failing of Christians that [Page 115]shall believe all necessary truth without Miracles; will it not, supposing such a promise made to them, be as sufficient for be­lieving the other, the indefectibility of the Church-Guides as to teaching all necessary faith, without their doing Miracles?

Ib. l. 16. But, in case any persons challenge an infallibility to themselves antecedently to the belief of Scriptures &c, such persons are equally bound to prove their infallibility by Miracles as the A­postles were. What if they challenge this Infallibility like wise from the Scriptures; as most certainly they do? This latter challenge of theirs, surely, will supersede Miracles. But let us suppose no such challenge. What thinks he, if they produce the evidence of Tradition for their Infallibility antecedently to Scrip­ture, as also they do? Is not this (we here suppose there is such a Tradition, which is proved before Note on p. 113. l. 14.) a sufficiently clear and self-evident proof of it? If not of their Infallibility; how then is the same Tradition, without Miracles, a sufficient proof to Prote­stants of the Canon or Infallibility of Scriptures? Suppose the same promises made & no Scriptures written, would not the Catholick Church have been, what it is? and, must it then have perpetu­ally-shewn Miracles, or no Infallibility as to Necessaries have been believed in it?

Ib. l. (7) The Sum of which is &c. In the Dr's sum­ing of N.O's Answers still somthing is lost: as here, the Reason is omitted, why no such need of Miracles to be done by the Church-Governours, delivering only from age to age that Doctrine, which by the first Teachers was sufficiently confirmed by Mira­cles: viz. this, the Evidence of Tradition, which, received from the Apostles and from their Ancestors, they unanimously convey unto Posterity. Yet such Miracles were necessary then to more persons than those Apostles who made the very first Sermons concerning the Gospel; because the bare Tradition of a few at the first was not so evidently credible, as that which by many Sermons made, and Miracles done, in many places, afterward became Ʋni­versal.

Pag. 119. l. 12. The necessity of Miracles was to give a suf­ficient motive to believe to all those to whom the Gospel was proposed.

Must all then, in the Apostles times, who received the faith see their Miracles? Or, if their Miracles, only related to them by a creditable Tradition, would serve the turn, why not the same Miracles related, now?

Pag. 120. l. 1. Those persons ought to confirm that authority by Miracles, as the Apostles did. And again l. 20. See Note on p. 118. l. 11.

N. 1 Ibid. l. (11.) Yet he is very loth to let go the Miracles of their Church done in latter times as well as formerly. N.O. See Con­sid. p. 29.. is loth to let go the Miracles of their Church: i.e. of the Catholick Church, East or West, (for both have been noted for Miracles). In latter times: i.e. from the Apostles daies to the present: there being the same evidences, in all ages, of the facts (I say not, of all the facts that are related, but of many of them, which is suffici­ent); and the same Reasons, where and when the World is alrea­dy Christian, in all times for the doing of them. N.O. loth to let them go; not as to this, his affirming a Necessity of them now in the Church for the believing of its Infallibility, or any other part of the Christian Doctrine; or also, for the Conversion of the yet Infidel and Heathen Nations after such a plenitude of Tradition appearing in the greatest part of the world already subdued by the Gospel: Of which non-necessity. N.O. saith Princ. Consid. p. 29. — That Miracles, having been wrought by the Apostles in confirmation of that Doctrine, which their Successors deliver from them, are not now alike necessary to, or reasonably demanded of, these their Successors.

N. 2 But he is very loth, notwithstanding this, to part with true Miracles still wrought in the Church since the Apostles times: and these too of the very same kinds, as were some of those at least, that were done by the Apostles, and our Lord him­self: viz. by which Devils have been cast out, the blinde received their sight, lame have walked, lepers, been cleansed, deaf heard, Dead been raised up: And this for many good ends, though the Conversion of Infidels or Atheists, (that in all times, more or fewer, ly hidden within the Church of God) be not num­bred amongst them. As, for the Confirmation of the Catholick Faith against Hereticks and Schismaticks; Or, for attestation of the Sanctity of those who work such Miracles, for others imitation of their mortifications and vertues: or for the more visible testi­mony of Gods Presence in the Church, and the encouragement of Prayer to him, and Faith in him, and expecting help from him in all manner of occurrences and necessities, and the like. And, for a proof of the Continuance of such Miracles still in the Church, even when and where Christianity already was firmly rooted and established, N.O. made choice, for an Instance, of that Relation in S. Austin De Civ. Dei lib. 22. cap. 8. of the very many true Mira­racles in these kinds he himself had known and seen in his own days and Diocess. Of which he there saith— Si miracula sanita­tum, ut alia taccam, ea tantummodo velim scribere, quae per hunc Martyrem id est, gloriosissimum Stephanum, facta sunt in Coloniâ Calamensi & in nostrâ, plurimi conficiendi sunt libri. And— Non­dum [Page 117]est biennium, ex quo apud Hipponem Regium caepit esse ista me­moria, & multis, quod nobis certissimum est, non datis libellis, de ijs quae mirabiliter facta sunt, illi ipsi qui dati sunt ad septuaginta fermè numerum pervenerant, quando ista conscripsi; Calamae verò, ubi & ipsa memoria prius esse caepit & crebrius dantur, incredibili multitudi­ne superant. Ʋzalietiam, quae Colonia Ʋticae vicina est, multa prae­clara per eundem Martyrem facta cognovimus. Many of which Miracles were of the same kinds as those done by our Lord and his Apostles; many Blind restored to sight besides him at Millain; the Infirm in all sorts of inveterate and irrecoverable diseases miraculously cured; evil Spirits ejected both out of Per­sons, and Houses; and many Dead also restored to life; the Father mentions of these last some six, or seven. Which Miracles he hath collected in that Chapter, being first clearly evidenced to him; and of which he caused to be drawn up publick Bills or Records and Memorials to be recited to the people, imitated in this by the Church-Governors in latter times.— Id nam (que) fieri voluimus (saith he Ibid.) cùm videremus antiquis similia divinarum signa virtutum etiam nostris temporibus frequentari. [Where our Author See Dr St. 2. Disc. c. 3. of Miracles, p. 578. finds signa or [...], as well as [...]; and this long after Julian was destroy­ed; and where there were (some Hereticks perhaps, but) no Pa­gans to behold, or be converted by, them. Which Frequency of so great Miracles, within the compass of so small a time, if seemed convenient to the Dr in that Discourse p. 585. to pass over in silence, and to discover to his Reader no more than the cure of one blind man at Millan, a Cancer, a Fistula, and two shaking persons in Affrica: and then to conclude that S. Austin confesseth, they were neither for number nor quality to be compared with Christ's, and his Apostles.] N.O had reason, then, to be loth to part with Miracles in the Church for the times that followed the Apostles: and to be loth to part with them as well for the latter as the former times, if these Miracles equally evidenced in both: and especially also when there is no reason pretendable, after the Christian Religion for­merly planted in such Churches, for these done in the former, that doth not as well sute to the latter, ages.

N. 3 Neither ought the proving of several Miracles, whether Ancient, or Modern, to have been feigned (for, what gains credit is apt to be so), or also vain and ridiculous, (for; several, when feigned by the vulgar, are so), which also are both granted, and discovered, to be so by Catholicks, to sway any so much, as from thence to draw a Conclusion, either that none at all of latter times, related in Saint's Lives, or other Church-History, are true and suf­ficiently testified; or that, being true, they do not sufficiently [Page 118]serve the turn, which the rest that are falsified, for all the Ends forenamed. And thus only, it seems, could this Enquiry into Rom. Miracles. Author have writ­ten to the purpose in that long discourse of his, if he had shewed, none of the Miracles pretended in the Roman Church to have been sufficiently attested, or equally, to those of Antiquity, which he allows: or, none to have been of the same kind with our Lord's and his Apostles: and so not these where frequently done, to have manifestly, testified (as theirs did) the truth of the Religion that is in such a society professed: And, again, * if he had shewed the ma­ny Catholick Authors he cites, to have complained not of some, but a general falsification of the Miracles occurring in the Records of lat­ter times: I say, thus this Author had written something to the pur­pose. But here the mischief is, that all these Catholick Authors quo­ted by him do maintain a continuance of true Miracles, to some de­gree, and as to some persons, still in the Church: and as they in­veigh against the fraud and forgery of some, so stand up as much for the truth and certainty of others; and, out of their affection to the credit of the one, do so much endeavour to sever from them, and crush, and suppress, the other.

Ib. l. (4.) All the Miracles pretended among them signify nothing to our present purpose; unless these miracles give evidence of the authority, and infallibility, of those, by whom they were done. Here I say; First, that there is no necessity of evidencing now the Church's Authority, or Infallibility by Miracles. 2ly, That true Mi­racles, I mean, such, as our Lord and his Apostles did, the giving sight to the blind, raising the dead, &c, especially if there be conside­red a like frequency and proof or evidence of them, are done only in the Catholick Church (where also the Frequency of them produceth that firm belief, by the satisfaction and conviction of many per­sons by some or other of these miracles, that are either seen by them, or by such as were present are confirmed to them, which be­lief some single Facts in other false Religions, that are rarely pre­tended to be done, and in some remote times, and so are destitute of any such evidence of attestation, or discovery of their truth, can­not effect). And that such Miracles as these are not done (for any end whatever) elswhere by Heathens, or by Hereticks. For, if such Miracles, no way distinguishable or diversified from those of our Lord or his Apostles, were seen to be really done by false Re­ligions as well and as usually as in the Church Catholick, the End, wherefore done, would be a thing of the greatest uncertainty; and most easily mistaken, or misrelated: and, after the Clear evidence of such Miracles done there, this end would be represented by every Religion to their own advantage, as they pleased; and thus all Re­ligions [Page 119]would come to have an undiscernably equal Plea of their Confirmation by Miracles. Therefore in the Scripture we finde not the End, why the Miracle was done, chiefly insisted on or proved to the people, (Yet the clearing of which End, in such case of all Re­ligions doing the same True Miracles, were the thing the most ne­cessary) but the Fact; and from it presently gathered the Catho­lickness, and the Divine approbation, of the Person. See John. 9.16, 17, 30, 31, 33. Such and so well attested Miracles therefore as our Lord and his Apostles did I gather never have been, never shall be, done by any persons in false Religion, or that are no members of the Catholick Church. 3. And then, this granted, I may hence safely conclude also, that such Miracles do always evidence the Church wherein they are done to be the Catholick, and so that Church, to which our Lords Promises of Infallibility, as to all Ne­cessaries, do belong. Add to this; that, if any True Miracles can be shewn in the Roman Church, the Dr's words following seem to make good its Infallibility:— For (saith he p. 121. l. 1.) they would do well to shew, where, ever in Scripture God did bestow a gift of Miracles upon any, but for this end, [i.e. to give evidence of the Authority and Infallibility, those by whom they were done]; and what reason there is, that God should alter the method and course of his Providence, in a matter of so great concernment to the Faith of Mankind. So he. If then God never bestows a gift of Miracles for any other end, save this; then, if true Miracles such as our Lord's be proved, Infalli­bility also is proved, to be in the Roman Catholick Church.

But, to reflect on these words of his,—[ They would do well to shew, &c.], a litle further. If our Author means here, by the Miracle's shewing the infallibility of the Worker, such an In­fallibility as the Apostles had in delivering nothing by word or wri­ting but Gods word and the Dictates of the Holy Ghost, I can shew him in Scripture many, that were the Instruments of working mira­cles and had not this; as those Corinthians and others in the Apostles times, 1 Cor. 12.10, 28, 30. God bestowing this Gift on several others there, besides the Apostles, who had not an Apostolical In­fallibility. Of all which holy persons, whom God honours thus with Miracles, though it may be said, that, what such deliver for Gods Faith, certainly is so, (who otherwise would never be assisted with Miracles, [which are alwaies a seale of truth] if delivering falsityes as Divine truths); Yet it cannot be said of them as of the Apostles; that whatever they deliver is Gods Truth, whilst, in their delivering it, they do not pretend it so; as the Apostles did so pretend it; and therefore, upon doing Miracles, were to be be­lieved in such their pretension. But, if those whom God honours [Page 120]with miracles are to be believed in what they say, then cannot their Miracles be urged for an infallibility in all they shall teach or hold, who do themselves say and professe the contrary. Their Miracles con­firm and make good what they pretend to, but not more. I say then, if the Dr means here: That whoever have the gift of doing Mira­cles have likewise such an infallibility in all they say, as was in the Apostles, it holds not true. For, the Corinthians also had such a Gift who were not in such a manner infallible. But, if He means here, that none have had this Gift or done any such evident and fre­quent Miracles, but such only as have taught or held the infallible Catholick faith as to all the necessary points thereof; (the faith, I say, which being entirely delivered by the Apostles there is no further need of infallibility like to that of theirs, for conveying the same as it was received from them to posterity), I accord with him; and contend, that none to this day have had such Gift, save such Ortho­dox persons: No Pagans, no Hereticks: true Miracles such as our Lord and his Apostles did being distinctive signes that accompany and follow only true Believers according to our Lord's promise Mar. 16.17. for whatever Ends these Miracles happen to be be­stowed; as they may be for many, besides the Confirmation of the Catholick Faith. Therefore, where a Frequency of true Miracles is seen in any Communion, we may safely follow the profession of its Faith: God having provided, that his Catholick Church and true Miracles shall never be parted; i.e. that, where the latter are, there is the former. By True Miracles I mean such (though it needs not to be, all such) as our Lord and his Apostles did; and so clearly testified by Eye-Witnesses, as their's were or might be. And I ex­clude here all such effects, though miraculous to us, as evil Spirits, God permitting, have a power to effect by the instrumency and [...]pplication of some natural Agents, though this transcending any humane Art or Capacity. For, such miracles, I willingly grant both Magicians and also Hereticks and Schismaticks may operate by the assistance of these Angelical powers therein; either Voluntary, or also constrained as to the inferiour sort of these Spirits compelled thereto by their Superiours. But the former, such as our Lord and his Apostles wrought, surpassing all the power of Nature do also that of Evil Spirits, or of any their Instruments, & are by Christians easily distinguishable from these other.

Pag. 121. l. 7. Such Miracles as were wrought by Christ and his Apostles we defy all other Religions in the world to produce any like them, to confirm their Doctrine. i.e. As one may understand him; Neither Heathens, neither Heretical Churches can ever do any such Miracles as were wrought by our Lord and his Apostles, [Page 121]viz. give sight to the blind, cure the sick, raise again the dead, &c. From which it follows, that whatever Church doth such Miracles must be the Catholick; & from this, that such Miracles whereever they are found in any age, do shew the Church wherein they are done to be Infallible in Necessaries; for so the Catholick Church is. But, if here he puts in the last words [ to confirm their do­ctrine] as limiting the former, and carrying such a sense, that other Religions, beside the Catholick, may also do all such Miracles as our Lord and his Apostles did for some other ends; but not for this, viz. to confirm their doctrine, or Religion, I think he will have an hard task of it, either * to shew, that the Historians, that have related such miracles have not also applied them to the justi­fying of the Doctrine and Religion that such Heathen or Heretical Miracle-workers professed, and of the Honour of those Gods, they served [suppose those Miracles of Pythagoras or Aesculapius, or Apollonius Thyanaeus, or of the Arian or Donatist-Bishops; who urged them against S. Austin for a justification of their sect and orthodoxness of their doctrine]. Or, on the other side, * to shew; that those, who have related our Lord's and his Apostle's Miracles, have, to give these their just force and value, expressed alwaies that they were done to this end the Dr mentions here; and not to some other ends, from which consequently nothing could be concluded concerning the truth of their doctrine: Of which end of them therefore it concerned the world chiefly to be informed; not of the fact: Or * to shew, that our Lord or his Apostles alwaies clea­red this to be their end, to their Auditors and spectatours; which was in the first place necessary to be done. But the people we see, without examining this, argued the men to be from God from their beholding the Miracles done: And the Pharisees, not dream­ing of the necessity of such a circumstance, never offered to elude any of our Lords Miracles (as for example that done upon the blind man. Jo. 9.) alledging them to be done not in confirmation of his doctrine, but upon some other by-account, and so, as they might possibly be done also in a false Religion; and so his Doctrine to be rendred no way more creditable thereby.

Ib. l. 10 But such as the Church of Rome pretends, scarce any Religion in the world but hath pretended to the same. 1st Here, that the same Miracles are pretended by other Religions, that are by the Roman Church, will signify nothing, if they have not as good ground for, or proof of, what they pretend: Or, if those, which are not only pretended, but really done in the Roman, be only pretended in the other. 2ly. The Roman Church pre­tends many such, as the whole Catholick Church (if such a Church [Page 122]there was in being) did in many ages before Luther, and even all along from the Primitive times; as sufficiently appears in Ecole­siastical History. 3ly. These Miracles pretended both by the present Roman and by the Ancient Catholick Church were of the very same kind as those wrought by Christ and his Apostles; i.e. giving sight to the blinde, healing the sick, raising the dead, cast­ing out devils, Fiunt ergò nunc (saith S. Augustine) multa mira­cula, eodem Deo faciente per quos vult, & quemadmodum vult; qui & illa, quae legimus [in the Scriptures fecit De Civit. Dei, l. 22. c. 8. and which Miracles are such, as this Authour here seems to say can never be done by any other Religions than the true. 4ly, That such Miracles were not only pretended, but really done in the Church Catholick in the ancienter times, as in S. Austin's, this Authour I suppose will not deny, or also hath granted; See in his 2. Disc c. 3. p. 578.580. and then there seems no reason why he should deny the like in the Church of latter ages, or in the present, If there appear first, as no absolute necessity of these Miracles in latter times, so neither in S. Austin's 2ly, If there be the same ends and benefit of them still in these, as in his; viz. the greater manifestation of Gods Presence and Providence in his Church; the Honour he is pleased to do to his more extraordinary faithful Servants; the re­wards of a strong and unwavering Faith of obtaining what is asked for his better service, and greater glory; and lastly, that end men­tioned by S. Austin, our greater edification in the true faith. See De Cura pro Mort. c. 16. where he faith, that Miracles are done — Per Martyrum Memorias, quoniam hot novit expedire nobis ad adificandam fidem Christi, pro cujus illi confessione sunt paessi; 3ly. Where the Histories of latter times produce as evident and irrefra­gable testimonies of the truth of several of these Miracles done in them (which is sufficient,) as those in S. Austin's days had.

Ib. l. (7) Who all pretend to Miracles as well as the Church of Rome. Pretend as well; but, I hope, not so truly; nor 2ly so much: the pretences of Heathens or Hereticks to Miracles being no way comparable, for number, or greatness. to those pretended in the Church Catholick, or Roman. No more, than Simon Magus his are to those of the Apostles: and those few also, that are said to be done by the Heathens after the Apostles days, seem seigned, in emulation of the great reputation of those of Christians. But Pretences on any side signify nothing. The Catholick and the Ro­man Church require belief of Miracles not upon pretence, but a Rational Evidence.

Pag. 122. l. 15. But, he saith, a Christians faith may begin either at the infallible authority of Scriptures, or of the Church. i.e. [Page 123]That the first Article that a Christian believes, or that, in his learn­ing the Faith, is by his Parents or other instructers first made known to him, may be this, that the Scriptures are Gods word and infallible; or may be this, that the Church is Infallible: I add, or perhaps neither of these, but some other: As that God hath a Son; and that he became Incarnate for his sake, and the like. Any of which Articles such Christian may savingly and with a Divine faith believe, without being made infallibly certain thereof from some other formerly-known Divine Revelation, on which this Article may be grounded. As, for example, such person may, with a divine and saving faith, believe the Scriptures to be Gods word, before he believe the Church to be infallible that hath defined the Canon of Scripture: Or, believe the Church to be infallible, before he knows those Scriptures to be Gods Word, by which Cnhurch-In­fallibillity is proved.

Ib. l. 18. It seems then, there may be sufficient ground for a Christian faith, as to the Scriptures, without believing any thing of the Church's Infallibility; and for this we have reason to thank him, whatever they of his own Church think of it. Yes; there may so. A Christian, not as yet believing, the Infallibility of the Church as divinely assisted, may both believe, and have a sufficient ground of believing the Infallibility of Scripture, viz. the fore­mentioned Tradition. And, as Catholick Writers ordinarily state it, to whom the Dr owes his thanks, as well as to N. O, It is not necessary, that the first thing every Catholick believes, or is suffici­ently certain of, be Church-Infallibility. See the Catholick Au­thors cited in 3d Disc. of the Guide, §. 129. n. 4. &c.

Ib. l. (3). Nay he goes yet farther, and saith, That the Infallibility of Scriptures, as well as the Church, may be proved from its own testimony. And adds this Reason. For (saith he Princ. Consid. p. 37.) whoever is proved [i.e. by some other medium] or granted once infallible in what he saith, the consequence is clear (without any Cir­cle or Petitio principii, or identical arguing) that whatever be doth witness of himself is true. And can the Doctor disprove this?

Pag. 123. l. 5. Not shewing at all, how the infallibility of the Church can be proved from Scripture. And the reason of this was, to shew that Catholicks have no necessity, for proving Church-Infallibility, to return to the testimony of the Scriptures for it; as the Dr and some other Protestants say, they must.

Annotations on his 8. §. The Argument from Tradition for Infallibility.

PAg. l. 11. The method of his discourse is this, &c. Who­ever learns the method of ones discourse from an Adversary is seldom rightly informed: who will not be deceived must consult the Author. As for example here, in the Dr's giving an account of N. O's Method concerning Tradition, he hath fairly left out that which N.O. most pressed, viz. these Governours of the Church in their General Councils inserting from time to time, as they thought fit, their Decisions in the Church's Creeds; which shews what o­pinion both General Councils and the whole Church have had of the Infallibility of their Decisions, and which by N. O. was named in the first place, and preceded their Anathematizing of Dissen­ters.

Pag. 124. l. 8. What thinks he of the Religion of the Patri­archt, who received their Religion by Tradition, without any such In­fallibility? 1. First, he thinks it somewhat strange, to see the Dr plead the certainty of Oral Tradition (elsewhere by him so much decried) to evade Church-Infallibility. 2ly. He thinks, that in those first times for their Religion people were not left wholly to Tradition, which as to many points of their Religion, could not have afforded them, especially such persons as had not much conversation abroad, a sufficient Certainty therein: but that, then also, they had Priests and Prophets endued with Gods Spirit; and who, as to the Office of Teaching, were not only set over them for exhorting thein to a good life, but for directing them also in all necessary Credends and Truths, and that the tradi­tive doctrine of these Priests so assisted must be granted much more not to be liable to errour in those points, wherein the Tradition of the people is thought by the Dr sufficiently certain: so that the mor [...] the certainty of Tradition is established, the more is confirmed their Infallibility also, who were the principal Conservers of it. 3ly. He thinks also, that the Church of God had even from the beginning many Positive Divine Laws, besides that of Nature, prescribing ma­ny things in the Worship of God. So we find early in Genesis mention of several laws committed afterward to writing by Moses, See before Note on. p. 85. l. 14. Neither can he suppose Oral Tradition such a faithful and exact Guide in all these laws, and to every one so well known, and that so free from all controversy in necessary matters, as to supersede the necessity of any Church-In­fallibility [Page 125]in them. But, however it be in the Church under the Old Testament, the Promises of an infallible guidance by Gods Holy Spirit to its Governours seem much more necessary in the New for the certainty and stability of Christian Religion in all its parts, where is such an enlargement made of the Articles of Faith: and especially, if these should not have been committed to writing.

Ib. l. (12) No such necessity of infallibility for that pur­pose. viz. for receiving the Scriptures or Churches infallibili­ty by vertue of common and universal Tradition. True: there is no necessity of Church-Infallibility to prove or assure them of Church-Infallibility, or other points of their faith, such as are sufficiently evidenced to them by the forementioned Tradi­tion. But ¹ there is a necessity of Church-Infallibility still, (that so there may be a stability and certainty in them even to the un­learned) as to many other points of Necessary Faith, not so clear in Tradition as Church Infallibility is; nor so clear as to be, there­by, self-evident to all Christians. As for example, for this point of faith the Divinity and Consubstantiality of onr Saviour, against the Arian. Unless we may perhaps imagine, that the same or greater Controversies in Religion that have risen notwithstanding the Scriptures, would not so, without them, See before Note on p. 84. n. 4. a. Next Observe also. That Church Infallibility, as it is divinely assisted, being a Divine Revelation, is, in its deli­vering to us the other Articles of our faith, much more relied and rested upon (in the same manner as all other Divine Revelations, are) than the Evidence of Tradition in its delivering to us the same Articles; though the Ground and Reason that such Infallibility is believed to be a Divine Revelation, be Tradition.

Pag. 125. l. 1. For if the Tradition may be a sufficient ground if faith, how comes Infallibility to be necessary? Thus: Tradition may be a sufficient ground of Faith for some points clear­ly delivered by it, and as to the persons clearly knowing such Tra­dition; and yet Church Infallibility be necessary for many other points not cleared sufficiently to all men by Tradition. For, things of a sufficiently generall Tradition, which Tradition is reposed presently in writings, cannot be so well known to all Christians, many neither having learning, nor much conversation abroad, as Definitions of a Council may.

Ib. l. 7. And that therein the will of God is contained &c. Contained, but not clearly. And this is the reason of putting Church-Infallibility, notwithstanding these Divine writings; which reason holds also much more for it, without them.

Ib. l. 17. That the Church would otherwise have failed, if [Page 126]there had been neither Writings, nor Infallibility. Might have failed, i.e. by erring in such Necessaries as are not, as to all, clearly delivered by Tradition.

Ib. l. (9). For we see God did furnish the Church with one [the Scriptures], and left no footsteps of the other [Church-Infal­libility]. Yes, the Definitions of the Church contained in the Athanasian Creed are footsteps of it.

Ib. l. ult. Not left in to the determinations of men liable to be corrupted by interest and ambition. i.e. Of Lawful Gene­ral Councils, our pretended Infallible Church-Guides.

Pag. 126. l. 2. But hath appointed men inspired by himself to set down whatever is necessary for us to believe and practise. Add: and hath appointed others, divinely-assisted also as to Necessaries, to determine both in belief and practice what the former, as to all capacities, have not so clearly set down, as that they may not be therein mistaken, or also by some teachers misguided. Witness Dr St.'s testimony hereof Rat. Account. p. 58. pressed by N.O. p. 63. where he grants this here said; and upon it allows, (as far as his line will let him go) the sense, that the Catholick Church in succeeding ages gives of the Scriptures, to be a very useful way for them to embrace the true sense of the Scriptures even in Neces­saries. His own words are— It seems reasonable, that, because art and subtilty may be used by such who seek to pervert the Catholick do­ctrine, and to wrest the plain places of Scripture which deliver it, so far from their proper meaning, that very few ordinary capacities may be able to clear themselves of such mists, as are cast before their eyes; the sense of the Catholick Church in succeeding ages may be a very useful way for us to embrace the true sense of Scriptures; especially in the great Articles of the Christian Faith. As, for instance, in the do­ctrine of the Deity of Christ, or the Trinity. After which N.O. adds there, that the Dr instead of saying, the sense of the Catholick Church in succeeding ages may be a very useful way for us, might have said, is very necessary for us, if his cause would permit him; and that the Socinian would thank him for this his mitigation.

Ib. l. 11. The fraud and imposture of the confident pretenders to infallibility. Viz. Of lawful General Councils.

Ib. l. 12. Which is the reason &c. They speak evil of Dignities Jude. v. 8.

Ib. l. (5) I confess I have seen nothing like the first evidence yet. It is set down in the precedent page in these words— Princ. Consid. p. 38 We may learn first this supernatural divine assistance and Infallibility of these Governours (which is made known by Divine Revelation to those first persons who communicate it to posterity) from Tradition descen­ding [Page 127]from age to age in such manner at the Protestant saith, he learns his Canon of Scripture from Tradition. To which Tradition also may be committed by our Lord or his Apostles, whatever is, to Scripture. Perhaps His falling into a Fit of drollery here made him oversee it.

Pag. 127. l. 5. What are its weapons? See before Note on p. 113. l. 14. n. 4.

Pag. 128. l. 3. It is I suppose agreed on both sides, that the Tradition on which we receive and believe the Scriptures to be the word of God was universal as to all ages, and times. No. Not so universal, as to all parts of the Canon.

Ib. l. 14. Let any thing like this be produced for the infallibi­lity of the Guides of their Church [ i.e. for the Infallibility of law­ful General Councils; for N.O. the Considerator treats of no o­ther, and often mentions this], and we will yield up the cause to them. See then what is produced concerning this before, Note on p. 113. l. 14.

N. 1 Ib.l. (7). The only argument &c. That which our Author alledgeth here, the Councils anathematizing dissenters, and the Church's stiling them Hereticks upon it, is only a piece, divided from the rest, of what N.O. pressed. N.O's words are these (urged by him with application to the Dr's 17. Principle, and without designing any set Discourse on Church-Infallibility) Prineip. Consid. p. 39 That the Governours of the Church (who having an apparent suc­cession from our Lord and his Commission, known by Tradition, their testimony must have been unquestionably believed by Christians in what they taught, in case there had been no Scripture) always reputed and held themselves divinely assisted, and infallible for all necessaries; and, that this was the traditive faith of the Church (grounded on our Lord's Promise) in all ages, sufficiently appears, by their inserting from time to time (as they thought fit) their Decisions in the Creeds, and by their anathematizing dissenters, and the Church's stiling them Hereticks ever after upon it. For that no authority (if we believe the Dr) but that which proves it self infallible, [and therefore which is infallible], can justly require our internal assent or submission of judg­ment. And that the Protestants their allowing only an external obe­dience or silence due to Councils fallible inferrs, that Councils fallible can justly require no more: and, consequently, that such Councils are infallible, as do justly require more; as did the four first Councils, with the voluntary acknowledgment also and submission of their subjects to such an authority assumed by them.

N. 2 After which it follows, to prevent this reply here of the Dr's, We find indeed subordinate Councils also stating somtimes [Page 128]matte [...]s of Faith, censuring Hereticks, and requiring assent to their Decrees; but still with relation to the same Infallibility residing in the General Body of Church-Governours, and their concurrence therein: They not passing such Acts without consulting the Tradition and Judgment of other Churches, and especially of the Apostolick See: and a general acceptation rendring such their Decisions authentick and va­lid. To which may be added what N.O. said before Consid. p. 32. where the words of the Dr mentioned here are quoted more at large— We see (saith N.O.) what kind of Obedience it was, that the first four General Councils exacted in the Athanasian Creed, which contains the sum of their Decrees, viz. no less than assent, and belief, and submission of judgment, and all this upon penalty of damnation. And this, if justly required by them inferrs, upon the Dr's arguing, their Infallibility. For (saith he Rat. Ac­count, p. 506) where Councils challenge an in­ternal assent by vertue of their Decrees [or, because their decrees are in themselves infallible] there must be first proved an impossibility of errour in them, before any can look on themselves as obliged to give it. Here the Dr passeth by several things urged by N.O. of which see the former Disc. § 69. and invades only this part; Ge­neral Councils their anathematizing dissenters, and pronouncing them Hereticks, as he expresseth it; though N.O. spoke of the Church always afterwards, stiling such Dissenters from the Coun­cils Decrees Hereticks. The Doctors words here, are— The on­ly argument he insists upon is so weak, that I wonder he had not consi­dered how often it had been answered by their own Writers. For it is certain that Provincial Councils as well as General, have anathemati­zed dissenters, and pronounced them Hereticks, which is his only argu­ment to prove this Tradition of the Church's Infallibility; and they [the Catholicks] had no way to answer it, but by saying, this doth not imply their Infallibility. Where he quotes in the margin. Bel­larm. de Coucil. l. 2. c. 10.

N. 3 To which I have replyed in the former Disc. §. 65. &c. (and I think fit here to repeat, at least some part thereof, to give the Reader the lesse trouble, by making frequent References): First in general, that I do not understand what it is that our Au­thour would maintain here against N.O. Is it this? that neither anathematizing Dissenters, nor the Councils putting their Decrees in the Churches Creeds, nor the Church Catholick's afterward esteeming those Hereticks that dissented from these Councils, are a sufficient evidence or proof that these Councils at least (and al­so the Church) accounted themselves Infallible in these their De­crees? What could the most Infallible Judge do or exact more? Doth not he below See p. 113. blame the Roman Church for assuming such [Page 129]an Infallibility to her self, in requiring such a belief of her Additi­onal Articles defined in Trent, as of the most fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith? And here, in what hath been urged out of him but now, doth not he grant, the just requiring of an internal assent to inferr Infallibility? Or, will he justify it lawful for a Council, that grants it self fallible in such its decrees, notwithstan­ding to do all these things? And then may not the Council of Trent rightly do so? And lastly, why doth the Church of England, as themselves say, forbear such things? I say, I see not clearly what here the Dr would have.

N. 4 2ly, Coming to that which he presseth concerning the practice of Provincial Councils anathematizing Dissenters, and yet these Councils granted by Catholicks not Infallible; which Concession of Catholicks, and particularly of Bellarmine de Concil l. 2. c. 10. is produced as ruining this weak argument of N.O. that would prove, from Anathematizing Dissenters, Infal­libility; First here, N.O. consulting Bellarmin he is found ( De Con­cil. l. 2. c. 3. where he maintains the Infallibility of General Coun­cils) to urge together with N.O. this very Argument for it. See his words recited in the former Discourse § 65. Next; for the objection concerning Provincial Councils, N.O. had consi­dered, and answered it thus. Consid. p. 40. — We finde indeed subordinate Coun­cils also stating somtimes matters of faith, censuring hereticks, and requiring assent to their decrees; but still with relation to the same In­fallibility residing in the general Body of Church-Governours, and to their concurrence therein: They not passing such Acts without con­sulting the Tradition and Judgment of other Churches, and especial­ly of the Apostolick See: and a general Acceptation rendring such their Decisions anthentick and valid, so as those of General Councils are. (And Bellarmin's answer l. 2. c. 16. is shewed to be in substance much-what the same). Dr St. replies to this, p. 125. l. 6. That the Anathemas of Provincial Councils did not relate to the acceptation of their Decrees, either by the Pope, or the whole Church, as N.O. supposes, but did preceed upon their own assurance of the truth of what they decreed; o­therwise their anathemas would have been only conditional, and not absolute and peremptory, as we see they were. Thus He. To which I Answer, that, though such Anathemas of Provincial Councils do relate to the general approbation of their Decrees; yet their Anathemas are rightly made not conditional, but absolute: either because such a sufficient concurrence with them of the Catholick Church is known to them before the composing their Decree; as it may be, when yet the confirmation of their Act is only received after it: Or, because such post-confirmation and acceptation after [Page 130]the penning of the Decree yet precedes the promulgation and just force or obligation of it: It being penned absolute, upon such a con­sent presupposed, as we see the Affrican Anathemas were: and as it is the ordinary custome in all laws, the establishment wherof depends on many successively, yet in their first stile to run absolutely, be­cause such ratification is presupposed to their having the due force of Laws. And so in General Councils, the Anathemas are pen­ned absolute, though these Councils and their Decrees have not their full strength till the Confirmation thereof by the See Aposto­lick, and also such an admittance and acceptation of them by the Church-Catholick diffusive, as is thought necessary. Neither is the transaction of these Moral things to be exacted according to the Rules in Mathematicks.

Pag. 129. l. 10. But did proceed upon their own assurance of the truth of what they decreed. Here, Doth our Author al­low fallible Councils, upon a perswasion they have of the truth of what they decree, to anathe matize dissenters; and pronounce them hereticks? Then why may not the Council of Trent do so? Or, if he means by their assurance, that Provincial Councils are cer­tain, without relation to any consent of the whole, that they do not err in such Decrees where they pronounce Anathema, so he seems to give to these Provincial Councils also an Infallibility, more than which Catholicks do not desire to be allowed to Gene­ral; viz. the certainty that these Fathers, met in a General Coun­cil, have, whether by the evidence of Scripture, or of Tradition, or of a necessary Consequence from something Traditive, or at least, of our Lords promised Assistance, that they do not err in those things they decree, though in many other things they be sal­lible.

Ib. l. 14. He goes on thus— But I need give no other an­swer to this argument than in the words of Dr Field whom N.O. appeal­ed to Fieid of the Church. l. 4. c. 4. [but in another matter, not this] before, viz. That Councils denounce anathema not because they think every one that disobey the decree of the Council to be accursed, but because they are perswad [...] in particular, that this is the eternal truth of God which they pro [...]se, therefore they accurse them that obstinately shall resist, as S. Paul willeth every Christian man to anathematize an Angel coming from heaven, if he shall teach them any other doctrine than he hath already learned: yet is not every particular Christian free from possibility of erring. If the argument then were good from anathematizing dissen­ters, and calling them hereticks, every particular person must by it be proved infallible who are bound to anathematize even Angel from hea­ven in case of delivering any other doctrine from the Gospel.

N. 1 Where it is said, first, that these General Councils do not denounce anathema [to dissenters] because they think every one that disobeys the decree of the Council [i.e. by dissenting] to be, [or to incurr their] Anathema. I answer to this; that then they must hold their Anathema, universally pronounced, to be, as to such persons, unjust: Which I suppose the General Councils did not. It is said again; that because these General Councils are perswaded in particular that this is the eternal truth of God that they propose, there­fore they anathematize them, that obstinately shall resist. But 1st, N.O. presseth not these General Councils their anathematiz­ing them, that shall obstinatly resist that which they propose; but them, that shall dissent from it; and he presseth their putting it also into the Creed, and under anathema requiring from all the be­lief of it, and that as a matter of faith. 2. I contend, that no Council that only is perswaded, but not certain, that that which it proposeth (suppose the Consubstantiality or Divinity of our Lord) is the eternal truth of God, can justly insert such point in the Creed or anathematize Dissenters. But it is agreed that the four first Councils did justly these things, and therefore they were not only perswaded, but certain, that those were truths, and that in them they were infallible, and then much more did hold them­selves so, since one may think himself to be, and yet not be, in­fallible.

N. 2 To that which follows out of S. Paul, It is answered; that S. Paul or a Galatian, must be certain of his not erring in that, for the meer dissent from which he can justly anathematize Angel, or Man: and none may anathematize another for his dissent not re­ceiving, or for his not believing, any thing, of the truth where­of he himself is not certain; much lesse, if he doth not so much as hold himself so: (which latter will make the fault the greater): Unless perhaps such were the supreme and unappealable Ecclesi­astical Judge, and knew that none other could be in such matter certain of the contrary. But this I grant; that who is certain and infallible in some things, may not be so in all: neither do I con­tend for an universal Infallibility even of General Councils in all things whatsoever, but in all that are any way necessary to be deter­mined. See Note on p. 104. l. 15.

Pag. l. 130. l. 7. Let the Reader now judge in his Consci­ence, &c. What thing is there more publick in the Church's Tradition, and of which there hath been a more remarkable Testi­mony in all ages, than of the repairing, where the Ecclesiastical af­faires required, or times permitted it, (following the precedent [Page 132]of Acts 15.) to General Councils, or those some way equivalent, for deciding the more important Controversies in Religion that distur­bed the Church: and than, of these Councils, when met, their requiring a belief and assent from all Christians to their Definiti­ons: and this assent accordingly yielded by the Ʋniversal Church; which inferrs also a General belief and acknowledgment of their Infallibility? And Councils are as well known for, thus, deciding controversies in the Church, as he saith the Judges are for trying causes in Westminster-Hall.

Ib. l. (7). I challenge him to produce any one age, wherein the infallibility of a standing Judge of Controversies, appointed by Christ hath been received by as universal a consent as the authority of Scripture. Review the last Note. ¹ This standing Infallible Judge are affirmed to be Lawful General Councils. Which though as being a Court consisting of many it is not at all times actually as­sembled and sitting, Yet the Members of this supreme Ecclesi­astical Court are alwaies existent and in being; and retain their Authority from Christ for judging matters of Faith equally, whe­ther conjoined, or distant in place from one another. And, when happens no conveniency of assembling such a General Council, the Consent of the Body of the Catholick Clergy, manifesting a con­currence in their judgment, whether by several Provincial Coun­cils, or by any one, that is generally approved; Or, whether by Communicatory and Synodical Letters; or whether appearing in a general accord in their publick Writings, Catechismes, and Explica­tions of the Christian Doctrine, I say such Consent is equivalent to a General Council. The Decrees also and Definitions of former Ge­neral Councils are always standing in force, and the execution of them committed to the care of the present Church-Governours. This of the standing Judge. 2 As for the Infallibility thereof, the Ʋniversal consent of the Church hath admitted, as the Authority and Infallibility of Scriptures, so of Councils, as to their defining points of necessary faith: as hath been shewed before, Note on p. 113. l. 14. 3 But, in the 3d place, it is not necessary that every point of Faith, to have a sufficient Attestation or Evidence from Tradition, have it as ample and Universal as some other point hath; no more than it is for a just ratifying of the Canon of Scripture, that all points of it be shewed to have alwaies had as General an Ac­ceptation, as any other: Or, that the Definitions of Chalcedon e­quall, in this, those of Nice.

Pag. 131. l. 5. The Infallibility of a standing Judge is utterly denied by one side, and vehemently disputed between several parties on the other. Not the infallibility of General Councils in all [Page 133]necessaries disputed, save only by some Protestants: agreed in by all the rest, whether Eastern or Western Church. And, if the Com­mon Reason, or Body, of Christianity were to decide this contest between N.O, and Dr St, Dr St. would be cast.

Pag. 132. l. 15. If the Infallibility of the Church be as liable to doubts and disputes, as that of the Scriptures, it is against all just laws of reasoning to make use of the Church's infallibility to prove the Scripture by. It is true; that the Infallibility of the Scrip­ture cannot be proved from Infallibility of the Church to any that doubts as much of this as of the other, till this proof is also pro­ved to them. But then, it is true too, that a Neophyte may first be taught from Tradition, the Infallibility of the Church, and from this, so made known to him, have the Infallibility of the Canon of Scripture proved to him, as this Church hath in her Councils declared and delivered it; for which Church it were to no end to define the Canon, if the Canon thereby received no more certainty, as to any Christian, than formerly.

Ib. l. (3). N.O. turns my words quite to another meaning. In the meaning the Dr now explains his words, the sense of the lat­ter part of this Principle (which I leave the Reader to compare) seems coincident with the former; and so is granted to him, Princip. 17, as the former is. And, if N.O. not imagining such a reduplication, mi­stook the Drs sense, here, from what he found him to say in ano­ther place Rat. Ac­count [...]p. 512, the discourse is still pertinent, if not to this, to the other, place; and N.O. hath not lost his labour.

Pag. 133. l. 13. Men can have no certainty of faith that this was a General Couneil, that it p [...]ssed such decrees, that it proceeded lawfully in passing them, and that this is the certain meaning of them; all which are necessary in order to the believing those decrees to be in­fallible with such a faith as they call divine. Christians have a sufficient certainty, as to all the former particulars, that the Council of Nice (for example) hath delivered [...] to be the true sense of the Scriptures; which Sense of Scripture we believe with a divine faith: and this divine faith relies on the word of God, as thus expounded by this Council. The same to which therefore may be said as to other points, and other Councils.

Ib. l. (3). But I expresly mention such decrees as are pur­posely framed in general terms, and with ambiguous expressions. His words, in Rat. Account, are— Suppose (saith he p. 510.) we should grant, that you might in general be certain of the Infalli­bility of General Councils, when we come to instance in any one of them, you can have no certainty of faith as to the infallibility of the decrees of it. For you can have no such certainty, ¹ that this wa [...] [Page 134]a lawful General Council; 2 that it passed such decrees; 3 that it procee­ded lawfully in passing them; and 4 that this is the certain meaning of them. Then examining these four particulars, & coming to the 4th, he proceeds thus—4ly. (Saith he) Suppose men could be assured of the proceedings of the Council, yet what certainty of faith can be had of the meaning of those decrees? for we see they are as liable to many inter­pretations as any other writings. If the Scriptures cannot put an end to controversies on that account, how can General Councils do it? when their decrees are as liable to a private sense and wrong interpretation, as the Scriptures are: Nay, much more, for we have many other pla­ces to compare, the help of Original tongues, and the consent of the primitive Church, to understand Scriptures by: when the decrees of Councils are many times purposely framed in general terms, & with am­biguous expressions to give satisfaction to some dissenting parties then in the Council. Which words limited only, as he saith here, to some decrees of some Councils framed in general terms, & with ambigu­ous expressions serve nothing to the purpose of that discourse; and would make his words run thus, for example— If the Scriptures cannot put an end to controversies on that account, how can General Councils do it? when some of their decrees, in some Councils, that are in general terms and ambiguous expressions, are as liable &c. Yes: very well, say I; because other decrees, in that, and other Coun­cils, may be clear enough.

Pag. 134. l. 17. They [Councils] ought never to be liable to the same ambiguity. True: but, if it mis-happen, that Councils be so in some things, some of them; are they therefore no more serviceable in any other things for deciding controversies, where the sense of the Scriptures, to some at least, is ambiguous, and their Decision clear?

Ibid. l. 18. Ʋpon the account of which obscurity Scripture is rejected from being a certain Rule of faith. Contrary. Scri­pture is received by Catholicks for a certain Rule; and also in ma­ny things for a clear.

Pag. 135. l. (8). In answer to my Lord of Canterbury's ad­versary &c. To the reason given for the Ʋnity of Catholicks, viz. their being ready to submit their judgments to the determina­tions of the Church in her Councils, our Author returns this reason (as good, or better, he saith) for the Ʋnity of Protestants, viz. their being all ready to submit their judgments to Scripture. Which Reason since it must needs fail on the Protestants side, if the sense of Scripture which serves to unite them, be more ambigu­ous in several things than that of Councils is, which unites the o­ther, Therefore he labours to make this good, that the sense of [Page 135]Scriptures is not more ambiguous than that of Councils. For which see his next page p. 136. where he saith— The meaning of the decrees of Councils, wh [...]n they are made, raise as many divisions, as were be­fore them; as it appears by the decrees of the Council of Trent. Where, (in his using indefinite terms, as frequently he doth) if he means some of its decrees only, such as he saith are purposely framed in general terms &c, this serves not his purpose; for, so there will still remain a greater union amongst Catholicks, because of their union in the rest of its decrees, which, how true soever they be, are plain enough. But, if he means all its decrees, then this is appa­rently false, that there are such divisions raised about them. Now his addition or reply to this, conceding here (which had he done in his Rational Account, he had faved N.O. p. 136. some pains in making it good) that the Roman Church hath some advantage in point of uni­ty; but that all the advantage it hath comes from force and fraud (of which frequent Maledicency to ward his Superiors, and those in so sacred an Assembly, I could wish this Author would make more Conscience) this Concession, I say, is deserting his former Answer to my Lord of Canterbury's Adversary as faulty; and pas­sing to another; viz. That their Union is indeed greater, but is compassed by force and by fraud; I suppose he means, of these Councils. But then, since Roman Catholicks are united not only in the Definitions of the Council of Trent, but of all, or be it many of, those that [...] been within these thousand years; most, if not all of which are [...] b [...] Protestants, dares he fasten his Force and Fr [...]d on [...] th [...] [...] so; why not a Socinian or Arian extend [...] to the fo [...] [...] [...]hose, whom their cause constrains to disobey [...] speak well of it.

A [...]ions on §. 9. The Argument from Parity of Reason.

Ag. 139. l. 9. After N.O's words— And are we not here again [...]rrived at Church-infallibility, [i.e. its not erring in matters of Nicessary Faith] If not from extruordinary divine assistance, [add, what is left out by the Dr] Yet from the cl [...]arness of the Rule? Only we must suppose such sincere endeavour in the Church, as the Dr allows may be in every private man.

Pag. 140, l. 12. How doth it hence follow; that the Guides of the Church must be infallible in teaching matters of faith?

From the Guides not erring, or not being deceived in mat­ters [Page 136]of faith, it follows not, that they must be infallible, or not deceive, in teaching matters of faith. Nor are any such words, or consequence, in N.O. But it follows well, from the clearness of the same Scriptures to these Governours, as much as to private men, and from their endeavours as well as private mens, to under­stand them (these two supposed) that the Church-Governors can­not erre in all necessary matters of faith; (of which necessaries on­ly N.O. speaketh) if private men cannot; the thing maintained in the Drs 13th Prineiple. And then, I hope the Drs charity will allow these Governours in a General Council of them at least, not to teach contrary to what they know and are certain of. And this Reason too these Holy Fathers have to do this, beecause o­therwise in their inserting such things, as they thus falsifie, in the Creeds, and in their anathematizing all dissenters, they shall make a publick profession of their faith just contrary to their Faith, and anathematize themselves.

Pag. 141. l. 8. The Guides of the Church, supposing the same sincerity, shall enjoy the same priviledge, which I know none ever de­nied them; but what is this to their Infallibility in teaching all mat­ters of faith? which is the only thing to be proved by him. If he can prove this as necessary for the salvation of mankinde as the other is, then he would do something to his purpose, but not otherwise. So that all this discourse proceeds upon a very false way of reasoning from be­lieving to teaching; and, from Necessaries to salvation, to all mat­ters of faith, which the Guides of the Church shall propose to men. Thus he. Where, [after I have acquainted the Reader, that N.O's express words and sense are here corrupted; for, he argues, from particular men's not erring in Necessaries, by using a sincere endeavour, the Church's not erring in Necessaries, if using the like: in Necessaries, saith N.O; not in all matters of faith, as here the Dr:] It seems, the Infallibility of the Church, he now op­poses, is not an Infallibility 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 over­confident 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 [Page 138]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 dissen [...], 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 th [...] [...] could not do so. And therefore the Apostles commanded [...] persons (as supposing these two things, belief of their [...] and the Ʋse of ones Judgment, well consisting together [...] fast and firm in the doctrines delivered to them by the [...] [...] and not to be carried away with every doctrine, becau [...] [...] Pastors appointed to guide them; and to observe those [...] sed any Divisions among them contrary to the Doctr [...] [...] and to reject any person heretical, &c. See Rom. 16. [...] [Page 139]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 Church, where such Pleas as these are permitted to be urged in such a sense, as to set men at liberty from the submission of their judgment to the Decisions and definitions of General Councils, upon pretence that there shall be many seducers and a falling away and departing from the Faith; and upon pre­tence of Force and Fraud used in the most General Counci's that could be convened for many past Generations. Which falling a­way and departing from the Faith, &c. why should they not be ra­ther applied to these New Sects and former Heresies; and, from them, be inferred a closer adherence and Obedience to their law­ful Church Governours?

Ib. l. (8). The Apostles told them, they had no dominion over their faith. What, not so far as to oblige them to obey and submit to their Apostolical Doctrine? What not such dominion as S. Paul urged 1. Tim. 1.20. to the blasphemers of the Gospel; and, as he commanded Titus to use, Tit. 3.10.? Consider the Acts of the Apostolical Council. Act. 15. But the Text speaks here of any unjust dominion or authority, to treat the faithful as he pleased, in punishing or mulcting those, who walk uprightly in the faith; to alter, change, censure any thing therein, for his own profit or advantage. See Dr Hammond on the place.

Ib. l. (4.). No present Guides, whatever names they go by, ought to usurp such an authority over the minds of men which the Apo­stles themselves did not challenge; although there were greater reason for men to yield up their minds wholly to their guidance. If to yield up their minds be to submit their judgments, were not Christians ob­liged [Page 140]in this to the very Apostles and their Doctrines? See before Note on p. 144. l. 11. See we not the effects here of the Dr's 13th Principle; in the people's not needing Guides for understand­ing necessary Scriptures; but meanwhile, in the Scriptures being needful to them, for trying by it their Guides?

Pag. 147. l. 7. Where there is a Rule for them [the Church-Governours or Guides] to proceed by, there is a rule for others to judge of their proceedings. If here He means by these others, those, who, doubting of the true sense of the Rule, repair to these Guides to learn from them the true sense of it (which is only to the pur­pose), that these are again to judge by the Rule (doubted of) whether the Guides have given the right sense, what is this but that these are finally to determine the sense of the Rule, for the de­termining of which they consult their Teachers? As if the Consul­ters concerning the meaning of a Law, when the Judge hath given them the sense of the Law, should again by this Law examine the truth of the sense of the Judge, and act finally according to their own, not his, sentence.

Ib. l. 13. Where the rule, by which the Guides of the Church are to proceed, hath determined nothing, there we say the authority of the Guides is to be submitted unto. For otherwise there would be no­thing left, wherein their authority could be shewn. Doth not he say here, the Church's Authority is to be submitted to in nothing, but things left indifferent by the Scriptures? Then it hath no autho­rity in determining Controversies of faith; but why then saith the 20th Article of the Church of England, that the Church hath au­thority of expounding Scriptures in Controversies of faith? and by what authority hath the Council of Nice determined Consubstantia­tion? But, so often as the sense of the Scriptures to any is doubtful, may not the Scriptures here be said, as to such persons, to have dete [...]mined nothing? and then are they not in these (if in a Neces­sary point) to repair to the determination of their Ecclesiastical Guides? If so, all will be well still; and thus all come to submit to the sentence of the Judge, but those who are certain before hand of the sense of their Rule.

Ib. l. (11). We plead for the Church is authority in indiffe­rent Rites and Ceremonies. But suppose the Question be, whether such Rites and Ceremonies are indeed indifferent? As they are taken by some not to be so; because God will admit nothing into his worship, but what himself hath first expresly commanded, and prescribed. What authority is to end this? I say for such who hold some Ceremonie unlawful and repugnant to Scripture, are they, or the Church, to judge of this unlawfulness? and, may the [Page 141]Church lawfully enjoin it, and oblige them, under excommuni­cation, to practise it? Or, will it not come at last, according to these Principles, that the Subjects, not the Church, are to decide the indifferency or non-indifferency of such Ceremonies?

Pag. 148. l. 7. Wee allow a very great authority to the Guides of the Catholick Church in the best times of Christianity; And look upon the concurrent sense of Antiquity as an excellent means to understand the mind of Scripture in places otherwise doubtful and ob­scure. In the best times of Christianity. But do not you then in all times? Or, is not their authority the same in all times? If various, who is Judge of this, their Subjects?—As an excellent means to understand &c. This will not serve the turn; it must be as an authorized Expositor of the true sense of Scriptures doubtful and obscure in Necessary matters, to whose definitions all ought to submit; not only, to make use of their advice. This Church-Tradition makes good: this such Protestants as our Author op­pose.

Ib. l. 13. We reject the ancient Heresies condemned in them. But doth he acknowledge and reject all that as Heresy, that hath been or shall be condemned by all lawful General Councils for such?

Ib. l. (11). We reject nothing, that can be proved by an Ʋniversal Tradition from the Apostolical times downwards. That can be proved. But who shall judge of the proof, where any thing is disputed, whether it be Tradition; Apostolick? Our selves, or the present Church-Governours?

Ib. l. (5) We see no reason to have those things forced upon us now, which we offer to prove to be contrary to their [the primi­tive times] doctrine and practice. Offer to prove: To whom? To any whose final judgment you will stand to? Name them. Shall it be to a General Council? But, this may err you say. It erring, shall it be to a Second? But, if one err, so may all. And who shall judge when It doth not err? Demonstration shall decide it. And who judge, when it is a clear demonstration, if any deny it to be so?

Pag. 149. l. 1. The Controversy is, Whether the Guides of the Apostolical and Primitive times ought not to have greater authority over us, than those of the present Church in things wherein they con­tradict each other? Here again, who shall judge this diffe­rence concerning their contradiction, denied by Catholicks, denied by the latter Councils of the Church; that plead Tradition, and their agreement with the former.

Ib. l. 8. But we profess to yield greater reverence and submis­sion of mind to Christ and his Apostles than to any Guides of the Church ever since: we are sure they spake by an infallible Spirit, and [Page 142]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 over­ruled 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 [Page 143]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 wilbe 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 [Page 144]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 non­evidence 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 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, [Page 145]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-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 [Page 146]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 [Page 147]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 [Page 148]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-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 [Page 149]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 Cr [...]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 wicked doctrines. Here, what should I trouble my self or the Rea­der in debating this controversy concerning Honorius with the Dr? whose cause the Reader may see pleaded very plausibly by Car­dinal Bellarmine i. 4. de Romano Pontifice c. 12. as to this free­dome from Heresy; being condemned hereof after his death, before any Council had defined this matter, upon some words of his, which, compared with others, are capable of a sound meaning; as arguing not against two, but two contrary or repug­nant, Wills of our Lord; and whenas there is some matter of fact (in which may be mistakes) contained in the Council's thus declaring him an heretick, which thing occurs not in the de­claring of Heresy. I say, what need I review this debate, wherein the Dr only contends, that is; which the common opinion among Catholicks grants, may be. See Bellarm. de. Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 30. §. Resp. Sunt—Pighius contendit Papam non posse esse Haereticum, [Page 150]proinde nec deponi in ullo casu, qua sententia probabilis est & facilè defendi potest, tamen non est certa: & communis opinio est in con­trarium. Where he quotes also the Canon, Si Papa Distinct. 40. Papa a nemine judicandus, nisi deprehendatur a fide devius.

Pag. 167. l. 4. Pope Agatho did himself consent to the con­demnation of Honorius. Suppose this be granted, why may not a Pope and a General Council, judge a Pope? See for this again Bellarm. de Concil. l. 2. c. 19.— Potest Concilium discutere causam Pontificis: &, si inveniat reverâ esse infidelem, potest declarare eum esse extra Ecclesiam, & sic damnare. And the same he saith: If the Council should discover him an Heretick, De Conc. l. 1. c. 9. — Quarta causa celebrandi Generalis Concilii est suspicio Haresis in Ro­mano Pontifice, &c.

Pag. 168. l. 19. The greatest strength he adds to Baronius is only saying, without doubt it is so. Let the Reader view Bellarmin de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 11. whether this hath not more drollery in it, than Truth.

Pag. 170. l. 18. I desire therefore again to know whether he was rightly condemned, or not. Suppose I answer, rightly; what then? Then the Pope is not infallible. And what then? What is this to N.O; or his Considerations?

Ib. l. (8). In either case there was no Infallibility in the Guides. Yes, in one case; if Honorius rightly condemned, there was Infallibility in the Pope and Council.

Pag. 171. l. 8. The ingenuous concession of Mr White. A great friend to Popes. But, by this, (he sees) there are, that confess Popes liable to Heresy.

Ib. l. (6.). Councils against Councils. Not lawful General Councils, one against another.

Ib. l. (4). Church again Church, especially after the Breach between the Greek, and the Roman. Not one of these Churches against the other, in most of those things for which the Reformation hath left the Roman. But, supposing in some points they be so, the Infallibility we contend for here as requiring our Obedience is only that of a General Council, joined with and confirmed by the Bishop of the See Apostolick. In the intervals of which Councils, to matters clearly determined formerly by them the present Church Governours, if no way supposed infallible, may exact from the Church's subjects such an assent as the Coun­cils have required: Or, in new Controversies arising, and not for­merly determined by any such Councils, yet may justly impose silence, till such Controversy shalbe so decided.

Ib. l. (2). But a man, who is bound to rely only on the au­thority [Page 151]of his Guides must suppose them to be agreed; and, in case of difference among them, he must first chuse his Religion; and, by that, his Guide. Bound to rely only. Who saith it? He may rely on the Holy Scripture very safely in all points whereever it is clear: but, in his application to it, when he meets with Scriptures, the sense whereof is ambiguous to him, (as surely either it is or should be, in case he sees a major part of the Church, or of Christianity, to differ from him in the sense of it) he is to rely on his Guides. And next, in any difference among them, he is not presently left to our Author's way, to chuse his Religion, or his opinion first, and by that, his Guides, as they sit it: for so, in some places that our Author knows, there is scarce any opinion so gross, but some Guides may be found complying with it. But in these Guide's dif­fering, and their just authority consisting in a most exact Subordina­tion, he is to rely on the Superiour; (as in England on a Provincial, or National Synod, rather than on the Rector of his Parish, or a single Bishop): and, whereever its judgment can be had, on the Supreme; a lawful General Council, confirmed by the Bishop of the See Apostolick.

Pag. 172. l. (8.) Now the Question proposed is, whether it be not fitter for me to submit to the Guides of the Catholick Church, than to trust my own judgment? I should make no scruple in all doubtful matters to resolve the affirmative, supposing that all the Guides of the Catholick Church were agreed. Will he submit his judgment, then, to lawful General Councils, and the matters they have or shall agree in? Since he hath great reason to doubt in all things, where they judge contrary to his tenent. He goes on.

Ib. l. ult. For I should think it arrogance and presumpti [...]n in me to set up my own private opinion in opposition to the unanimous consent of all the Guides of the Catholick Church, in such a case.

To the unanimous consent of all the Guides. But will he submit to such a consent as hath been had in former lawful General Coun­cils, I mean such as in the four first, for deciding Controversies: viz. to that of a much major part? For, else, if but one Bishop in the world shall oppose all the rest, He is released from such his submission. And, 2ly, Will he yield this for all matters whatever such Councils shall define? For (to repeat his words) ought he not to think it arrogance and presumption in him to set up his own pri­vate opinion in opposition to such Councils in any thing, for which they have the same evidence as himself? And here observe also, that, in whatever times these Councils be held; whether in the present or past, ancient or latter, times, (so as not contradicting one another, in their definitions) their Authority is exactly the [Page 152] same; and so ought his Obedience to be; and their Definitions also to be, in all times after, obliging: those of Nice, obliging now.

N. 1 Pag. 173. l. 5. We find the Christian world divided into very different Communions. It is so. But the forementioned Note on p. 172. l. (2.) sub­ordination of Church-Governours is still to be observed. And our obedience, in any clashing of these Church-Governours in several parts, to be performed to the Superiours. As for example. The African Bishops and their Councils, differing about Rebaptization from other Christian Churches, were, observing their subordina­tion, to submit to the judgment of a Council Oecumenical. A pri­vate man then, where are many different Churches and Communions, ought to consider under what particular Governours he liveth, and in what manner they are subordinate to others; and accor­dingly (in any differences happening about points which he is not at leisure to study, or hath not capacity to understand, or, after study, is not certain, on any side) to yield his obedience, and submit his judgment to the Superiours. As in England a division happening in the Clergy thereof, I suppose our Author would ad­vise one that thus doubts in a point controverted, in case the Parson of his Parish opposeth the Bishop of the Diocese, or this Bishop all the other Bishops of the Province; or of the Nation; to submit to the judgment of the Bishop, or of the Provincial, or National Synod, rather than to his Parson. And that He would not enjoin such private person, or tell him he is obliged for the settling of his judgment, to study the whole Controversy debated between such Parson and his Bishop; to collate their arguments and then, make himself Judge, at least for himself, which of them is in the right: wherein also, should it be done, the inca­pacity of the man, or also his passion or interest on one side, may easily misguide him, and he fare much worse by his liberty, than his obedience. And this thing seems also intended by the National Synod of England in their drawing up the 39. Articles, (they say), for taking away Diversity of Opinion; which thing they do not there pretend to effect, * by their confuting, with argu­ments satisfactory to their subjects, all those opinions they there disallow; for, no such satisfaction is offered, no such thing is done by them; but * by the submitting of their subjects, not skilled in such matters, nor certain of the contrary, to their Judg­ment, as the Supreme of this National Church.