A DISCOURSE OF THE NECESSITY OF Church-Guides, For Directing Christians in Necessary Faith.  
WITH Some ANNOTATIONS on Dr Stillingfleet's Answer to N. O.  
By R. H.  Matt. 18.17. 
Si ECCLESIAM non audiverit, sit tibi sicut Ethnicus & Publicanus.  2 Cor. 6.8. 
 Seductores, & VERACES.  
Printed in the Year, MDCLXXV.   

THE PREFACE.  
BEfore my entrance upon the following Discourse it seems necessary to pre-acquaint the Reader with the occasion thereof.  
§. 11 Doctor Stilling fleet at the end of his Book of the Roman Idolatry, upon his Adversary's importunity, published Thirty Principles drawn up (as he saith immediately before them) 
‖ p. 557.  to give an Account of the Protestants Faith, in the way of Principles.  
In the 13th of which he affirms— That the Scriptures may be understood by all persons who sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their salvation. Again in the 15th.— That these Writings contain in them the whole Will of God so plainly revealed, that no sober enquirer can miss of what is necessary for salvation. Again in the 19th— That the assistance which God hath promised to those who sincerely desire to know his Will [where I suppose he means such assistance as includes not that which God hath promised to Christians from the direction and instruction of his Ministers; for, this assistance here, is opposed by him to that] may give them greater assurance of the truth of what is contained in the Books of Scripture, than it is possible for the greatest Infallibility in any other persons to do, supposing they have not such assurance of their Infallibility. [Where you may observe that it follows much more; may give them greater assurance, than it is possible for the highest Church-Authority, Wisdom, Learning, or Divine assistance, short of Infallibility, in any other persons to do]. And so in his first Consequence he saith— There is no necessity at all or use of an infallible [I add, much less of a fallible] society of men to assure men of the truth of those things of which they may be certain without [them]; and cannot have any greater assurance [than that they have already] supposing such Infallibility to be in them.  
§. 2 These his Principles were considered; and especially the forenamed opposed, by a Roman Catholic; as appearing to him not only untrue, but of most dangerous consequence; as being very derogative from Church-Authority, as to these chief parts of their Office, the Expounding of the Scriptures; the Teaching and Guiding Christ's Flock in all Truth necessary to be known by them; and their Defining also matters of Necessary Faith, as Controversies in them do arise, and Requiring from their Subjects a Belief of them; and also very hazardous to men's salvation, in leaving each private person to entertain in Religion, especially as to points thought more necessary (in which therefore the Scriptures also are affirmed by the Doctor more plain), what in his own judgement, after a to him-seeming sincere perusal of them, he likes best; even though a much major part of Christianity, reading the same Scriptures, assert the contrary; and this without any obligation of submitting his judgement in such things to his Spiritual Superiors.  
§. 3 And indeed from some such Principle it seems to be; that Luther, (when he had said to himself 
‖ De abrogand Missâ privat praefat. — Tu solus sapis? Totne errand, universi? And— Quoties mihi palpitavit tremulum cor?) reencouraged himself to proceed in his Reformation, though contradicting the whole World; viz. Because the Scriptures were clear, and for him, against them all: often using S. Paul's— Licet Angelus de Caelo, etc. Gal. 1. The Holy Scriptures the rest of the Christian World had read as well as himself, but he meanwhile was conscious only of his own sincere endeavour; and so the Principle secured him that he did not mistake, if any such point were necessary, wherein he opposed them. From such Principle was the confidence of the Protestants, then but a very few, against the sacred Council of Trent, i. e. all the other Church-governors of that Age; 
Soave Hist. Couc. Trid. p. 344.641.  when they desired, that the Authority of the Fathers might be qualified with a— Fundantes see in Scriptures. Of which fundantes, whether it were so, or no, they themselves, for themselves at least, would be the Judges.  
From such a Principle, the Socinians departed from the whole Church of God, Ancient, Modern, only pleading the Scriptures clear on their side. See Volkelius De Vera Relig. l. 5. c. 7.— Praesertim (saith he) si sapientiam a Deo petat, quam ille nemini denegat: i. e. if using their prayers and sincere endeavours, though not consulting or obeying any Guides, or the Church;— Quam in iis quoque rebus, quae ad salutem sunt necessariae errare constat. From such Principle it is that the Presbyterians 
‖ Reason's showing Necessity Reform. p. 5.  denied Subscription to the 39 Articles except this clause were added, [so far forth as the same Articles were agreeable to God's Word] of which, [how fare] they make themselves the Judges; And so also do the many latter Sects; who, for a sufficient knowledge in all necessary points and trial of the Doctrine of their Teachers therein, need nothing more than a Bible, and learning to read. From such Principle that Mr. Chilling worth denies that any Church-Authority (not excepting the first four General Councils,) hath just cause to oblige others to receive their Declarations in matters of Faith. 
‖ c. 4. §. 18.  And elsewhere saith 
† c. 6. §. 5● — That the Bible, the Bible only is the Religion of Protestants: and that the belief of any thing besides Scripture, and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it [indubitable, i. e. to those, on whom they are imposed] cannot [i. e. by Protestants] with coherence to their own grounds be required of any without most high and most Schismatical presumption. From such Principle, that Dr Stilling fleet accuseth the whole Church Catholic, Eastern and Western, for so many Ages before the Reformation, of so manifold an Idolatry; where his own sincere endeavour to understand the Scriptures in so necessary a point, he holds, cannot be mistaken; and therefore all that World must be so. And thus what opinion may not One maintain against all, if he have first a confidence concerning himself, that he hath used a requisite industry (which industry also must not be maintained greater than the meanest condition of life may practise); and so, that Scripture is clear to him in all necessary matter; and, Next, (the consequent of this) if he have a persuasion concerning others, how many soever, (whom, by their differing from him, he knows to be in an error), that either they have been defective in a sincere enquiry; or, having, with him, discerned the Truth, yet for some secular ends falsify it?  
§. 4 From this Principle, also proceeds that Assertion; That there is amongst Christians no Necessity of any other Judge (infallible, and much less fallible,) save Scripture only, for deciding Controversies in any points necessary: which seems to engage the Assertors to the maintaining also of one of these two very harsh Propositions; either, ¹ That all such points, as are in controversy among Christians, are no Necessaries; but that it must pass for a matter of less moment, as any thing becomes disputed: and particularly, No necessity of believing or practising on the Protestants side, for his attaining of salvation, any of the points agitated between them and the roman-catholics: Which Proposition seems of a very hard digestion to be allowed & abetted by those Reformers especially, who make such Declamations against the heinousness of the Roman corruptions of the sense of Scripture even in the highest matters of God's Worship, and Mysteries of our Redemption: As, in giving the Divine Worship to a Creature; in the doctrine of Justification; Merit of men's good Works. etc. Or ² engageth them else to the maintaining of this other proposition; that, though the Scriptures are so clear in some of those points in controversy (for, so they say they are in all Necessaries), as that no illiterate person using a convenient endeavour can mistake in them, yet de facto that the much Major part of the Christian world, having and perusing the same Scriptures, is and hath been mistaken in them for many ages; and hath thought the Scriptures clear to the contrary: which seems, on the other side, a thing as hard and incredible; viz. to deny to so many Men and Ages, for understanding the Scriptures, the using of such a just endeavour, as any unlearned Protestant doth, or may employ.  
§. 5 Lastly; from this Principle seems naturally to proceed; in such a Church as holds it, a Toleration of all Opinions that pretend Scriptures for themselves (however it comes about that those of roman-catholics find little favour by it); because there is no just reason of suppressing the assertions of any party, where is no competent Judge of deciding the truth in them, save the same Scriptures which, read by both sides, yet do not end the Debate. A Toleration of all Opinions I say (save perhaps such as invade and disturb the Civil Peace and Government). Among which opinions tolerated also some will be Heresies, 
‖ 1 Cor. 11.19.  unless these men tell us, by what Judge these shall be declared such, and so excluded. That Toleration of opinions was a Consequence of this Principle Mr Chillingworth 
† See ch. 4.  clearly saw; and so pleaded much for it, as only well consistent with Protestant Grounds. Of which see more below. 
§. 38. etc.  96.  
§. 6 Upon such Consequences as these, then, N.O. was moved to write some brief Considerations and Reflections on these Principles; observing herein the Method that they prescribed to him. But now, since Dr Stilling fleet hath not at all followed the same (though his own) order in his Reply (whereby would more clearly have appeared the many things therein that have received no answer) I also in this Rejoinder shall take the liberty to change the former method of the Considerations, and briefly to repeat N. O's Conceptions especially such as relate to the forementioned Principles, reduced into such an order as they may be more applicable thereto; and then consider, how far the Dr's Replies have rebated their force, or confirmed his own Positions. And, after this done, lest a considerable part of the Dr's Book, expatiating to other subjects, which, if nothing pertinent to N. O's Considerations, yet may appear to some very important to the Protestant Cause, may seem unspoken to, I shall accompany the Reader through his whole Book with Annotations, following his Discourse whither it leads me), on the passages that appear to me more remarkable: and so I shall leave all to the judgement of the prudent and piously disposed, of what present persuasion soever, who, not zealous for a party, seeks after Truth.  
§. 7 Only I am first to acquaint him with this in general: That the two main Pleas of the Dr, and N. O, (as to a Christian's attaining a right belief in all necessaries to salvation) are Obedience and submission of Judgement to the Church's Determinations, on the one side; and every Christian's Liberty of Judgement in their perusing the Scriptures, on the other. Where he will easily discover, that the interest of those, who contend for Liberty, engageth such persons, to deny and evacuate the Infallibility and non-mistaking of any Ecclesiastical Guides, even as to the same Necessaries, wherein yet they affirm the Clearness of Scripture to every Christian using a right endeavour; so that none can safely herein adhere to their sentence and judgement, wherein yet he may to his own. Again, their interest; to set forth to the uttermost the defects and failings of these Guides; their oppositions, and contradictions; and of every one so much the more, as he claims a greater Authority: and therefore no wonder, if the Pope is no better treated by them: To charge them, whether Prelates or Synods, with passion, ambition, covetousness, or the like, in their proceed: To rip up and publish any their infirmities or vices, whereby they may be thought less fit to be Guides of other men's Ignorance, or Conscience; or Judges of their Differences: as if inferior and private persons were free from such passions and self interests; and not born in a state, where some opinions better served their profit & preferment than others, & where such engagements clouded their Judgements.  
§. 8 To press a nonnecessity of Deciding Controversies; For, this thing would call for some public Judge: And, To diminish and abridge points of necessary Faith as much as may be; Because all such points must be affirmed so clear that no honest endeavour can mistake in them: and, because thus the Liberty of Opinion in all other points may the better be justified, upon the account of their not being necessary: and to inveigh much against the Multiplicity of the Articles of Faith, that have been imposed by the Church's Councils: To extend the Title of Catholic to all Churches professing Christianity, Because these men allow no certain Judge to determine Heresy or Schism, which may exclude any Church from being Catholic; and because they hold only those points to be necessary to salvation that are so clear in Scripture, as that all Churches agree in them.  
§. 9 To plead much the Liberty and just authority of Particular Churches, and of Civil States, to correct and reform within their Dominions whatsoever Errors and Corruptions in Religion: As indeed it is most necessary they should those, which first by a Lawful Ecclesiastical Authority are stated to be so. But, how such Errors and corruptions shall first be certainly known and distinguished from what are certain Truths, and lawful-practices, which ought to precede a proceeding to reform them, This useth to be passed over by them in silence.  
So; To speak much of the lawful liberty and power of particular Churches & States to change & alter, improve, abolish, (according to several Constitutions of the Civil Government) things that are not essential to Christian Religion nor expressly prescribed by our Lord or his Apostles; but, to say nothing meanwhile, how, what are or are not such Essentials, or so commanded, shall certainly be known and decided; Yet which acting the other necessarily presupposeth the stating of this. But, wisely, little talk they have of this, because such thing would infer a Judge in these matters beside Scripture.  
§. 10 To limit the Authority of such Spiritual Guides; that it obligeth not, when any thing is repugnant to plain Commands of Scripture (which, it seems, either these Governors cannot see, or will dissemble); or, when any other way found not agreeable to God's Word; and then judging, themselves, when it is, or is not so; Or (if their own judgement may seem too partial) making an appeal to the judgement of Common Reason against these Guides; as if both they, and the Major part of the Christian World that follow them, had no such faculty, or that this Common Reason were only in a few. Again that such authority obligeth not in any thing repugnant to the Evidence of Sense; as if either such evidence were not considered by these Persons in Authority; or, that they had not their senses so perfect, as other men. To distinguish between the several Ages of the Church; and allow more Authority to the Governors of the past, (as thinking themselves more out of their reach); than, of the present.  
To annul as much as in them is the Subordinations of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy; or render them arbitrary and dependent on Civil States; and to levelly as much as may be their authority and Jurisdiction; introducing such a Polyarchy into the Catholic Church, as would not be endured in a Temporal Government; nor is indeed suffered by wise Princes in a National Church within their own Dominions. [I will have one Doctrine, and one Discipline; one Religion in substance, and in Ceremony: said King same's. 
‖ Conference at Hampt. Court. ]  
§. 11 To inveigh against the Immunityes and privileges of the Church, either given at first by our Lord, or added by the favour of Princes, when become her sons and subjects, and to suggest to them an invasion of their Rights; To mingle and confound the Jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical and Civil state; and borrow aids from the one, as need is, to relieve their subjection to the other. To require a joint concurrence in the Secular Power for the ratification of all Clergy-Acts, though in purely Spiritual Matters; whereby neither any Church-Doctrine nor Government can be established in such State, which It prohibits; and contrary Constitutions and Laws and Reformations are introduced into the Church, as the secular Magistrate is variously inclined or informed; and Ecclesiastical Controversies transferred into the Civil Courts; they not so well observing the Consequences hereof, when a Julian or a Constantius appears; and that, if the secular Magistrate should be of a Religion or Sect disliked by them, (suppose a Presbyterian, or a Roman-Catholick) such his Spiritual Authority turns to their disadvantage; and that the same Ecclesiastical Rights of the Civil Power will destroy Protestancy elsewhere, as here support it: And that (as S. Austin 
‖ Epist. 48.  minded the Donatists preferring a Secular judgement in their Cause before the Church's)— Judicium Illius [scil. Principis] quem Vestri elegerunt, quem Judicibus Episcopis praetulerunt, justissime contra vos custodictur.  
§. 12 To press much the Scriptures, that may seem to relate the Corruptions and fall away of the Clergy; 
Matt. 24.4, 5, 23, 24. Act. 20.29, 30.— 2 Thes. 2.3,— 1 Tim. 4.1.— 1 Joh. 4.1.— Gal. 1.8.  that bid us to beware of false Prophets, and to try the Spirits, and to adhere to the Gospel (by which they can only mean, to that which in their own judgement is the sense of it) though an Angel from heaven should teach the contrary; to take heed of Seducers and false Guides, that should appear in Christ's name (applying such things to the Canonical Judicature of the Church, and not to themselves rather) and to tell the people of Antichrists that are to come, and store of false Miracles that are to be done; That they are bid to prove all things, and hold that which is good [i.e. what they judge so] That if the blind lead the blind both must fall into the ditch: That the Apostles claimed no dominion over men's Faith etc.  
All these for a— Dirumpamus vincula eorum & projiciamus a nobis jugum ipsorum, I mean that Yoke of Church-Authority committed to these our Ecclesiastical Superiors by our Lord Christ Jesus, and for the gaining freedom of judgement and liberty of opinion, and declining of Obedience. All which things, any way vilifying Superiors, and having something Satirical in them, are ordinarily received with much applause by our corrupt Nature uncorrected by Grace; which loves to have a Sovereignty placed in itself, and to be made Judge of its Judges, and relucts against nothing so much as a captivating of the Understanding.  
§. 13 But indeed the effects of such yoke thrown off, and of such a Liberty established in stead thereof, seem to be very sad. For, besides * the Sin of Disobedience to those our Lord Christ hath set ever us, (if indeed they be such Spiritual Guides to whom we own Submission of Judgement); * the heaviness of the Church's Censures and Anathemas, (if these should be justly incurred by us); * the liability of the more illiterate and ignorant sort of Christians (which are the most) of falling into far more and more gross and fundamental errors, than can possibly come from Obedience and Submission to the Church-governors, though supposed also fallible; and * the great sins both in a Christian's Practice and in the Divine Service, which such errors may bring along with them; Besides a continual unsettledness in a belief that is founded on our own judgement, very mutable, as things are differently represented to it; and hastily resolving many times only because seeing few doubts; and, not because there are not, but because we perceive not, the difficulties; Besides the solicitude and jealousy, that such persons ought to have, concerning their not having sufficiently studied the grounds of their Faith, or used a competent diligence to inform themselves of the truth, (without which they may still miss of it): Besides all these, I say; it happens, that several judgements reading the Scripture, and understanding it in a several way, all assured of its Clearness in Necessaries, and confident of their own Sincerity (which they cannot be of another's), hence Sects and variety of Opinions (according to men's different capacities) become infinitely multiplied; Hence Censuring also and vilifying of their Spiritual Superiors, whose errors they think they clearly discover,— (which Spiritual Pride, and conceitedness in Religion, and Contradiction to Superiors, saith Dr St. 
‖ Serm. on Act. 24.14.  are to be reckoned among the worst Symptoms of a declining Church): Hence also in such diversity of opinion happens an alienation of Affections; and so, very great Divisions and Factions. As we see, that those Sects departed from the Church of England no way agree amongst themselves; and when any of them, by their extraordinary increase, gets any power and dominion ever the rest, there presently follows a proportionable endeavour to advance and propagate itself and root out the other: because they would have all men of the very best Religion, that is, their own.  
§. 14 And it seems a great Inadvertency in those, who are now marshalling up all their Arguments and Forces against an unlimited Church-Authority, and against the Vsurpurs of an unjust Ecclesiastical Power, and Exactours of an undue submission and Obedience, to take so little notice of those other more dangerous enemies, who are marching up in the rear of them, under pretence of being their Auxiliaries in this war: Whenas they have great cause to fear (so soon as any Opportunity may be offered) their making use of those Arms, I mean Arguments and Principles, wherewith they now furnish them, for attempting the demolishing also of that Church-Authority, the first Reformation hath as yet left standing: To which, though hitherto by them unsuccessfully assaulted, yet they no way appear reconciled.  
§. 15 Neither in this Division of Opinions, naturally flowing from such a Principle, and, as Experience hath showed, very mischievous in its effect, doth there appear any possibility of the reducing such a mixed and heterogeneous Body to a firm Union and Peace; where is no Judge to end their differences, but only that, whose Language, misunderstood, causeth them; I mean, the Scriptures. Which last Consideration was one of Mr. Chillingworth's Motives for reconciling himself to the Roman-Catholick Religion— Because (saith he 
‖ Motive 10 Pref. §. 42. ) by denying all humane authority, either of Pope, or Councils, or Church, to determine Controversies of Faith, they have abolished all possible means of suppressing Heresy, or restoring Unity to the Church.  
§. 16 To Which, at his return to Protestantisme, for the satisfying himself and others, (if any have the curiosity to know it) be devised this Answer. 1st, for the means of suppressing Heresy— That all men should believe the Scripture [i.e. it to be God's Word] and endeavour to believe it in the true sense: for that so none such can possibly be an Heretic: saith he. But here, first, how shall any assure himself of having used a right endeavour? Next, of those who do not so endeavour some may be Heretics; and, if Heretics, aught to be suppressed; and cannot be suppressed without some Judge of their nonendeavours, and of their Heresy, besides themselves; and such Judge is the thing this man would decline. Lastly, If God hath appointed some spiritual Guides for directing people in the belief of Scripture in its true sense, a right endeavour cannot be used herein, without repairing to, and learning it from, them; the dependence on whom, for not incurring Heresy; this Author would avoid. 2ly. For preserving Unity in the Church, That there be a Comprehension of all Sects and Opinions within the pale of one Communion 
‖ Pref. §. 43. — That (saith he) no more be required of any man to make him capable of the Church's Communion than this, that every one endeavour to believe Scripture in its true sense. So he. Now, this men may equally do, in their believing it in a most contrary sense, according to their different capacities; and the agreement that thus can be among them will be only tolerating all disagreements. Of which see more in the following Discourse §. 96.  
§. 17 I meet also with another English Divine, who, in his Satisfaction concerning True Religion, conjecturing the causes of the late great increase of Popery in England, pitcheth upon this very san●e thing, that induced Chilling worth to Popery— Nothing (saith he 
‖ p. 178. ) among us (except ignorance and wickedness) increaseth Popery more than the scandal of our numerous and some of them abominable Sects, when the people see many zealous Professors turn Quakers, or Ramers, or Seekers, or Antinomians, or Socinians, or Familists; and shall See the more tolerable parties (Episcopal, Presbyterian, Independent, Erastian, Separatists and Anabaptists) condemning backbiting reproaching making odious (if not persecuting) one another, and shunning many of them the Communion of one another as they do the Papists, This makes them think that they must seek some surer, soberer way, than any of us have yet found. This cause of the increase of Popery he truly discerned, viz. the continual increase of Sects in all Parties, save Popery; and for this, Men, that dread the hazards of the next world more than this, flee apace into the Catholic Church, there to find an unity of Faith, and be at some certainty and rest. But, how shall the cause of the increase of Popery be removed? Or, how can such a Principle in a Church, as the forementioned, proceed to any cure of it? Of one sort of these Sectarists divided from the Bishops he himself is; How can he deny to others the liberty he takes? Or must he not come at last only to Mr Chillingworths' device; where is no Judge, 1 an universal Toleration of all good Endeavourers to understand Scripture; and ² an Internal Communion of Charity (for, an External, the Rites of which may please, or at least may continue to please all parties, can never be invented; nothing being more controverted than concerning the Celebration, Ceremonies, Virtue, &c, of the Sacraments); But it seems by him, neither will those be attained where is such diversity of Opinions: but, (to repeat his words)— There will be condemning, backbiting, reproaching, making odious (if not persecuting) one another, and shunning many of them the Communion of one another, as they do the Papists. [I add, from Experience; And suppressing and crushing one another, as any of them gets power.]  
§. 18 These then are the Ways, that the Patrons of Christians Liberty usually take for its defence; and these seem the Effects of it, where allowed: whilst the Contenders for Obedience and Submission of Judgement to our Spiritual Superiors and Guides take quite the contrary Course. They endeavour to plant in all their Subjects the greatest reverence and esteem of the Lords Clergy, and Ministers, of their learning, wisdom, piety, and the assistance of God's Holy Spirit preserving them for ever, at least in their highest Courts of Jndicature, in all Necessary truth. They maintain a strict Subordination in the Church's Hierarchy, and an Unity of Government in the Catholic Church, though spread thorough never so many several temporal Dominions: all subjected to one Supreme Court and Precedent thereof; and to the same Definitions and Laws, as to matters purely spiritual; and these no way alterable by Civil States. They urge the great Heresies in the highest points of Faith, that the sharpest Wits in former times have fallen into by departing from the sense of the Church; The greater men's parts are, they being more prone, when swayed by Interest, or passionately addicted to a party, to embrace and believe the most absurd opinions; because they can discover, and are furnished with, more plausible arguments, and Verisimilities, to maintain them. They press the necessity of an Unity both in Faith, and Communion; and, of the latter its including also the first; a varying of faith varying also the public Divine Worship and Service. They defend and urge a necessity also of the Church's many Definitions in the Faith from time to time as any dangerous opinions invade it; and so, the Faith also by the Divine Providence is continually made more distinct clear and illustrious; and the Adherents to it more united, from such oppositions; and they maintain the Authority of the Church in all ages the same, and equal, and equally assisted from Heaven to crush the one, and defend the other; else, that the giving way to diversity of Opinions would at last leave no Fundamental of the Christian Faith unshaken, and unquestioned; Atheism stealing in by certain degrees from indulging too great a latitude in the Faith. 
Rom. 12.16. 2 Cor. 2.9. Heb. 13.7, 17.— 1 Cor. 1.10.— Rom. 16.17.— Phi, 3.16.  They press the Scriptures that recommend Humility, captivating the Intellect, not being wise in our own conceit, and that command in all things Obedience— that they should all say one thing, and that there should be no Schisms among them; but that they should be perfect in one sense, and one knowledge.— That they should continue in the same Canon or Rule. And— Mark those that make dissensions and scandals contrary to the doctrines which they had learned, and avoid them. Which precepts cannot be observed, unless, there be in the Church some Persons, whose judgement, doctrine, faith, spirit, all the rest are to follow and conform to.  
§. 19 The effects also of which Obedience to those Guides seem to be quite different from those former ones of Liberty; and as happy, as the other unfortunate: Great unanimity peace and concord in the Members of such a Church; where, in stead of continual consultations concerning his Religion, and that made by every laic from Generation to generation, without any settlement in those matters, the consideration of which belongs to the Councils of the Church, is a stable Union in Faith and Doctrine, with such a well grounded confidence of these Guides their not erring herein, as there remains no expectation of having something amended, nor fears of having it altered. Where the main business is to believe and practise, as these teach him; and a great readiness to part with any opinion which may perhaps be different, so soon as the Church is known by him to teach the contrary; And, in any storm that happens to arise in the Church and divide these Governors, He suffers no distraction to whom to pay this his obedience; in any opposition of Inferiors giving it always to the Superior Ecclesiastical, Persons, or Councils: Again, in any Controversy concerning the judgement or sentiment of Antiquity, or former Church, acquiescing in the Sentence of the present; whose authority he esteems no whit inferior to that of past Ages; and both to be guided by the same Holy Spirit.  
§. 20 Thus the humble Christian, by an happy resignation of his Judgement where our Lord seems to him to demand it, enjoys a perpetual peace and rest from dispute, together with all his fellow-members of the same Body, as to all those matters of greater moment, wherein these his Spiritual Superiors have published their judgement; with much less trouble to himself, and more truth; not by studying the Controversies, but assenting to the Church's Decisions of them; and so remaining safe in his Faith without being Learned. And lastly, this Unity of Faith and Doctrine in such a resolved Obedience is accompanied also with a much firmer league & union of Charity (the latter being hardly to be attained, or long continued, without the former); and with a blessed Uniformity also of God's Public Service and Worship and of the External Communion of the members of such a Church entirely the same in all Nations, (though no one Society & Communion of Christians is so universally extended and diffused as it). In which, Communion and Worship, the Faith, being once changed, presently makes some alterations, (as it did in Luther's days): and none can continue long together in their Communion, who are divided in their Faith. By all these effects the security of such an Obedience seems much preferable to the perpetual instability of private men's liberty; and the plea for it much more preservative of Church-Authority, the Authentic Conservator and Expositor of Holy Scripture; and more becoming a Clergy man. But, as it seems much more to be desired, so, whether it be also sufficiently maintained, I leave to the equal Reader's judgement in the perusal of the following Concertations: from which therefore I shall no longer detain him. Domine, illumina tenebras nostras.   

THE CONTENTS OF THE DISCOURSE.  

CHAP. I. Concerning Points Necessary: and a Right Understanding of the Scriptures in them.  
A Pre-Concession. ¹ That the Holy Scriptures contain all points generally necessary for attaining Salvation; and ² That some of these Necessaries are clear therein to all or most Capacities.  
1. Proposition. That either a Writing, so clearly delivering all points necessary as that no sober Enquirer can err in them: Or, an Infallible Director, where such Writing is not to all, in all such points, clear, well consists with the Wisdom and Goodness of God in manifesting his Will to Men. §. 1.  
2. That the Clearness of the Scripture affirmed in Necessaries to Salvation cannot rationally be restrained only to the points expressly mentioned in the Apostles or other ancient Creeds, or to those only, wherein all Christian Churches are agreed. §. 2. 

Where, That believing the Ancient Creeds, and Leading a Good Life (abstracting from one duty of it, viz. yielding a due Obedience to our Spiritual Superiors) is not sufficient for attaining Salvation. §. 3.    
3. That a Controversy, supposed in a necessary matter of Faith, cannot be decided, when two contrary parties plead Clearness of Scripture on their own side, without some other Judge beside the Scriptures. §. 4. 

As the Controversy concerning the Sense of the Text, Hoc est Corpus meum. §. 5. Where,  
That such Answers as these, maintaining the contrary, seem defective and unsatisfactory: viz.  
* That there is no necessity, that some Controversies in matters of Religion be decided. §. 7.  
Or * That there are other Means of attaining the certain Sense of Scripture [i.e. in some things] without such a Judge. [For, the Question is made, When, after the using all such means; or, When to Persons whose condition permits not to use such means, the Sense of Scriptures remains still doubtful; as to many such it doth] §. 8.  
* Or, That the Sense of Scripture may be certainly learned from the Determinations of Ancient Councils or unanimous Consent of Fathers. [For, as some Controversies in some Necssaries arose and were discussed in the ancient, so may and have some others in latter, times: and, since there is Controversy also not unfrequently concerning what hath been, the unanimous Consent of Fathers in particular points, or the results of lawful ancient Councils, there will yet be wanting a present Judge for determining these: and, since the Church of all times, former or latter, hath equal authority, any present modern Determinations seem as authentic and obliging, as the Ancient.]. §. 9    
4. That, since the Scriptures are affirmed clear in Necessaries only upon the condition of a sincere endeavour, one, not assured first of this sincere endeavour (yet of which there seems no certain means), cannot be secure of his not erring in Necessaries: For exampple, the Socinian. And this especially, when a major part of Christianity understands the sense of such Scriptures, against him. And the same uncertainty holds of one's having sufficiently used other helps, if these also be required. §. 11. Or, if here such a lower degree of endeavour be affirmed only necessary and required, as suits with Christians of the meanest employments and capacities, that such endeavour seems not sufficient for understanding all necessary points. Or, if it be, that by such an Endeavour, the Church-governors may as well be presumed not to err in points necessary; and so the other people way safely acquiesce in their Judgement. §. 12.   

CHAP. II. Concerning a Necessity of Church-Guides for instructing of Christians in Points Necessary.  
THat the Clearness of Scripture in all necessaries upon a right endeavour to understand them, if meant without the help of the Church-Guides, renders their instructing of the people, as to these points, not necessary: But, if understood with the use of their help, implies the Scriptures in such points not clear without their Exposition: and infers a necessity of the not erring of such Guides in these points, that the people by them may be rightly directed. §. 13. 

Where, That such Answers as these in this matter seem not pertinent. * That a manifold necessity of Church-Authority is still maintained [i.e. as to other arts of it, not this]: * That these Church-Guides are of great use also for instructing unskilful persons in Scripture doubtful and obscure; [but not said to be obscure and doubtful in necessaries; which would overthrow the Supposition, that they are herein clear.] §. 14.     

CHAP. III. Concerning Obedience and Submission of Judgement due from the Church's Subjects to their Governors in Divine matters: and, in these, the more, the more they are necessary.  
1. THat the Church's Subjects have an obligation of Obedience and Submission of Judgement to their Ecclesiastical Superiors; and this as to points necessary. §. 19 

Proved by Scriptures. Where the Texts Deut. 17.8.— and 2. Chron. 19.6. are vindicated form Dr St's Exceptions, §. 22. And his other Objections of the erring of the Highest Ecclesiastical Courts under Moses' Law, in Ration. Account p. 241. answered. §. 25.    
2. That such Obedience and Submission of Judgement, if granted due to these Governors, is, in any Division of them, to be yielded to the Superior, Persons, or Councils: §. 26. 

Where, Dr St's Pleas in behalf of the Church of England, in order to this, are considered. Viz.  
* That there was no obliging authority extant at the Reformation, Superior to that of this Church. §. 27.32.  
* That It was, then, free from the Authority of the Pope and Church of Rome. §. 29.  
* That It submitteth to, or consenteth with, the Church Primitive and Apostolical; or, the truly Catholic Church of all Ages. §. 31.  
* That It hath not been so guilty of violating the Church-Canons, as that of Rome. §. 33.  
* That Particular Churches may reform abuses and errors within themselves, when a more General Consent cannot be obtained: [But not, therefore, when a more general Dissent is formerly declared]. §. 34.    
3. That Learned Protestants grant a Submission of Judgement due to Church-Authority from all such Persons, as have no demonstrable Certainty that It commands them any thing contrary to God's Word. §. 35.  
4. That, setting aside any duty of Obedience, the plebeian and unlearned aught, for the understanding of Scriptures, to acquiesce in the judgement of those more skilful and studied in them, without distinguishing those Necessaries wherein is supposed any difference in men's Judgements. §. 37. And that, what is to them using a due industry clear in Scriptures, may be presumed will be so to their Guides. Ibid. 

Where, The Answer; That Christians cannot be secure, that their Guides, though they do not mistake in necessary matters of Faith, yet do not mis-teach others in them; and the transferring Infallibility thus from the Usual Notion, of these Guides their not erring or being deceived in these matters, to an Infallibility of their not deceiving others, seems very unsatisfactory, §. 38.    
5. That to whatever liability to mistakes and errors the Church-Guides are subject, yet there is less hazard to the Vulgar in adhering to theirs, than to their own opinions. 

Where, Such Exceptions and Answers as these that follow against the former Obedience asserted in this Chapter, seem not solid and pertinent. Viz:  
* That God hath entrusted every man with a Faculty of Discerning Truth and Falsehood: [But this, rightly used, will discern this truth, that submission of judgement is due to our Spiritual Superiors]. §. 40.  
* That Guides transgressing their Ride are not to be followed. [True; when these Guides are certainly and demonstrably known to any to do so: but, who shall judge of such certainty? and, were any so certain, or rather conceited that they are so, yet all the rest will remain still obliged to Obedience.].  
* That the concurrent Sense of Antiquity is an excellent Means to understand the mind of Scripture in places, otherwise doubtful and obscure. [Butler, here, not a Means which may be beneficially used, but a Superior, that must be obeyed and submitted-to, is demanded for ending Controversies.]. §. 44.  
* That no absolute submission can be due to two Church-Authorities contradicting one another: [But it is denied, that the Supreme have done so: and, in those Subordinate contradicting, submission is due to the Superiors]. §. 46.  
* That, in the present divided state of the Church, a man must make use of his judgement in the choice of his Church. [But this judgement, rightly used, shows obedience and subjection due, in any division, to the Superior, Persons, or Councils, as the Communion we ought to live in and make choice of.]. §. 47.  
* That we may not submit to all those who challenge the authority of Guides; nor to lawful Guides in all things they may require. [Which as thus spoken in general, so will be willingly granted].     

CHAP. IU. Concerning the Infallibility of these Governors in Necessaries.  
THat the Church is infallible as to Necessaries in her Lawful General Councils. §. 49. 

Proved * by the Practice of such Councils, accepted and submitted to by the Church Catholic diffusive §. 50.  
* From the Necessity thereof for the preserving the stability and certainty of the Christian Faith. §. 51.  
* From the Promises in Scripture §. 52. Where, That Dr St. holds the Roman Church hitherto never to have erred in Necessaries. §. 53.  
* From the Testimony, of S. Austin in his proceed against the Donatists. §. 54. And, of the Greek Church. §. 56.  
* From Archbishop Laweds, and, sometimes, Dr St's, holding the Catholic Church, not only in its Being, but as to its Teaching and Determinations, Infallible. §. 57  
Dr St's Replies considered * Concerning the Practice of Councils. §. 64. etc. * Concerning the Certainty of the Christian Faith without Infallible Church-governors. §. 63. * Concerning S. Austin. §. 71.  
* That the Argument from the Evidence of our Senses, urged by Dr St. and others, disproves not the Infallibility of the Roman-Catholick Church.     

CHAP. V. No Supressing of Sects and Heresies without admitting an Ecclesiastical Judge.  
THat all Sects, for their Tenants, equally appeal to the Clearness of the Scripture. §. 81.  
That the leaving all men, for knowing Necessaries, to the clearness of Scripture therein, without requiring their submission to the Judgement of the Church, can afford no effectual remedy of Heresies and Schisms. §. 83.  
That the Constitutions of the Church of England seem contrary to this; and to require Submission of Judgement. §. 84.  
Dr St's Replies, contending, that his Principles no way justify Sects, considered. §. 86. viz: 

* That there is a great difference between the Church of England's separation from Rome, and that of the Sects from Her. §. 87.  
* That no Infallibility is challenged by her in respect of her Subjects, as is by Rome. §. 89. * That her Doctrines are not made necessary to salvation, nor any excluded from it, merely because not being in her Communion. §. 90. Nor any immediate authority challenged by her of obliging the Consciences of Men. §. 91. Where;  
That, though none of these things could be charged on her by the Sects that have left her, as they are by Her on the Church of Rome left by Her, yet still by her example, as also by these Tenants of hers, the Sects (though agreeing with her in these may think themselves at liberty to departed from her for other things, wherein to them she seems faulty or defective; as She, for this cause, did departed from her Superiors.    
His Replies, contending, that his Principles afford a just and sufficient Means of remedying Sects, considered §. 93. 

Where: That the Recommending of Humility, Obedience, and a due Submission to our Spiritual Pastors, and the not usurping of their Office, &c understood exclusively, to submission of private men's judgement to them, and to restraint of Liberty of Opinion, or of contradiction as to any of the Church's Definitions and Doctrines in matters of Faith, are no sufficient means of suppressing Heresies and Sects. Yet, That, if Protestants would only admit this latter of not contradicting, there could have been, or can be, no Reformations at any time against any such Doctrines of the former Church. §. 94.  
And, That the Church's Authority, of making Rules and Canons; of Reforming any abuses in Practice, or errors in Doctrine; of inflicting Censures upon Offenders; of Receiving into, and Excluding out of the Church such persons which according to the laws of a Christian Society are to be taken in, or shut out, etc. if not extending to Excluding Dissenters from her Doctrines and Definitions in matters of Faith, is still deficient, as to the same purpose. §. 100 etc.    
Concerning the Consent said to be required from all her Clergy by the Church of England to her Articles of Religion. §. 104.  
Mr Chillingworths' Proposal in this matter for procuring a general Unity in Communion and Peace in the Church, considered. §. 96.  
The vanity and uneffectiveness of it as to the End aimed at. §. 97.   

A Table of the Principal CONTENTS of the ANNOTATIONS.  

THat Tradition qualified with the other Motives is a sufficiently certain Evidence, Of the Infallibility of the Church, as Divinely assisted; Or, Of the Canon of Scripture; Or, Of any other Divine Revelations, testified by it to be such. p. 85, 94, 97.  
That either Infallibility of the Church, or of Scriptures, may be the first thing believed from Tradition. And either of these proved from the other, as either is first known. p. 123, 133, 169.  
The expression of a Moral Infallibility vindicated, p. 94. And, that, as Moral Infallibility is applied to Tradition, so, not to Church-Infallibility, as Divinely assisted. Ib.  
That an Assent built only on a morally-infallible Evidence never comes to be more than morally infallible. Or, that an Assent never riseth higher than the Evidence p. 96.  
The several ways, How, in a Divine Faith, an Infallible Assent is said to be yielded to Divine Revelation. p. 87.  
On what account Church-Infallibility necessary, notwithstanding the Certainty and self-evidence of Tradition. And, that Christians, without this Church-Infallibility, are no way certain▪ or secure, as to several necessary points of their Faith, because not so clearly delivered or manifested, as to all persons, by Tradition. p. 89, 93, 97, 98, 125.  
That all Necessary Points of Faith are not clear in Scripture to all capacities without the assistance of their Guides. p. 98. 170. 

The Text 2 Pet. 3.16. considered. p. 173.  
The Testimony * of S. Austin De Doctrina Christiana, l. 2. c. 9 p. 195. And * of S. chrysostom in 2 Thess. Hom. 3. concerning Clearness of Scripture, considered. p. 233.    
That several other Means of understanding Scripture void not the Directions and Decisions herein of Church-Guides, where either the other means cannot be used by Secular Persons of manual employments; or, used, leave the sense of Scripture still ambiguous to meaner Capacities. And, that, the more certain such other means are, the more they assure us of the Church-Guides their not erring herein. p. 179.  
That the Canons of Councils do clearlier decide some necessary points controverted, than the Text of Scripture; and so effect a greater union of Doctrine in a Society submitting to them, than is among those submitting only to Scripture. p. 133.  
That Positive Laws, besides the Law of Nature, were from the Beginning in God's Church; and the Church-Guides, then, as to necessaries infallible. p. 91, 124.  
That, under Moses' Law the people were enjoined Submission of Judgement to the Decisions of an Ecclesiastical Judge. p. 113.  
That from Private Men's (when using a right endeavour) the Argument holds to the Church-Guides, (if using the like) their not erring or being deceived in Necessaries: but is not extended so far as that therefore they are infallible in another sense also, viz: so, as that they cannot deceive others, in mis-teaching them in Necessaries. p. 136.  
That the Exercise of private men's judgements in all things is allowed: but its erring, or the non-submittance of it to another, where due, not therefore excused. And, that the charging Christians to beware of false Prophets, seducers, false Guides etc. still fixeth them more closely to the true. p. 138.  
That Persons, consulting their Guides concerning the Sense of the Rule, cannot judge of their Judgement, whether right, by the Rule; concerning the sense whereof they consulted them: i.e. they cannot learn the sense of the Rule from their Guides, and then know the truth of their sentence, from the Rule. p. 140.  
How, or by what Marks, the true Church is to be discerned from Sects: from which Church first known the Enquirer may learn the true Faith. p. 106. 152. 155. 209. And that, In any difference or contrariety of Church-governors, the Superior Authority is to be obeyed.  
That Christians both prudently may, and in Duty ought, to subject their Judgement in Divine matters to Church-Authority, though supposed fallible; wherever they are not certain of the contrary to its Decisions. p. 99, 223.  
That all other Magistrates and Superiors are deficient and come short, as to one branch of Authority belonging to the Church; viz. the Deciding of what is Truth and error, Lawful and Unlawful in Divine Matters: for which Infallibility is necessary to them, when not so to the others. p. 222.  
That Church-Infallibility is clearly enough evidenced to Christians, both from the Scriptures; and from Tradition p. 109. And that Catholics place this Infallibility in a lawful General Council. p. 96 

Where: Concerning the Decrees of General Councils their being put in the Creeds. And an Universal Assent required to them under Anathema p. 127.  
Concerning the Anathemas passed by inferior and fallible Councils p. 127, 129.  
Some Quotations out of Dr Field: and the Text Gal. 1.8. considered p. 130, 131.  
That Dr Field clearly maintains, some Visible Church or other consisting of Prelates and Subjects, and giving Laws, to be infallible as to Necessaries in all Ages: which Church the unlearned at least are advised by him to search out; and so to follow her Directions and rest in her Judgement. p. 103.  
The Deficiencies in his Tenent. p. 105.    
That Miracles are not necessary in all Ages to attest the Church's Infallibility. p. 116.  
That true Miracles for many good ends, advancing the Glory of God and the Catholic Faith, have been continued in the Catholic Church (but not so elsewhere) ever since the Apostles times. p. Ibid.  
How Miracles signify the Infallibility of those, by whom God worketh them. p. 118.  
The Latter Times of the Church doing Miracles in all the same kinds, as the Former: and both, as our Lord and his Apostles did. p. 119.  
Several Controversies in Religion necessary to be decided; and those, respecting Manners, as well as Faith. p. 175. etc.  
By what Authority General Councils assemble, and decide Controversies. p. 174.  
In what manner General Councils and the Church-Guides are an Infallible standing Judge of Controversies. p. 132, 238.  
Lawful General Councils of any Age since the Apostles times of equal Authority, and Obligation. p. 151, 160, 205.  
That we want a Judge for the necessary Decision of many Controversies: As, for instance, Whether Latter Times have altered what Christ or his Apostles delivered? or, Have imposed things contrary to the plain Commands of Scripture? Or, Latter lawful General Councils contradicted former? or, What former Councils are to be accounted General, Legal, and Obligatory? Whether, what is pretended to be the concordant sense of Antiquity, or to be contrary to it, really is so? Whether some things repugnant to God's Word are not commanded by our Superiors as things Indifferent? etc. I say, that the Christian World is destitute of a Judge to end such differences, unless the Present Church be It; and is, in such Contests, to be appealed and stood to. p. 140. 141.  
That the present unanimous Agreement of the Apostolical Churches, and especially the consent of the Prime Apostolic See joined with them, was by the Ancients esteemed and urged as Infallible; and to which all owed Submission of Judgement p. 180, 181.  
Held so by those Ancient Writers cited by Dr St. 

By S. Jrenaeus p. 182.  
By Tertullian p. 185.  
By Clemens Alexandrinus. p. 188.  
By S. Athanasius. p. 190. 203.  
By S. Austin. p. 194, 206  
By Vincentius Lerinensis p. 197.  
The place, * in S. Gregory Nazianzen Ep. 55. concerning Councils, considered p. 194.  
* In S. Austin, Contra Maximin. l. 3. c. 14. p. 194. De Vnitate Eccl. c. 19 p. 212. De Baptismo. l. 2. c. 3. p. 213.    
Arguments used by the Fathers against Heretics both from infallible Church-Tradition, and from the Scriptures; and that those from the latter, notwithstanding the evidence of the former, are necessary against persons not submitting to the other, p. 190, 191.  
The Places out of Petavius and S. Hierome concerning the Tradition of the Doctrine of the Trinity before the Council of Nice, considered. p. 201. etc.  
unanimous Consent of the Fathers, Primitive Times, Catholick-Church in her Councils, in order to Our Obedience, how to be understood. 159, 200. And Vincentius Lerinensis his Rule— Quod ubique, quod semper, etc. Ibid; not necessarily comprehending all particular Persons or Churches.  
Universality (understood of the Catholic Church distinct from Heretical) never, as to Necssaries, dissenting from Antiquity. p. 199.  
How the believing of the Determinations of General Councils is necessary to salvation. p. 164.  
That Heretical and Schismatical Churches are no Members of the Catholic. p. 154.  
That a Church committing and teaching Idolatry is no true Member of the Catholic Church. p. 80. etc.  
The Nicene Council to be obeyed, suppose the Arian Councils more numerous as to the Bishop's present in them; because the Nicene more universally accepted; and the Arian, how numerous soever, formerly declared Heretics. p. 146. 193.  
Of Pope Liberius and Honorius, accused of Heresy. p. 146. 149.  
That no Certainty from Sense or Reason can rationally be pleaded for any Doctrine against a General Council, or Major part of Christianity, having all the same means of Certainty from Reason and Sense, and they maintaining the contrary Doctrine certain. p. 143, 145.  
Where: Concerning Veneration of Images. Communicating in One Kind. p. 144.  
That our Senses are not to be credited, where is the certainty of a Divine Revelation contrary. Nor doth the Disbelieving them in such things prejudice the Certainty of their Evidence as to all other matters, where no Divine Revelation opposeth. p. 142. etc.  
No Reformation lawful against the Definitions of a Superior Church-Authority. p. 236.  
In a Controversy, Whether a National Church hath departed from the truly Catholic Church of former Ages, who is to be the Judge. p. 237.  
That National Churches and Councils are subject to Patriarchal and General. p. 152. 226.  
That any particular Church may require Assent from all her Subjects to her Doctrines of Religion, so far as such Church accords therein with the Church Catholic. Because, in these she infallible, if the Catholic be so. p. 222.  
Whether a fallible Church may require assent to her doctrines, or to some of them at least, as to matter of Faith; where she, as fallible, confesseth she may err in such matters? Or, she not requiring such submission to them as to matters of faith, Whether her Subjects are not left to their liberty to believe in such matters what seems to them truest? p. 228, 230.  
Whether a Church fallible can justly require of all her Clergy the assenting to, and maintaining of, all her Articles of Religion? And then, How Errors can be rectified in such a Church where all the Clergy stand obliged to teach nothing contrary to the public doctrines thereof? And, 2ly. Whether, if this be justly done by the Church of England, it be not so by the Roman, and by Councils, as to the Clergy subject to them? p. 228.  
Whether the Church of England doth not require Assent from all her Subjects to her Articles of Religion? Or, leaves all men at least, saving the Clergy, to their liberty of opinion. p. 82. 227.  
Whether a Superior Authority was not opposed by the Church of England in the Reformation? p. 235. 238.  
How she Principles of some later English Divines are said to justify Sects. p. 157.  
That private Men's relying on their own judgement in the Sense of Scripture (believed clear to any sober Reader in all Necessaries) against that of their Ecclesiastical Governors occasions a multiplication of Sects. p. 221. 241.  
That the only effectual means in the Catholic Church for preserving her Communion from Heresies and Sects is requiring Submission of Judgement from her Subjects to her Definitions in matters of Faith; and removing Dissenters from her Communion. p. 241. (Justified by the Apostolical Practice. p. 242.)  
And, in any particular Church, is its Adhering to, and Union in Faith with, the Catholic.  
Of the Inquisition, used in some parts of the Roman Church; not used in others. p. 242.     

Errata.  

PAg. 29. line 26. read assert.  
p. 39 l. 6. after us so; add where also we are to believe our senses, that it tells us so.  
p. 53. l. 23. r. to Scripture.  
p. 59 l. 10. r. did from.  
p. 73. l. (4) r. to bear.  
p. 87. l. (6) r. faith is. Ib. l. (5) r. nor without.  
p. 96. l. 20. r. n. 3.  
p. 105. l. 8. r. sorry.  
p. 163. l. (8) r. praxi.  
p. 164. l. 24. r. Patron.  
p. 183. l. (6) r. thither from.  
p. 207. l. (6) Salvator.  
p. 258. l. 12. r. till. that.   
Contents. p. 3. l. 13. r. parts of.   

church-guide Necessary for Directing Christians in Necessary Faith.  

CHAP. I. Concerning Points necessary, and a right understanding of the Scriptures in them.  
AFter N.O. In his Considerations, hath conceded to Dr. Stilling fleet. 1. That the Holy Scriptures do contain all points of faith that are necessary to be of all persons believed for attaining Salvation: §. 1 2. And again, 
See Consid. p. 22.  That in several necessaries the Scriptures also are so clear, that a very mean understanding, in his reading them, needs no further Instructor therein; Yet He there denies such an universal clearness of them in all necessary matters of faith, as that they may be understood by all persons who sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their salvation. And, whereas the Dr. saith 
‖ Princip. 13 — That it is repugnant to the nature of the design & the wisdom & goodness of God to give an infallible assurance to persons in writing his will for the benefit of mankind, if those writings may not be understood by all persons sincerely endeavouring to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their salvation: N. O. there answers, 
Consid. p. 13  that this may as well consist with the Design and the Wisdom and Goodness of God, if, in those things wherein these Divine Writings are clear only to some persons, more versed in the Scriptures and in the Church's Traditional Sense of them, and more assisted from above according to their Mission and Employment, he hath commissioned and appointed these persons, continued in a perpetual Succession, to guide and instruct the rest of Christians (many of whom are of a mean Capacity and no learning); and hath appointed these others also to learn of them the true sense of those places or points of Gods written Will wherein to these it happens to be obscure: As also it would, had he left no Writings at all, but only Teachers to deliver his will perpetually to his Church. Either way, I say, suits well with God's Wisdom & Goodness, the writing his Will in all parts of it so clear, as none sincerely perusing this writing can have, in any necessaries to his salvation, any doubt. [For this Will, if supposed so written, would render any further Ecclesiastical Guide, I say not as to many other parts of the Pastoral Office, but yet as to the expounding of such Scriptures, to such a person, useless.] ² Or, the leaving a Standing Ministry to explicate this his Written Will (the course taken also in giving the Law of Moses) in any necessary matters, wherein the sense of it is to some disputable and ambiguous. Which of these two God hath done is the Question. N. O. denies the former, (as the Dr. asserts it): and for his disallowing it gives many Reasons and Evidences, dispersed here and there in the Consideration●●● as the Doctor's Principles ministered occasion: which I shall endeavour here to recollect in some better Order; and shall consider, where I find any, his Replies: Reducing the Considerations, as relating to those Principles forementioned, to these chief Heads or Chapters. 1. Concerning Points Necessary and a right understanding of the Scriptures in them. 2. Concerning a Necessity of Church-Guides for instruction of the people in points Necessary. 3. Touching Obedience and submission of Judgement due from the Church's subjects to the Definitions of these spiritual Governors, in Divine matters; and this more in those matters, which are more necessary. 4. Concerning the Infallibility of these Governors, herein. 5. And the Impossibility of suppressing Sects, Heresies, and Schisms, without admitting such an Ecclesiastical Judge.  
§. 2 1. First then N.O. observes here, that, in the Dr's mentioning Necessaries for Salvation, Necessaries cannot rationally be taken so strictly as to include only those doctrines delivered in Scripture wherein all persons that bear the name of Christians do agree; for, this would be to say, that whatever is any way controverted is not necessary; which would conclude all controversies heretofore defined in General Councils to be of non-necessaries, even those definitions of theirs put into the common Creeds: and so it would become not necessary, if any thing now generally consented-to shall happen to be disputed hereafter. But, that by the same reason as we do not bound necessaries with the Apostles Creed, so neither can we with the latter common Creeds; I mean, in such a sense as some of the Articles of those Creeds are accounted necessary. For, some Heresies may arise in latter times as pernicious as, the ancient were; and, as the four first Councils lawfully thereupon enlarged the former Creeds, so may other Councils in latter ages enlarge those of these first Councils, to preserve the Church's subjects from any such new corruption of such Creeds. Which New Articles, whenever made, N. O. contends, that, 
Consid. p. 77  though these do not become necessary to salvation, so, as if the pure nescience of them would condemn any, where is an invincible ignorance, or not a sufficient proposal; Yet so necessary they may be still, as that the nescience of them may be some way or other a considerable hindrance to their salvation; and, 2ly. a resistance or opposition to them, when known to be declared by the Church, a Mortal sin; and so this sin without repentance and amendment exclude from Salvation.  
Where N. O. also answers that Question, §. 3 proposed by the Dr. (but also frequently by other Protestants, 
Consid. p. 78 ) Why the believing of all the ancient Creeds, and leading a good life may not be sufficient to salvation, unless one be of the Communion of the Church of Rome? That, if he speaks not of the Roman, but Roman-Catholick Church; and means such a good life, as, whilst performing other duties belonging to a Christian, yet is defective in the Obedience that is due to his spiritual Superiors (for, if a good life be so understood as also to include this, the Drs. supposition will be denied, viz. that any such person leads a good life). than I say N. O. answers. That such believing and leading such a life cannot be sufficient for salvation to so many persons, as either persist, without repentance, in a wilful ignorance of their obligation to live in this Communion; or, knowing this obligation, persist in a wilful neglect to reunite themselves to it. Because all such persons live in a mortal sin, viz. disobedience to, and a wilful separation from, their lawful and Canonical Ecclesiastical Superiors, whom our Lord hath set over them: And this sin unrepented of destroys salvation, being the same that is so heavily condemned by our Saviour, Si n●n audierit Ecclesiam. And again; That we have reason to fear that it is unrepented of, so long as they, having opportunity, either neglect to inform their practice. 
Consid. p. 79  And that this seems a judged Case in the Donatists, (who pretended some such thing for their security) if we will admit S. Austin's sentiment of it: for, thus he directs his speech to them— Nobiscum estis in Baptismo, in Symbol, in cateris Dominicis Sacramentis [and I may safely add, with regard to some of them at least, You are with us in a good life, with the former exception], In spiri it autem unitatis, & vincul● pacis, in ipsâ denique Catholicâ Ecclesiâ nobiscum non estis: And so he leaves them to the punishment due to those who are out of It, and so separated from Christ its Head: That, as to a Christian living in the 5th age of the Church the believing of the Apostles Creed, (as those of the first age did) and leading a good life, would not be sufficient for salvation to such a one, unless he continued in the Communion of his lawful Ecclesiastical Superiors of his own age, when they required from him under Anathema or penalty of damnation the belief not only of the Symbol of the Apostles, but of all the Articles of the Athanasian Creed; (as in the beginning & conclusion of that Creed it is clear they did): So neither will the believing of these Creeds, to one living and leading a good life in the present age, suffice, if he deserts the Canons and Decrees of his lawful Superiors, requiring, on the same penalties, the belief of something more than is expressed in these Creeds. Again, the Creeds chief comprehending Speculatives, there must be a great Body of Articles also of necessary Faith relating to Practicals; all which therefore also must be maintained by the Dr. to be clearly delivered in Scripture.  
The clearness of Scriptures then affirmed by him as to all necessaries must be extended to more points than those contained in the Ancient Creeds; Otherwise all modern differences between Protestants & Roman Catholics must be said to be in unnecessary matters; wherein yet Protestants ground all their opposition of the Roman Doctrines upon the clearness of Scripture on their side; and on the other side also pretend the greatest danger to be in the Roman Communion for her erring in them; as this Dr. in particular, for her teaching and practising Idolatry. In which point surely, or in none, it is necessary that the Holy Scriptures clearly guide, and direct Christians. §. 4  
Now, since a Clearness of Scripture must be affirmed by the Dr. in some Points Controverted, else he must say that no necessary point can be so, a Question will be; How, and, On what side, two Parties pretending to it, 
Consid. p. 19  such clearness of Scripture may be discerned? & herein N. O. sees not, how the Dr. can allege or insist upon such a clearness, as to any advantage of the Protestant Religion. For, since not only one, but all Parties pretend a sincere endeavour in the right understanding of these Scriptures, and, after it, do differ so much in their sense, with what reason or charity can the Dr. in those many points debated, (surely, some, of the greatest Moment,) affirm the sense of these Scriptures clear on the Protestant side, where the Major part of Christendom understands their meaning contrary: as he must grant they do in all those he accounts counts the common Errors both of the Greek and Roman Church (a large Catalogue of which may be found in many Protestant Authors.)? Or, will he charge all these as defective in a sincere endeavour? But rather, 
Consid. p. ●0  such sincere endeavour being indifferently allowed to all Parties, he ought to pronounce the sense of Scripture to be clear, if on any, on that side as the Major part doth apprehend it: Which certainly is not the Protestant.  
§. 5 For Example. How can the Dr. rationally maintain this Text, Hoc est Corpus meum, so often repeated in the Gospels without any variation of the Terms, to bear a sense clear on the Protestants side; that is, That the Eucharist is not in a literal or proper sense the Body of Christ; whenas they are understood in a literal sense by much the Major part of the Christian World, not only the Western, but Eastern Churches also (as Monsieur Claude concedes to his worthy Adversary Monsieur Arnaude): 
Claud in his last Reply l. 3. c. 13.  to which Party also may be added half the Body of Protestants, namely all the Lutherans? Now, all these have used their senses, and weighed the Arguments drawn from them, as well as Calvinists.  
§. 6 But, if the Dr. put this Text so much controverted among Obscure Scriptures (which therefore not containing any point necessary to salvation, salvation is not endangered by it, if a Christian should err or he mistaken in their sense) then how comes this great Body of Christians merely by their mistake of its sense, in thinking that our Lord means as the words sound, that the Eucharist is his very proper Body, and so adoring i● (as they ought, should it be so) how come they, I say, to commit such gross Idolatry, as the Dr. in his Book charges them with, and so all, without Repentance of it, if Idolatry be a Mortal Sin, miscarry in their salvation?  
And if, from a Major part of the present Church interpreting Scripture, an Appeal be made to a Major part of the Ancient Church, pretended to interpret them on the Protestant side, 
Consid. p. ●●  neither will this relieve the Dr; because, since this also [〈◊〉 what side Antiquity stands] is a thing in Controversy, (fo●●d ●●●r●omg of it we are to presume here like wise that, a sincere ●n●●●●owr being allowed to all parties to understand the sense of the former Church, this also stands on that side as the Major part appr●●●e 〈◊〉 it. Now the present much Major part of Christianity pre●e ●●oth 〈…〉 the sense of the Ancient Church, in●●● p●●●ing this Scripture 〈◊〉 a Corporal Presence.  
§. 7 To this Query of N. O: How the Controversy shall bedecided, when, in a matter of Necessary Faith, two contrary P●●ties say the Scripture is ●lear on their own unde●● I and this Author answering first p. ●92▪ 〈…〉 of determinine Controversies in Religion by a Living Judge is not built on any sufficient Foundation of Scripture or Reason, i.e. as I understand him, there is no necessity of it. [Mr Chillingworth made such an Answer before him, but more clearly, in these words 
‖ p. 59 — That those places of Scripture which contain things necessary, and wherein error were dangerous, need no infallible [Judge, or] Interpreter, because they are plain: and th●se that are obscure need none, because they contain not things necessary, neither is error in them dangerous.] But the Reader may observe here, that the Dr. saith only, of determining Controudrsies in Religion; leaving this term Controversies indefinite (as is usual with him); when as N. O. speaks not of Controversies in general, (many of which he grants not necessary to be decided) but expressly of controversies in points necessary; that it is requisite the true sense of Scripture herein be some way or other cleared, else Christians cannot know what to believe in them: Upon which reason the Dr. himself also, in his Principles, 
‖ Princ. 13.  pleads a necessity that the Scriptures be clear in them.  
§. 8 2ly. He tells us p. 197.— That there are means of attaining the certain sense of Scripture in doubtful places, without the supposition of an Infallible Guide; and so makes a long discourse from p. 197. to p. 260. concerning the Means used in the Primitive times, and the many good Rules given by the Ancients for this; As, a diligent comparing of Scriptures; Considering the scope, design, connexion; whether the sentence be literal on figurative; illustrating the difficult by places more plain; few by many; recurring to the Original Tongues, etc. Where 〈◊〉 N. O. e●qui●e● how necessaries may be decided for those persons, who, after all these means used, remain still in some suspense; or also for those, whose low and mechanic condition or weak judgement cannot examine▪ these things: can neither compare Scriptures, nor search the Testimony of Antiquity: Whether; 
1. 〈◊〉. q.  for such, it is not much safer to adhere to their Guides though fallible (who also have used all those other helps the Dr▪ mentions) for deciding these, than to be committed to their own judgement, much likelier to err herein, than the others?  
§. 9 Next I find him, when some twenty leaves have been spent in showing thi●●●riety of means p. 249. delivering this, as the s●●se of the Fathers formerly p●toted by him, and so also, I suppose, his own.— That, If after examining and com●ering Scriptures, etc. the dispute still continues, and that it be not against the Rule of Faith in express words, but about the sense of it, then, if ancient General Councils have determined it, which had greater opportunities of knowing the sense of the Apostolical Church than we, it is reasonable we should yield to them; but, if there have been none such, then that the unanimous consent of Fathers is to be taken, so it be in some new and upstart Heresies. And so saith he— There is no necessity of Infallibility in the Guides of the Church to give us a certain sense of Scripture: which was the thing to be proved.  
§. 11 But, here are several things that leave us still without a Determination of such Controversies, so as in them to have any settlement of our Faith. For 1st. he saith, If Ancient General Councils have determined it, etc. But I ask, When may Antiquity and such obliging authority expire? and What if such ancient General Councils have not, and some latter General Councils have, determined it; whether is it not reasonable we should yield to them? and Whether the Church, in all ages since the Apostles, hath not the same and equal Authority? Otherwise, if a certain distance from the Apostle's times doth alter this Authority, why may not the Arrians put in such an exception against that of Nice, not held till after 300. years? and so much more against other Councils later than Nice? Again, since new Controversies in Necessaries may arise in latter times which such ancient Councils have not considered or decided, as there did, after 300 years, several such as had not been discussed or so resolved before, thus we shall have no Judge left for deciding them: lastly when any Controversy ariseth concerning the Determinations of ancient Councils or Consent of Fathers in any such Point, surely some Judge we must have for determining this, before the Controversy can be determined. 2ly The Terms he useth— It is reasonable we should yield to them are general and ambiguous. Doth he mean— It is reasonable to yield our assent unto them? Else how do such Decisions direct our faith or belief at all in these necessaries? 3ly, He saith— So it be in some new and upstart Heresies. But why may not this unanimous consent of Fathers be taken against whatever opinions, Elder or newer, that contradict them? But, if this Author means reasonable to yield our assent unto them; and if, to lawful General Councils of whatever times, he allows the same and equal authority; and will admit the authority of the latter to resolve any disputes touching the consent or statings of the former; what other thing is this but to come home to N. O's Infallible Guide, which is lawful General Councils, or other known unanimous consent of the Church-governors, Ancient, or Modern? Which Councils also, for the matters they do decide, are a standing Guide not only to those present times when they sit, or wherein they live, but to all Posterity. And so this Author at last hath pitched upon that very means of ending Controversies in Necessaries (where the sense of Scripture, is disputed, and other means, the comparing of Scriptures, etc. as to many, are either not practicable, or effectless) which he had endeavoured to avoid: the truth of which I leave to the Readers examination.  
§. 11 This to the Dr's Principle as restraining the clearness of Scripture to Necessaries to salvation. Next: In its affirming the Scriptures in such necessaries clear to men only on this condition, viz. their using a sincere endeavour for knowing the right meaning of them (wherein also I suppose he includes the divesting themselves of all passion and Interest that may any way blind them in the search of Truth.) N.O. hence observes, that no private person can be secure of their right understanding them, till they are first assured of having used a just endeavour and reduced themselves to a clear indifference and disengagement: And by what means may they be certain of this? Or are not the simple or illiterate obliged to use much greater industry herein, than others? And thus, one being left to himself, all things will be still in suspense. For Example. The Socinians, esteemed as great Scripturists as any, it is, by all of them erring to this day in a necessary point of Faith, very manifest that, according to this Principle, they have not used a sincere and upright endeavour to understand them: Nor yet the Major part of the Christian World in some other Necessaries to have used their endeavours aright, if the Dr. have so used his: for, these differ from him in this sense of Scripture. How then shall any be assured of his having used a just diligence herein? Or, will not all be driven for the want of this assurance, notwithstanding the truth of such a Principle, to their Obedience and submission of judgement herein to the Church? And the same may be said of one's duty of using also other helps besides his own industry, as their repairing to the instruction of Churchmen or others more learned; which helps for their understanding of matters that are doubtful and require skill to resolve them 
‖ p. 267.269.  the Dr. owns and recommends in his Answer to N.O. though in his Principles, speaking of Necessaries, he forbears to mind the sincere endeavourer, or sober enquirer, of them at all: One would think, because the consulting such helps, if recommended by him, would have seemed to imply (as indeed it doth) some non-clearness of Scripture at least to such persons; contrary to the Dr's Thesis. Here, I say, how shall one know when he hath sufficiently used such helps also herein? But, if a person may be certain when he hath done so, so may he be, when he hath not; namely, when upon searching he is not certain that he hath; and so, all those that err in necessaries, suppose the Socinians, and roman-catholics, must be affirmed, if they examine it, conscious to themselves of a defect herein.  
§. 12 But after this, the Dr. allowing the same effect of such sincere endeavour, to all sorts of persons, to the unlearned and Plebeians, as well as the Divines and Doctors, 
Consid. p. 16  this sincere seems to mean not all possible, endeavour, such as is learning the languages, perusing Commentators, etc. but, 
Chillingw. Answ. to Prefac. §. 26  as Mr. Chillingworth (who anchored his whole Religion upon it) states this point,— such a measure thereof as humane prudence and ordinary discretion (their abilities, and opportunities, and all other things considered) shall advise: And, thus, such a clearness in necessaries must the Scriptures be affirmed to have, as suits with the very lowest capacities. Such a clearness, I say, even as to all the Articles of the Athanasian Creed, if these be esteemed necessaries; and even as to the Consubstantiality of the Son with God the Father. In which notwithstanding the whole Body of Socinians dares to oppose all Antiquity, upon pretence of clear Scripture to the contrary. But then, such a sincere endeavour put, as the meanest persons are well capable of using, how can we deny it to be used also by the Church Governors, and so by it them also well to discern all necessary Truth? and than may not the simpler sort with all safety ●ely on their judgement: and rather, in a due humility, suspect a defect in their own, than in their, endeavours? But of this more by and by.   

CHAP. II. Concerning a Necessity of Church-Guides for the instruction of Christians in Necessaries.  
§. 13 II. SEcondly, Whereas this Principle of the Scripture's being so clear, as that every one, who sincerely endeavours it, may understand their sense in all things necessary to their salvation, is advanced by the Dr. as he often saith, thence to infer no necessity of any infallible Society of men to instruct and guide Christians in such necessaries, N. O. in the second place observes Consid. p. 24. that from such a Principle seems to follow something more than haply the Dr. would willingly admit; viz. the non-necessiry of any Society at all, fallible, or infallible, to explain these Writings, 
Consid. p. 24  as to Necessaries, unless perhaps these Teachers may be said to be left by our Lord either for others to supersede their endeavours, or else only for instructing them in non necessaries. And again, p. 49. upon the Dr's assertion, Princip. 
Consid. p. 49  19— That the Assistance which God hath promised to those who sincerely desire to know his will may give them greater assurance of the truth of what is contained in the books of Scripture, than it is possible for the greatest Infallibility in any other persons to do, N. O. observes, that whatever Divine Assistance is there advanced by the Dr. against the assurance that can be received from Church-Infallibility, the same is more against any assurance that may be had from the same Church fallible: and that thus it happens more than once in these Principles, that in too forward a zeal of demolishing the one, the other also was dangerously [that is, as to this particular, the need of the Clergy for instructing the people in necessaries] undermined by him. And again p. 83. upon the first Consequence drawn by Dr. St. from his own Principles, 
Consid. 83. — That there it no necessity at all or use of an infallible society of men to assure men of the truth of those things of which they may be certain without them, etc. observes; that this concludes the uselessness as well of any Ecclesiastical Authority, to teach men, as of an Infallible, to assure men of, the truth of those things, which by using only their own sincere endeavour they may know without them. So that as by this Principle he takes away Infallibility, so doth he also the Office of God's Ministry, though not as to every thing (in the proof of which Church-Authority and Office, as to many other things, the troubled Dr. would relieve himself in his Answer); Or, as to this, of Teaching the people, if he will, as to non-necessaries, Yet, as to this, the need that there is of any such Clergy for teaching the people in the Necessaries to their salvation.  
§. 14 The Reader may see, for this, his Reply, in his Answer to N. O. from p. 260. to p. 278. a reply long enough to be good. Wherein he will first needs suppose, 
See p. 264, 262. 267. 270. 273. 274.  that N.O. chargeth him, by this Principle with undermining or taking away All Church Authority 
‖ p. 84. : and next, shows, that he maintains still a manifold Authority in the Governors of the Church; as this, Of their inflicting Censures upon offenders, commonly called the Power of the Keys: Of their making Rules and Canons about matters of Order and Decency in the Church: 
p. 267.  
p. 268.  Of their proposing matters of faith, and directing men in Religion; where he mentions also this the particular instruction of persons doubtful [which those using sincere endeavour may well be in things not necessary; and so wherein the Scripture may not be clear], and the public declaring [i.e. in Sermons] what is the mind and will of God contained in Scripture in order to the salvation and Edification of the souls of men: Of Declaring what errors and abuses there are, and doing as much as in them lies to reform them. But, concerning that only point N.O. speaks of, namely, a necessity of this Ministry, Clergy, or Church-Authority for guiding Christians in Necessaries to their salvation, so that they cannot by their own endeavours attain the knowledge of all these sufficiently without them, I find not a word; he that can, let him. So that N. O's. charge remains still in force; and, could I find any such thing in him, I see not but it must point-blank contradict his Principles, and the words of his first Consequence he draws from them but now recited.  
§. 15 I find him saying there indeed, p. 266.— That there are some common Principles of Religion that are or may be known to all; and some precepts so plain that every Christian without any help, [I understand him here, any help either of his Guides or any else,] may know them to be his duty. And also, that within the compass of these plain and known duties lies the capacity of persons judging of their Guides, if they carry them out of their beaten way &c. [which Guides therefore he holds may mislead them in these Principles: so that here is not only their not needing Guides, but, if need be, di-or-cor-recting them].  
§. 16 Again; I find him saying p. 267.— That these Guides may be of great use for the direction of unskilful persons in matters that are doubtful and require skill to resolve them: but this is not in matters necessary; for, if the Clergy, here, may be needful or useful once, so surely an infallibility of them would be more.  
And he saith p. 189.— That be doth not deny, that there are doubtful and controverted places, but [denies] that the sense of Scripture is so doubtful and obscure in the things which are necessary to men's salvation, that persons without an infallible Guide cannot know the meaning of them. And again— We do not deny, that there are places of great difficulty in the Books of Scripture, but we assert, that the necessaries to Salvation do not lie therein. And afterward— If a person then by reading and considering those things [believe and] do what Christ requires for his salvation, what necessity hath such a one to trouble himself about an infallible Guide? I add; or about any Guide at all, as to such matters? For, where one knows a thing once, no Guide (fallible or infallible) is necessary for his knowing that thing. And if an infallible Guide is not necessary here, it must be because a person may know the certain sense of such Scriptures without him: but, if he knows the certain sense without such a Guide, so may he without any Guide fallible also; for the fallibility of a Guide surely doth not render the Scripture more certainly knowable by him, than an infallibility doth: and therefore in such case neither is a fallible Guide necessary.  
§. Pag. 273. I find him saying— That he no where in the least excludes the use of all means and due helps of Guides and others for the understanding the sense of Scripture; [i. e. where Scripture doubtful:] but such he affirms it not to be in necessaries to the just endeavourer to understand it; of whom, and which, N. O. speaks. And, if it be said; though not to the just endeavourer, yet to such others as will not use their own endeavour such Guides may be needful or useful for directing them in necessaries; so also I suppose will be a Guide infallible, that so such may not err in necessaries after their having consulted them. Ibid. I find him excusing himself, that in the Principles he drew up, he not where mentions these due helps of our Guides, because his business was only about the Foundation of Faith, and whether Infallibility was necessary for that, or no. But then, he ought to speak nothing for the excluding Infallibility, that doth also exclude as well such due helps. And again, as he mentions, in his laying this foundation of faith, a sincere endeavour, so ought he any other helps, without which, as well as without a sincere endeavour, he holds the understanding of Scripture, though clear, cannot be had.  
§. 18 Again, p. 274, he saith that— If all those things which are necessary to salvation are plain in Scripture to all that sincerely endeavour to understand them, it doth not hence follow that there can be no just authority in a Church, no use of persons, to instruct others [but he saith not to instruct them in these necessaries, already plain to them]. So he asks there— If he should say that the necessary rules for a man's health are so plainly laid down by Hypocrates, that every one, that will take the pains, may understand them, doth this make the whole Profession of Physic useless? To which who would not answer, Yes; as to such person, taking such pains, for his understanding the necessary Rules of health; but not therefore useless as to all other things? P. 275. I find him distinguishing between Necessaries to Salvation and to Government; and granting, that for Church-Government these Guides are necessary. But meanwhile N. O's enquiry is concerning the other member, how needful they are for knowledge of necessaries to Salvation. Again Ibid.— That as Christians are joined together in a Christian Society many other things are necessary for th●t end, besides what make them capable of Salvation. And 
‖ p. 276. — that mon understanding what is necessary to salvation, yet have need to be ruled and governed. True: but, thus, the Churchmen are required for Rule and Government, but not for instruction in necessaries to Salvation.  
In all this I find no necessity of a Clergy for guiding Christians in necessaries; and, if there be, should he not have mentioned the consulting them, (if it were but for the Independents, and Quakers, and other extravagant Sects that may read him), as well as mention the using a sincere endeavour? and should he not have given the reason thereof; Because Scriptures in some points necessary are obscure without their using such help; and not, that they are in all these clear?   

CHAP. III. Concerning the Duty of Obedience and submission of Judgement from the Church's Subjects to the Definitions of the Church-Governors in Divine matters; and in these the more, the more they are Necessary.  
§. 19 III. N. O. advanceth yet further against the former Principle; That the Church's Subjects have an Obligation of Obedience and submission of Judgement in matters of necessary Faith to their Ecclesiastical Superiors; and that, considering both the special Ordination and Commission, of these persons from Christ for teaching to the World the Truth's necessary to Salvation; and his charging others to obey them; and also, their own ignorance, and their Superiors study and Learning in such things divine, they therefore ought to depend upon and adhere to their directions so much the more in any point of Faith by how much it is esteemed more necessary; as, wherein there is a much greater hazard if they should err.  
§. 20 To this purpose N.O. urgeth Eph. 4.11, etc. 
‖ See 1 Con. 12.28.  That our Lord hath given as Apostles and Prophets, so Pastors and Doctors for the consummation of the Saints, for the Work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the Body of Christ [surely this in necessaries to their Salvation] until all meet into the unity of faith, into a perfect man— That [henceforth] they may not be [as] children waved and carried about with every wind of Doctrine in the wickedness and craftiness of men to the circumvention of Error. Where the Apostle naming the Design of this Divine Constitution of these Persons to be perfecting of men in the unity of the Faith it would be too much violence Used upon the Text to limit such an Institution only to a Guidance in non-Necessaries to Salvation, upon the account of Necessaries sufficiently clear to all men [i.e. using a right endeavour to understand them] in the Scriptures.  
§. 21 Again N.O. urgeth 2 Pet. 3.16. Where S. Peter observes, that in his time some persons [for any thing we know diligent enough, yet through want of learning and the instability of not adhering to their Guides] being unlearned (saith he) and unstable, depraved some places of Scripture, hard to be understood, to their own destruction; which shows also these Scriptures hard to be understood in points necessary: else, how their destruction follow their erring? and shows their erring in these also not to be only for want of diligence, or Devotion, or from their proverseness or folly, where the Dr. in his Answer 
‖ p. 190.  to this Text, (for the rest he passeth by,) would chief place the reason thereof, but for their want of learning, saith the Apostle, and of stability, i.e. in adhering to their true Guides: and, as the Dr. grants, for want of Judgement, which care and diligence cannot always supply. Urgeth also the Apostles Precept Heb. 13.17. of obeying our Prelates and submitting to them, as those who watch over, and must render an account of, our souls; and ver. 7, 9 of following their faith: and not being carried about with divers and strange doctrines [which obedience and following their faith surely is not intended only as to non-necessaries]: and urgeth our Lords Command also— fi non audierit Ecclesiam; that he, who in matters of controversy did not stand to the determination and sentence of the Church should be held as an Heathen and a Publican.  
§. 22 N. O. adds; That under the Law also were appointed Judges beside the letter of it; 
Consid. p. 25  which was not penned with such clarity, but that doubts and controversies might arise concerning the sense: doubts, saith the Text, not only between blood and blood, stroke and stroke, etc. but also between law and commandment, statute and judgement 
‖ 2 Chron. 19.6.  seeming to gainsay one another; which doubts arising, their addresses were to be made to these Judges, and whatever their sentence was, according to the sentence of the law that these should teach them, and according to the judgement that they should tell and inform them, they were to do: and that upon pain of death. To do, according to such sentence; not only to acquiesce in and yield some kind of external submission to, their determination and sentence (so as men do to these of secular Courts) as to nonresistance, and the undergoing such mulcts or punishments as were imposed on them; without being obliged meanwhile at all to assent to, or believe, the truth of that which they determine, or consequently act always according to it, as thought just and lawful, [an answer the Dr. gives in his Rational Account 
‖ p. 239.  and to which in his late Reply he refers 
† p. 116.  N.O. who had before perused, and remained unsatisfied with, it; made, as by him, so by Chillingworth, and other Protestants]: but (as N.O. expressly cautioned 
‖ p. 25.  against any such answer) to do according to such sentence, when they were enjoined the observance of some law; that was formerly misunderstood by them and so broken, and disobeyed: Where, none can can be obliged to do a thing, as the Jews were by those Judges, but is by the same decree obliged to assent and believe the doing it lawful. And, that this seemed clear enough from the words of the Text: for who can reasonably interpret them thus? Thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall show thee, to the right hand or to the left (ver. 11.): that is, Thou shalt not decline in not paying the mulct in which they shall fine thee; or, not undergoing the corporal punishment they shall inflict on thee: Thou shalt observe to do according to all that they shall inform thee, and according to the sentence of the law that they shall teach thee (ver. 10.) that is, thou shalt suffer what they impose, but not obey what they enjoin. Again, that they were to do according to such sentence, upon pain of death, not then only when the Litigants do acknowledge their sentence to be (juxta legem Dei) conformable to God's law; (for, then, what sentence of the Judge would stand good?); but, so often as the Judge should declare it to be conformable to God's law; And when will a Judge declare his sentence to be otherwise? Lastly, that if such an obedience as this, were now performed to supreme Ecclesiastical Governors and Judges under the Gospel, more would not be desired.  
§. 23 Thus the Considerations. And the Reader may here seriously consider; Whether, If out of the Gospel were produced in express words the like command concerning our Ecclesiastical Governors in Relation to it, Namely: If there arise a matter too hard for thee etc. [in the Scriptures of the Gospel] thou shalt come to them and they shall show thee the sentence of Judgement. And thou shalt do according to the sentence which they shall show thee; Thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee. Thou shalt not decline from their sentence to the right hand or to the left &c: Whether I say such an answer touching Obedience, as is given here to the same words in Deuteronomy, would any way satisfy him. Therefore here Dr. St. at last thinks fit to deny such an absolute obedience due now under the Gospel to Ecclesiastical Governors, as was under the Law. His words are— 
‖ p. 116.  We are ready to yield such an absolute Obedience, 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. Much-what like to which is that, he saith in his Rat. Account 
† p. 241. — If we had met with any thing so express, [viz. concerning such Judge in the Gospel] nay that had any seeming tendency this way, how readily should we submit our Controversies to his determination? To which I answer, 1st. That by this he seems to retract his former answer given to the words in Deuteronomy: 
‖ Rat. Acc. p. 239.  viz. that they infer no more obedience, than that which is required by, and afforded to, all Courts of Justice; and, that they include not any obligation to assent to what is determined as infallible truth. 2ly. I say, since now under the Gospel we have a written Rule no more free from Controversies, than that given by Moses; and so, since there is the same necessity of such Judges, we may rationally conclude, our Lord Christ under the Gospel hath left us no more destitute of such a remedy to end debates, than he did those under the Law. 3. lastly, that the former Texts and others 
‖ See 1. Disconcerning the Guide in Controversies, §. 7.  that establish the Church's Hierarchy do include the like command of absolute Obedience to such Judge: only this upon the pain of a Spiritual, not Temporal, Death.— Sit tibi sicut Ethnicus.  
§. 24 As for that Text, Leu. 4.13, 15.— If all the multitude of Israel be ignorant, and through ignorance do that which is against the commandment etc. which he urges 
‖ Rat. Acc. p. 241.  to prove the Law-Guides also liable to errors (though this is not the matter here in dispute) the like expression occurring Leu. 5.2, 3, 4. shows this to be spoken of an ignorance not of the Law, but of the Fact; as if one hath touched some unclean thing and be ignorant of what he hath done. But then, taken in the Dr's. sense, this Text seems still more to confirm an absolute obedience yielded by this people to this Grand Council, else the Whole would not have been involved in their Error.  
§. 25 To his other objections mentioned Ibid.— The Priests all along the books of the Prophets charged by God with ignorance and forsaking his way; and (2 Chron. 15.3.) Israel having been for a long season without the true God, teaching Priests, and Law; and lastly the High Priest and Sanedrim condemning our Blessed Saviour. I answer: * That under the Law God in all times had a Visible Church in the Nation of Israel consisting of Priests or Clergy, and people, not erring in Fundamentals and Necessaries; and this Clergy instructing and guiding the people in such necessaries; as which people had no Copies of the Law; and therefore as the Dr. often inculcates, God was not deficient in manifesting by some other means to them his will, of whom he exacted to obey it. That, in the Apostasies of Israel such Church continued still in Judah; and that, in the two great Apostasies also that happened in Juda under Ahaz and Manasses, we find a Ministry or Clergy, that was persecuted before, concurring and acting in the Reformation, together with the Kings Hezechiah and Josiah. And, * that such Church, whose Priesthood in necessaries erred not, continued according to the Promise, Gen. 49.10. till the appearing of the Messiah. Lastly, * that the Messiah coming with Miracles & manifested by the other two Persons of the Trinity, by the Father with a Voice from Heaven, commanding to Hear Him, and by the Holy Ghost seen descending on Him, as also by the Baptist, was now from henceforth to be received as the supreme Legislator; and nothing to be admitted from others or from the Sanedrim itself contradictory to what he taught; which High Court therefore now, for the accomplishment of his necessary Sufferings, was permitted by God to be the greatest Enemy of Truth, and guided therein not by God's, but a Satanical Spirit: Of whose Doctrines therefore our Lord warned the people often to beware, and when he bids them, all that the Pharisees, who yet possessed Moses his Chair, taught them, that to observe and do, it is necessarily to be limited and understood, wherein theirs contradicted not his Doctrines and Expositions of the Law. The Texts therefore mentioning the Priest's ignorance or falling away, the Nation's being without God, Priest, or Law etc. are not to be understood universally, but of some part of this Nation; as in the time of the Judges; or afterward of Israel, when the true Church and Priesthood continued still in Judah; or of some part of the Clergy, and that perhaps a greater, in Judah sometimes apostatising from God's true Religion and the Law of Moses; but then, these by such Apostasy were clearly cut off from the Church, and the whole Authority and Judicatory Power remained in the rest not so apostatised, though supposed fewer; by whom the true Religion, when afterward meeting with a well-affected Prince, from time to time received a restauration.  
Hence therefore N. O. deduceth, that, 
Consid. p. 57  God having directed us, for learning our right way, to the obedience of a Guide, he doth take no prudent or safe course, who, 
p. 51.  committing himself to God's immediate assistance shall neglect it; and break his commandment in hope of his favour and help.  
§. 26 And, if Obedience be once thus granted due to our Spiritual Guides as to learning Necessaries: Next, That it is not hard to know, in any division and disagreement of these, whose judgement, in such a case every Christian ought to follow and adhere to, 
Consid. p. 81  namely always to that of such Church-Authority as is the Superior; which in most cases is indisputable; this Ecclesiastical Body being placed by the Divine Providence in an exact subordination. As here in England it is not doubted, whether we are to pay our obedience rather to a National Synod, than to a Diocesan; to the Archbishop, or Primate, than to an ordinary Bishop, or Presbyter. That so also, in the Catholic Church, the Subordinations among its Governors, both as to single Persons, and Synods, are well known; and our obedience, in any contest or competition, due sooner to our Bishop, than to a Presbyter opposing him; to the Primate, than a Bishop; the Patriarch than a Primate; and amongst the Patriarches to the Patriarch of the Prime Apostolic See; the same Subordination being also to be observed, for preserving the Catholic Church perpetually in one Faith and one Communion from Heresy and Schism, in their several Councils, Diocesan, Provincial, National, Patriarchal, & Ecumenical; and in any of these Courts which consist of many, when any dissenting in its members, here again our obedience due to the major part joined with the Precedent thereof. That therefore, by the Church-authority, to which Christians are to render their obedience, is meant still that Superior and more comprehensive Body of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, which, in any dissent and division of the Clergy, according to the Church-Canons ought to be obeyed; and which hath hitherto, in her Supremest and most generally accepted Councils, in all ages from the beginning required such submission, and justly assumed to itself the title of the only authentical Interpreter of Scripture, and authoritative Teacher of Divine Verities. And, then, 
Consid. p. 82  That obedience being settled here, he, who h●th any small experience in Church-affairs, and is willing to observe his duty, cannot but discern what way the major part of Christendom, and its higher and more comprehensive Councils, that have hitherto been, do guide him; this being a Body not invisible, or latent in a Corner; or a few divided from the whole; but a City always set on an Hill in such an extended Unity of an External Communion, and such a dignifyed Preeminency and universality of its Prelates, as no other Christian Society can equal; a Candle on a Candlestick; a perpetual erected Visible Pillar and Monument of Traditionary Truth, 
Consid. p. 89  frustra Haereticis circumlatrantibus.  
§. 27 To N. O's thus subjecting our obedience, as to the deciding of Controversies in matters Necessary, in any division of Clergy, to the Superior and more comprehensive Body of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy according to the well-known Subordinations thereof, and so excluding the liberty either of private persons, or also of Churches or Synods, any way subordinate, from dissenting from the Judgement and Determinations of such as are their Canonical Superiors; which, if observed, would preserve the Catholic Church for ever in peace and from all Rents and Schisms: the Dr. returns several Replies in justification of the proceed of the Church of England, as N. O. thought, much concerned in it, and not to be vindicated herein from a Schism, in her Reformation (not without, but) against a Superior Church-authority. This matter he disousseth from p. 280. to p. 285. where he seems to me somewhat unresolved what answer to stand to. One while he saith 
† p. 180. — That the Church of England in reforming herself did not oppose any just authority then extant in the world. Now, that Patriarchal or General Councils are a Superior Ecclesiastical Authority, to which National Synods or Churches own subjection, is granted by learned Protestants. As, concerning Patriarchal Councils thus Dr. Field 
‖ p. 518. — These Patriarches [meaning those chief Bishops of the Christian world that contained under them the Metropolitans and Bishops of many Kingdoms and States: every Church, as he saith, being subordinate to some one of the Patriarchal Churches, 
† p. 513.  and incorporate into the Rules of it ‖] might convocate the Metropolitans of their several divisions, and hold a Patriarchal Council; which was of greater authority, than either those in the several Provinces, or of a whole Nation, because it consisted of more, and more honourable Bishops. Again p. 557.— That the Decrees of Popes made with the consent and joint concurrence of the Western Bishops did bind the Western Provinces that were subject to him as Patriarch of the West. And thus Bishop Bramhal 
† Vind. p. 257. — What power the Metropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province, the same had a Patriarch over the Metropolitans, and Bishops of sundry Provinces within his own Patriarchate. And afterward— That Patriarches had authority to convocate Patriarchal Synods, and preside in them, when Metropolitan Synods did not suffice to determine some emergent differences or difficulties. So, in Schism Guarded p. 349. he saith— That the Ecclesiastical Head of the Church is a General Council; and under that each Patriarch in his Patriarchate; and among the Patriarches the Bishop of Rome by a Priority of Order.  
§. 28 It is clear also, that most of the Councils (all either General, or Patriarchal for the West, and consisting of the Metropolitans and Bishops of many Kingdoms or National Churches, those of the Church of England being also a part) since the 6th or 7th Age have determined several points of Faith rejected and opposed by the Church of England in her Reformation: the obligation of which Definitions and Decrees also doth extend not only to the times wherein they sat, but to all Posterity, till an equal authority shall repeal them; else the Decrees of Nice, or of the other first Councils would not oblige any aftertimes. Manifest also, that the Council of Trent, called by the Western Patriarch upon this discession, and consisting of all or the most of the Churches in Christendom (except those under the Mahometan tyranny), not only of the Roman, but other Italic Churches subject to other Princes, of the Gallican, Spanish, Germane, and other Western Churches, and its Definitions in matters of faith generally accepted by these Churches, hath made definitions contrary to the Reformation of the Church of England; which Decrees (to use Dr. Fields words) made with the consent and joint concurrence of the Western Bishops [I add, or of the most part of them; for, of all is not necessary, no more than in the first Councils: for, so, no Metropolitans or Bishops could be liable to the censures of Councils without their own consent;] do bind the Western Provinces subject to the Patriarch of the West. And therefore, these things considered, I see not how the Dr. can make good these his words, that the Church of England opposed no just Superior Church-Authority.  
Afterward, as not trusting too much to this Answer, he pleads the freedom of the Church of England from the Pope and Church of Rome: §. 29 and, from this, discourseth of it as absolutely free. To which purpose he saith p. 281.— When it was thus agreed [i.e. by the Church and State of England] that the Bishop of Rome had no such authority as he challenged, what should hinder our Church from proceeding in the best way it could for the reformation of itself? for the Pope's Supremacy being cast out as an usurpation, our Church was thereby declared to be a free Church, having the power of Government within itself. For this also, he saith p. 285.— that it enjoyeth the rights of a Patriarchal See. And, whereas N. O. in that very place the Dr. answers to, 
† Pref. p. 5.  expressly names for this Superior Authority the most Supreme and most generally accepted Councils that have been in a●l ages (which words might put him out of doubt what N. O. meant by more Superior and comprehensive Body, and by more Universal Church) this Replier, 
‖ See p. 280.  very conveniently omitting this, closeth together what immediately precedes and follows it in N. O. (of which the Reader, if he pleases, may inform himself by viewing the place) and then takes the liberty to descant upon him in this manner p. 281.— That which N. O. calls refusing submission to all the Authority then extant in the world: was all the authority then extant shut up in the Pope's breast? And p. 283.— That by the more universal Church N. O. fairly understands no more but the Church of Rome. Whereas N. O. whether speaking of Superior Authority, or its Infallibility, hath made no where in his. Book any application of it to the Church of Rome, or Pope at all; but to Superior Councils. But, hither it much concerned this Author to force N. O.'s discourse, to be the better able to confute it; So p. 282. he tells his Reader— The plain English of all is, the Church of Rome was against the Church of England; [i.e. in the Reformation]. But, after all this excursion, N. O. speaks of an obedience the Church of England owes to Superior Councils, Patriarchal, or General; and to those, whether former or present: and, that showing its Freedom from the Pope, or Church of Rome, as a Co-Metropolitan Church, will not serve the turn: nor yet, its being a Patriarchal, i.e. a Primatical, Church; or, had it been yet in an higher sense Patriarchal: for, neither was Dioscorus excepted from such a Superior Authority by being a Patriarch.  
§. 30 Another while p. 283. he conjectures N. O. by more universal Church may mean the greater number of persons [or of Christians] at the time of the Reformation: and so he asks— How he knows that the Eastern, Armenian, Abyssine, and Greek Churches did agree with the Church of Rome against the Church of England? But, though this is a truth, (which the Reader may see proved at large in the Third Discourse concerning the Guide in Controversies Chap. 8.) and that very considerable, that the Church of England in many points of her Reformation opposed the general doctrines and practices of the Oriental as well as Occidental Churches; and, where a general consent is in the Church-governors apart, the same we may presume would be in a General Council; yet N. O. letting this alone, speaks, not of a greater number of persons, but of a Superior Authority.  
§. 31 Another while he pleads p. 282. the Church of England's submission to, or consent with, the Church Primitive and Apostolical, or the truly Catholic Church of all Ages, which she hath always appealed to and offered to be tried by. But the Catholic Church of all ages being taken here by Him not distributively, for what the Authority of the Catholic Church in any age hath stated or determined [For, to this he often declines submission. See in him p. 241.242. Where he saith— That Universality in any one age of the Church, taken without the consent of Antiquity is no sufficient Rule to us: And— That the Church in any one or more ages since the Apostles times may be deceived]: But only collectively, for what it can be showed to have held & delivered and agreed-in in all ages, Such a submission, I say, is not sufficient; For, as our obedience is due to the Decrees and Definitions of lawful General, or other Superior Councils of the Primitive Times, so is it as well to those of any latter age, the authority of them in any age being equal and the same, and an equal necessity of it for deciding the Controversies in Necessaries that may arise in any age, though these Points, disputed, do not appear, save in the Traditional Principles from which they are deduced, in any former. Nor could the Arrians justly decline the Definitions of Nice, because made in their times; or, in the same expressions, not delivered in any more primitive age. There also he saith,— that the Church of England rejected nothing but innovations, and reform nothing but abuses. But, none ought to be rejected or reform by any particular Church as such, which Superior Councils in any times have declared to be otherwise, especially where no contradiction of a Body of equal Authority can be showed in times more ancient.  
§. 32 Another while 
‖ p. 283.  he urgeth, that at the time of the Reformation there was no superior authority to the Church of England extant upon this account, because saith he— This must either be the authority of the Pope and Councils of the Roman Church, or a General Council of all the Catholic Church. For the first, we own no obedience to them; for the second, there was no such thing th●n in the world, & therefore could not be opposed. But here first, if by the Councils of the Roman Church he means Councils assembled by the Western Patriarch, and consisting of the Metropolitans and Bishops not only of the Roman, but other Western, Churches, and Nations, these must be confessed, and so are by Protestant Divines, Superior to a National Synod of England. And then, as for these, or for other, General Councils, in what former times soever held, they are an Authority always extant, and their decrees obliging, so long as not by an equal authority repealed: Otherwise, the Obligation also to the Definitions of the first General Councils would be long since expired. And also any particular Church is obliged to a submission to any superior Council following such Reformation, from the time of its Decrees passed, and a due acceptation of them, i.e. by a much major part.  
§. 33 After this he allegeth— That, for the Canons of the Catholic Councils before the breaches of Christendom, no Church hath been more guilty of a violation of them, than the Church of Rome. But first, if this were granted, another's faultiness excuseth not ours. Next, if he speaks of the Councils that have been in the Church till the breach made by Luther, methinks this is enough to confute what he saith, that the one Church, the Roman owns, and admits the Definitions and Canons of these Councils, as true, regular, and obliging; (and so in its disobeying them condemns itself) which the other, the Reformed, denies to be so.  
§. 34 Lastly, p. 285. he pleads,— That every free Church, enjoying the rights of a Patriarchal See, hath according to the Canons of the Church a sufficient power to reform all abuses within itself, when a more general consent cannot be obtained. But not, I hope, when a more general dissent is already declared; (I mean, that the things so called, are no, abuses.). By all this I think, appears no Answer as yet returned by this Author to the things objected which affords any reasonable satisfaction. N. O. then proceeds.  
§. 35 That, in Point of Obedience, though it is most true; that a Christian is bound to reject whatsoever is offered to be imposed upon his Faith, which is certainly known to such Christian to have no foundation in, or to be contrary to, God's Word 
‖ See Dr. Stillingst. Princ. 29. Consid. p. 73▪ ; Yet learned Protestants do also require from such Christian, that, where not demonstrably certain of the contrary, he ought to submit to the judgement of this Authority for the knowing what things are revealed in this Word, and what are contrary to, or not founded in, it: and (to use the Dr's expression 
‖ Rat. Acc. p. 375.59▪ ) to be guided by the sense of Scripture as it is interpreted by this Authority. And Dr. St. himself also Rat. Account, p. 539. for preventing the exorbitancies and capricious humours of any fantastical Spirits, & for the knowledge of ones errors, when these manifest & intolerable, what sober enquiry soever their sincere endeavours may pretend to, calls for their conformity, in interpreting of Scripture, to the concurrent sense of the Primitive Church, the Common Reason of Mankind (that supposeth Scripture the Rule of Faith), the consent of Wise and Learned Men: Or, on the side of these sincere endeavourers who shall disbelieve this authority he requires no less (with the Archbishop, and others) than Demonstration for that, wherein they descent. And this Demonstration not some improbable argument, so miscalled, but which being proposed to any man, and understood, the mind cannot choose but inwardly assent thereto; that is, that which every reasonable man, understanding the terms, assents to.  
§. 36 Where, Protestant's may do well, as to this duty of Obedience, seriously to consider these things. 1. Whether all those do not stand still obliged to obey the general Doctrines of the Church before Luthers's Reformation, who can bring no demonstration of the contrary? and Whether it is upon such a demonstrative certainty, as this, in the points controverted, that they themselves oppose this Church-authority teaching them otherwise? 2ly. Whether, since it is to be judged no Demonstration (as Protestants define it) that doth not convince all rational persons to whom it is proposed, which the Protestants Demonstrations manifestly do not, therefore the Demonstrations pretended by them be not even in their own judgement fallacious? 3ly. Whether the Common Reason of Christian Mankind, 
Consid. p. 74▪  and the common Consent of Learned and Wise Men, named but now by the Dr for regulating a private man's belief, ought not to be taken, where all men are not united in the same judgement, for the most common suffrage and testimony of the present Universal Church? And then, Whether we ought not to credit this present Universal Church sooner than any other, touching what is the concurrent testimony of the Primitive Church, in case this suffers any debate? And then, if particular Persons are not to departed from this judgement of Authority, till they have Demonstration, (that is, their own certainty, as to such point), to show against it; then, Whether, in stead of their calling for Church Infallibility, that they may believe her, the Church may not rather demand their Demonstrations, why they believe her not? See such things agitated by N. O. p. 74, 75. passed over by the Dr in silence.  
§. 37 Next: That, setting here aside any Command or duty of Obedience in this matter, Yet that in all prudence the Plebeian and unlearned, for the understanding of Scriptures, aught to acquiesce in the judgement of some that are more skilful and studied in them: and this the more, as the points are more necessary; (wherein is supposed any difference in Judgements; for, that argues some difficulty in the thing): and that the Dr's Principle seems to afford a very good Reason of the Submission of Judgement to the Church, which submission it opposeth. 
Consid. p. 17  For, if Scriptures be maintained so clear in Necessaries, that every one using a right endeavour cannot mistake in them, then shall the Church-governors much rather, by reason of this clearness obvious to every rustic, not err in them; and so shall the people, the more clear the Rule of faith is proved to be, the more securely rely on, and be referred in them to, their direction: and that we have all reason to presume that the chief Guides of the Church, (even a General Council of them, or, if it be but a major part of this Council, it is sufficient) in their Consults concerning a point necessary to Salvation delivered in Scripture, use at least so much endeavour, (for, more needs not) as a plain rustic doth, to understand the meaning of it. Or here, whatever other thing is supposed necessary besides a sincere endeavour, or is understood to be included in it, (as Freedom from Passion, and Secular Interest, or also a freely professing the truths which their sincere endeavour discovers to them,) none can rationally imagine but that these Supreme Church-governors should be as much or more disengaged herein, than private men; as having, in their already possessed Dignity and Preferment less ambitions or compliances; and more freedom, and less dependence on, or subordination to, others, in their actions or fortunes. Then, concerning their integrity and sincerity in their Judicature, it is said by N. O. that, what they define for others, they define for themselves also; and that their own salvation is as much concerned, as any other man's is in their mistakes. [I add; or in their purposely falsifying Truth in their Decrees, and deceiving others in what they are not mistaken or deceived themselves; so, as that their subjects, satisfied of their skill, yet cannot trust their fidelity: If any can be so uncharitable as to credit of them so great a wickedness, that the Supreme Councils of the Church should with design decree an error contrary to their faith, and that in matters necessary; and then enjoin all their Subjects, under Anathema, to believe it: wherein they most certainly do devote themselves, if not believing such their Decree, to Eternal Perdition].  
§. 38 To such things argued by N. O. D. St's answer p. 141. is this— Granting, that the Guides of the Church, supposing the same sincerity, shall enjoy the same privilege [as any private man hath, of believing rightly in necessaries], which, (saith he), I know none ever denied them: Yet what is this to their Infallibility in teaching all matters of faith? [supposing them to believe aright, yet what is this to their teaching right matters of faith] which is the only thing to be proved by N. O. So that all this discourse (saith he afterward) 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, first, he corrupts N. O's express words and sense; who 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: See Consid. p. 17.18.19. The Church-Governour's not-erring, saith N.O. not, their not mis-teaching. But indeed, the first being granted, N. O. thought the other also must be believed, in the Church's General Councils. Again; in Necessaries, saith N.O.; not in all matters of faith: which word All is put in by the Dr. several times, perhaps to relieve himself for framing some Answer. ' Next; the Dr. denies not, that these Church-governors may rightly understand all necessaries upon a sincere endeavour; nor, that a sincere endeavour is used by them. How can he? since that endeavour which may be used by any Mechanic he holds sufficient: But is necessitated to pitch upon this: That such Fraud and malice may be used by the Church-governors even by General Councils, that they shall teach, and define to and for their Subjects, and exact, upon Anathema, their assent to, the contrary error, (and that in matters necessary) to what themselves believe: and hence contends that a private man cannot safely adhere to their sentence or Decrees. So that the Church's Infallibility, he now controls, is not an Infallibility in not erring or in believing aright in necessaries, here granted to the Church-governors in like manner as to mechanics, 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 N. O. is required to prove the contrary. Now, I had thought the Infallibility of the Church or of General Councils, he had quarrelled with, had been a non possibility in them of erring or not believing aright in some necessaries, as he hath expressed himself heretofore frequently in his Rat. Account. part 3. ch. 1. treating Of the Infallibility of General Councils, and according to his Description of it passively before in this Answer p. 80.— Infallible is that which cannot be deceived, where also he cashiers the Notion he is glad now to take up. And Now, it seems, N. O. in proving these Governors 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; and that the Teaching of a General Council in necessaries what it doth believe (for, of these General Councils there N. O. speaks, who for this reason requires obedience and a submission of private men to their judgement in such necessaries) is the only thing to be proved by N. O.  
To prove which, a thing that seems of itself evident, it is enough to say, it hath that moral certainty in it which generally Church-Tradition is said to have; viz. that so many such persons cannot conspire in such a matter, viz. a necessary to salvation, to falsify the truth, against their own belief and conscience, to all their Subjects, and to Posterity; with an Anathema to all Dissenters; when themselves also are such. And had it not here been much better for him, if not out of charity or reverence to so Sacred Persons, yet from the irrationality of such a defence, to have passed over this Objection of N. O's, as he hath done many other, in silence? But, if a further proof yet be exacted of me, I say; that our Lord's Promises of their not erring in necessaries, and the commands of our obeying what they teach, do engage to us, as to Necessaries, their not teaching amiss; as without which their teaching us right, we have no security or benefit of their not-erring. And so I leave these things to the Dr's. Reflections.  
§ 39 Again N. O. further affirms, p. 48. in the behalf of a prudent Obedience; That, whatever fallibility and liability to mistakes even in necessaries the Church- Guides are Subject to, Yet that there is much more hazard to the most of Christians, [their capacities being very little, abstracting from the directions of a Guide; their mean condition void of learning or Leisure; and a thing uncertain also, when they have used a due endeavour; and this a prejudice of it not rightly used, if they do not discern in these Scriptures the pointing out this Guide, which (saith S. Augustine) the Scripture without any ambiguity doth demonstrate; 
Contra Crescon. l. 1. c. 33.  and which repaired-to may demonstrate to them, what else is necessary]; That there is much more hazard (he saith,) in adhering to their own judgement (excepting only this, if any shall have a demonstrative certainty of his private opinion against his Guides) than to that of their Guides, though these fallible: for, whereas, in following such Guides, such persons may fall into some errors, and perhaps some of them great ones; in this latter way of following their own Apprehensions the unlearned may fall into a thousand; and some of these much greater, and grosser, than any such Christian Society or Body of Clergy will ever maintain. That God hath made no promise to preserve in truth those who desert his Guides to direct them; nor to reward their diligence in other ways, who live in disobedience. Witness, here, the unhappy Socinians, and so many gross Sects of late, much more absurd in their tenants, than those other who remain in a constant submission to the Ministry and Religion established by Authority in the Protestant Churches. 
Consid. p. 100  And that better it is, in the erring also of these Guides, that all err their errors; for so at least there will be some Unity and Peace; and, for Inferiors so misled some excuse, and in probability more verisimilitude in their mistakes, than that every one should err a several, and his own, error, both to the utter ruin of Peace, and a greater deviation from Truth. Nay, if from such Subjects could only be obtained, in a liberty of their Opinion, the obedience of silence and non contradiction, thus would be secured the Peace of the Church; and the Propagation of such Sects, (which must be either by Writing or Discourse) prevented. But, as things stand here ¹ from our own being assured (by the Drs Principle) of our rightly understanding, and not erring in, all necessaries; and then, we 2 from it rightly collecting, that others, who hold the contrary to us, do err so; and 3 then, that, such error as in a necessary, being judged not tolerable, neither may this obedience of Silence be therein observed: from these, I say, must needs break out daily many new Reformations, all founding themselves upon the justness of the first: and this a Reforming too not of themselves only, but of so many others as they can persuade, as it was in the first: which all of them justify.  
§. 40 The things here the Dr. returns, in show of an Answer, against the former Obedience so much pleaded by N. O. are delivered by him from p. 142. to p. 180. in several Propositions. Where I find him saying p. 142. That God hath entrusted every man with a faculty of discerning Truth and falsehood, supposing that there were no persons in the world to direct or Guide him; Which is willingly granted him, in confidence that this will not take away all Submission of judgement, to our Superiors; or, to persons more prudent.  
§. 41 Again; p. 143. That this faculty is not taken away, nor men forbidden the exercise of it in the choice of their Religion by any principle of the Christian Religion; Which is granted also; and yet, a Religion being chosen by us, it may well be both an act of prudence and of duty to submit our judgement to our Superiors in whatever they shall define, and especially in matters of Necessary Faith.  
§. 42 Again, p. 144. That the exercise of this Faculty was not to cease as soon as men had embraced the Christian Doctrine. Granted, as the former: and yet our submission of this our Judgement, to what doctrines our Superiors shall define, be both our duty, and a most rational act of this our Judgement; and any persuasion of our judgement (not rightly used) to the contrary no way excuse our non-submission from guilt. I say, as the exercise of this faculty doth not cease, so it must be rightly used, which it never is, when, used, it at any time dissents from the doctrine of our Lord, or his Apostles, or of lawful General Councils, whereto is required its assent.  
§. 43 Again he saith p. 146. That the Authority of Guides in the Church [i.e. for their determining truths in necessaries.] is not absolute and unlimited, but confined within certain bounds; [and afterward he saith, confined to a Rule] which if they transgress, they are no longer to be followed. Be it so, when they transgress against their Rule, if this be certainly and demonstratively known by any, such person is not to follow them: this is confessed already by N. O. But, 
Consid. p. 73  who is appointed Judge of these Supreme Judges, when they transgress against this Rule? or, when their Subjects have Demonstration for this? Their Subjects? who are from them to learn the sense of the Rule, where difficult and disputed; and who are bidden to follow their faith? The right exercise of our judgement will not judge so: but will judge, that, if Demonstration were on his side, these Supreme Judges, having all the same Evidences, would have discovered it sooner than he; or at least have discovered it, when related to them by him; and also the Protestants Definition of it concludes it none, if these Judges do not discern it such. Who then, since he is not excused from sin and disobedience by using his judgement, if he judge amiss, will not think it the safest way still to continue his submission? The Socinian, in judging the Council of Nice in their Definition of Consubstantiality to have transgressed the Rule they are confined to, and so not to be followed, is not hereby released at all from his obedience to this Council, or secured in his discession from it. That authority is none, that is only to be obeyed, where the Subjects are to approve first of its sentence.  
§. 44 Again p. 148. he saith— He allows a very great authority to the Guides of the Catholic Church, in the best times of Christianity; and looks upon the concurrent sense of Antiquity as an excellent means to understand the mind of Scripture in places otherwise doubtful and obscure. First, for the limitation of places doubtful and obscure; This seems to render such Authority useless as to Necessaries: in which this Author will have the Scriptures clear and perspicuous. Next; a right judgement cannot but account all those places so, in the sense whereof either the ancient or present major part of Christianity are of a contrary judgement from himself. last; the looking on such a concurrent sense as an excellent means etc. is short, and will not serve the turn for the unity of faith; it must be looking on it as a Rule requiring our obedience, when such sense is declared by their Councils.  
§. 45 He proceeds p. 149.— That in matters imposed to be believed or practised, which are repugnant to plain commands of Scripture, or the evidence of sense, or the grounds of Christian Religion, we assent that no authority of the present Guides of a Church is to overrule our faith or practice. But the same thing is here replied as before §. 43. in answer to that in his p. 146. concerning the Guides transgressing the Rule.  
§. 46 P. 151. He goes on— That not absolute submission can be due to those Guides of a Church who have opposed and contradicted each other; and condemned one another for error and heresy. True: not to both, but to one part It is: and N. O. hath told him that it is to the Superior; Or, in the Supreme Court, where a party dissents, to the major part joined with the Precedent. Lawful Supreme Councils contradicting one another in matters of necessary faith are not by this Author, nor cannot be, produced.  
§. 47 P. 172. He saith,— That in the present divided state of the Christian Church a man that would satisfy his own mind must make use of his judgement in the choice of his Church, and those Guides he is to submit to. True? now; and in all former times, wherein also have been Divisions and Anti-Communions in the Clergy, and Guides against Guides, that we are to make use of our judgement in the choice of a Church. But, our Judgement there must be used rightly; and, being so, tells us, both that we are to obey those, who are found, by this judgement, to be our lawful Spiritual Superiors; and which, in such divisions, be so. And whenever, in this, our judgement is not used rightly, but mistakes, we are never a whit the more, by this so used, released from our Obedience.  
Generally in these Answers here is the exercise of our Judgement or liberty to Judge pleaded against absolute Obedience or Submission of it; as if the proving of the one annulled the other; when as himself urgeth, a 
‖ p. 144.  liberty of Judging may be used also concerning the Apostles Authority, and their Doctrines; and yet this liberty well consistent with an obligation of absolute Obedience to such their Doctrines & Authority as infallible: So, then, is it well consistent also with that to the Supreme Guides of the Church in their defining necessaries, if they be in these infallible; or, if fallible, yet with an obligation still of submission of Judgement to them, where any are not demonstratively certain of the contrary: Which demonstrative certainty of convincing all those, to whom proposed, no Protestants have, in matters debated with Catholics.  
§. 48 Again, for qualifications of Obedience p. 178. he brings— That we are not to submit to all those who challenge the authority of Guides over us, though. pretending to never so much power and infallibility. And p. 179, not to submit to those who are lawful Guides in all things they may require. Both which are most true; and yet well consistent with this, that we are to submit to our lawful Guides in all their Determinations in matters of necessary faith, if they Supreme, and Infallible herein: and, if they fallible, in all things of which we are not demonstratively certain to the contrary. Thus you see the Dr's Responsory Propositions are admitted, and N. O's Obedience no whit less established.   

CHAP. IU. Concerning Church-Infallibility as to Necessaries.  
§. 49 4ly. AGainst such Principle, and for submission of private men's judgements to that of the Church, N.O. presseth, as the Church's Authority, so yet further its Infallibility, that is, the Infallibility (not of the Roman Church, or of Pope, as this Author will needs understand him, though no such thing is once named in the Considerations, but) of the Church Catholic; of the Catholic Church in her most Universal Councils and Courts that can be convened for deciding Controversies, and for declaring the true sense of the Scriptures; especially, if these Councils and their Decrees have such a general acceptation with the Church Catholic diffusive, as can be thought necessary to give us Its judgement, at least as to a major part thereof. And again, Infallibility of such Councils, (not as to any Questions or Controversies whatever that may be proposed to them, but) of all such points as are any way necessary to salvation: (which necessity, if any need to know it, we are to learn from them). And Necessary, not as this word includes only those Articles without the explicit belief of which, none can enter into Heaven, but as it includes all those points also, which either as to our belief or practice, are highly beneficial thereto (for, in these also the right guidance of our Spiritual Pastors seems necessary), and as is explained before §. 2 &c: the Church also not undertaking, as N. O. saith, 
Consid. p. 34.  to end all manner of differences, but so many wherein she finds on any side sufficient evidence of Tradition; and, for the gravity of the matter, a necessity of decision: The same Divine providence, that preserves his Church perpetually Infallible in all things necessary to be determined, disposing also, that, for all Necessaries, there shall be a sufficient evidence of Tradition, either of the Conclusion itself, or its Principles.  
§. 50 Now, for such Infallibility N.O. first presseth: That the ordinary practice of General Councils; 
Consid. p. 40.  which hath been constantly allowed and submitted to by the Church Catholic Diffusive, necessarily infers their Infallibility; viz. their inserting from time to time (as they thought fit) their Decisions in the Creeds, and their Anathematising Dissenters, and the Church Diffusive afterward styling such Dissenters Heretics and opposers of the Faith. That such assent and belief and submission of judgement if justly required by them, 
Consid. p. 32  infers such persons herein not liable to error upon the Dr's own arguing. For (saith he 
‖ Rat. Acc. p. 506. ) Where Councils challenge an internal Assent by virtue of their Decrees [or, because their Decrees are in themselves infallible] there must be first proved an impossibility of error in them, before any can look on themselves as obliged to give it. That Protestant's allowing only an External Obedience, or Silence due to Councils fallible, shows, 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 acknowledgement also and submission of the rest of the Body of the Catholic Church to such an Authority assumed by them. That subordinate Councils, when they have also sometimes stated matters of faith, censured Heretics, and required assent to their Decrees, yet did this still with relation to the same Infallibility residing in the General Body of Church-governors, and to their concurrence therein: whilst they did not pass such Acta without consulting the Tradition and judgement of other Churches, and especially of the Apostolic See.  
§. 51 That, had there been no Divine Writings, there must have been such a divinely-assisted Infallibility as for necessaries left in the Church-Guides; 
Consid. p. 38  for that without this the Christian, would otherwise have been no stable or certain, Religion, at least as to many necessary points thereof, so that all persons might have a right belief in them; because that Tradition carries not with it a sufficient evidence as to all points of necessary faith, especially as to all sorts of people; several Controversies about Necessaries having been raised, which have not been decided and ended by any then generally current Tradition; Or, the Clearness of Scripture supplied this deficiency of Tradition, as to the capacities of all the members of the Church, without the convening & Consultations of Councils; who have cleared to their subjects the necessary Deductions from former Traditionals; without which Deductions several most pernicious Heresies would have undermined the former Christian Faith, that was, in precedent times, couched in more general Terms.  
§. 52 That Catholics need not, in arguing against Protestants (who grant the Scriptures to be God's Word), 
Consid. p 5. 7  to use any other testimony than that of these Scriptures, for a sufficiently clear proof of such Infallibility residing in the Governors of the Church. Which proofs out of Scripture, every where obvious in Catholic Writers were by N.O. not thought so necessary to be produced where he made only some short Reflections on the Dr's Principles, and not a set Discourse of Infallibility, as this Author would misname it. But, since the Dr. so much misseth them (though I cannot but wonder why he so earnestly calls for what N.O. hath not said, whenas he so easily omits to speak to what he hath said) he may find several of them put together in the first Discourse Concerning the Guide in Controversies §. 7. etc. and there vindicated also from the glosses put on them by this Author in his Rational Account: and may find them mentioned also here below in the Annotation on p. 113. l. 15. And, since the Doctor with other Protestants grants an Infallibility in Necessaries of the Church diffusive in all ages, from our Lords Promise, doubtless contained in some of these Texts, I appeal to any, after he hath read what is there alleged, Whether such Promises in many of these Texts do not relate principally to the Infallibility of the Church-governors; And again, Whether if the Common Reason of Christianity, i.e. the Reason that is found in the major part thereof were to be consulted concerning the true sense of these Texts, the major part of Christendom doth not and hath not believed Church-Infallibility, at least in her General Councils, established by them. A sufficiently clear proof therefore of Church-Infallibility these Scriptures afford, 
Consid. p. 57  if that proof may be called so 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. Or if, whilst they deny a sufficient evidence of Church-Infallibility to be found in Scripture, they would allow a sufficient evidence of Church-Authority established there, to decide Ecclesiastical Controversies with obligation to External Obedience, so it is that by this Authority they would be cast and silenced for the former; if a much major part may be admitted (as it ought) to give law to the whole.  
§. 53 To this I may add, that de facto the Dr. holds even the Church of Rome (i.e. in its Councils, and in the Pope, as Precedent thereof) to have been hitherto so divinely assisted, as never to have erred in necessaries, neither in believing, nor declaring them; notwithstanding all the by-ends of interest, and reputation, of which he accuseth them, the Force and Fraud he chargeth on them. And this I gather from his words Rat. Account. p. 54.— That the Church of England makes no Articles of Faith, but such, as have the testimony, and approbation of the whole Christian World of all ages, and are acknowledged to be such by Rome itself. Therefore the Roman Church holds all those which the Church of England doth; and so all necessaries; unless that of England also be defective herein. And all this the Dr. seems necessitated to maintain; for, else, the Roman failing, and the Oriental Churches being then no whit better than it, there would have been no Catholic Church, at least as to the Hierarchy thereof, extant immediately before Luther's time. And hence, though I grant it cogently follows not, that the Governors of the Church-Catholick shall never err in necessaries for the future, Yet is there a strong presumption, that by the same Divine Assistance as they have been hitherto preserved from it, so they shall be ever: and it is a rational Motive of private men's submitting their judgement to the Church, that hitherto she never hath, but private men by departing from this obedience, as several Heretics, often have erred in necessaries. This here for our Lord's promises revealed in Scripture, (Of which a further Account is given below in Annot. on p. 113. l. 15.) & for the experience the World hath had of their accomplishment hitherto.  
§. 54 For justifying the same Infallibility N.O. 
‖ Consid. p. 85. etc. 1.  further presseth that noted Plea of S. Austin against the Donatists. 1st. That, whereas some Divine Revelations may be so obscurely expressed in Scriptures, or involved only in their Principles, as that some weak capacities cannot discern them, Yet that in the same Scriptures such persons may always discover the Church distinctly, which is It amongst never so many pretenders, by certain Notes & marks belonging to it; I mean not those named by this Author 
‖ Rat. Acc. p. 7.  and other Protestant's (though these true Marks also) viz. True Doctrine and a Right Administration of the Sacraments: a Quest or Trial, by such marks that can never be made an end of, being a task to know all the truths in Christianity what they are first, before we can know which is the Church: whenas the Enquirer seeks after the Church, that by it he may come to know these Truths: but by these other Tests and marks following, as in several places he gives account of them 
‖ Contra Fundament. c. 4. De utilit. Credend. c. 8.16, 17.— De Vnita. Eccles. c. 25. — Successione Episcoporum ab Apostolicâ Sede [Or, as Contra Fundamentum— ib ipsa Sede Petri Apostoli] frustra Haeretic●s circumlatrantibus; Authoritate vetustate firmatâ; Conciliorum gravitate; Miraculorum majestate; Sequentium multitudine; [i.e. as to the coherence in one Communion, no other Society or Party being ever so great]; Populorum atque Gentium consensu, & famâ admodum celeberrimâ; Ecclesia ubique diffusa, & none in aliqua parte terrarum, sed ubique notissima. Lastly— Ipso nomine Catholicae, quod non sine causâ inter tam multas Haereses sola obtinuit. [which being the Marks of the Catholic Church by the Scripture-description of it in S. Augustine's time must be so for ever: for that, 
Consid. p. 88  if any should apply these Scriptures more to S. Austin's days (as indeed several Protestants do) than to any other, or than to the present, by the same reason the Donatists might here have counter applied them to some other, and not to S. Austin's times.] Thus then S Austin affirms, from the Scriptures such persons may easily discover the Church which it is.  
§. 55 And then 2ly, may discover there, that it is a Judge, in other Controversies which are not so clearly delivered in Scriptures, always to be consulted, and stood to. Of which thus this Father writes in his dispute with the Donatists concerning the obscure Point of Rebaptization— Quoniam Sacra Scriptura fallere non potest, 
Consid. p. 85  quisquis falli metuit hujus obscuritate quaestionis, eandem Ecclesiam de illâ consulat, quam sine ullâ ambiguitate sacra Scriptura demonstrat. And before— Proinde quamvis hujus rei certè de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum, earundem tamen Scripturarum etiam in hâc re [i.e. in the point of Non-rebaptization] a nobis tenetur veritas, cùm hoc facimus quod universae placuit Ecclesiae, [i. e, which hath been stated concerning that Point by the Church], quam ipsarum Scripturarum commendat authoritas.  quoniam, etc. Thus S. Austin. After which N.O. goes on: that all this said by this Father is false, and said to no purpose, if the Scripture be not clear in this, That this Church can determine nothing in such important contests contrary to the verity of the Scriptures; and so in this that we ought to give credit to what she decides: for, then, it would not be true what he says— Earundem Scripturarum in hâc re [in Non-rebaptization] tenetur veritas, when we do in this point what the Church decides, if the Church may, possibly, decide it amiss. And again— Quisquis falli metuit hujus obscuritate quaestionis Ecclesiam de illâ consulat, would no way relieve his being deceived still, if the Church consulted might also be mistaken in it. Nor would the same S. Austin have had any reason to presume (as he doth De Baptismo. 1. l. 4. c.) that S. Cyprian would have corrected his opinion concerning this Point, and yielded to the Council's judgement: or any reason to charge the Donatists with Heresy for dissenting from it after the Determination of such a Council; Nor the 2d. General Council have had any just ground to put it in the Creed, [Credo unum Baptisma in remissionem peccatorum], if such Universal Councils, in their stating matters of Faith, are errable and amendable. Which are N. O's. words 
‖ Addit. to p. 86. l. 11.  (by prevention) relating to that known passage in S. Austin— Ipsaque plenaria Concilia saepè priora posterioribus emendari; and declaring, they can have no such sense as the Dr. 
‖ Answ. to N.O. p. 255.  and others impose upon them.  
§. 56 Again p. 58. he urgeth, That, in the belief and profession of this Church-Infallibility and submission of private men's Judgements to her sentence passed in her Synods, 
Consid. p. 58  the Tenet of the Greek Church seems no way varying from the Roman. That Jeremias the Constantinopolitan Patriarch in his Contest with the Lutheran Protestant's is much in this, as a sure Retreat for ending Controversies, & establishing Peace: 
† Resp. 1. p. 139.  where he tells them ‖— Quae Synodicè (legitimâ Conciliorumratione) mandata sunt, ea ab omnibus fidelibus recipiuntur tanquam Scripturis divinitùs inspiratis consonantia. And in the Conclusion of that Answer he saith 
‖ p. 142. — Non enim nobis licet, nostrae propriae confidendo explicationi, aliquod divinae Scripturae dictum aliter intelligere, animadvertere, aut interpretari, nisi quemadmodum Theologis illis visum est, qui a Sanctis Synodis in S. Spiritu ad pium scopum probati receptique sunt: ut ne, si a rectâ Evangelicâ doctrinâ & a verâ sapientiâ & prudentiâ declinemus, mentis nostra cogitatio instar Protei huc illue circumforatur. Sed quaerat aliquis, Quomodo ista corrigentur? Quomodo? Deo adjuvante sic. Nihil praeter illa, que a Sanctis Apostolis, & a S. Synodis instituta & ordinata sunt, in manus sumendo, & sentiend●. Qui enim hunc limitem terminumque rectè servat Synchorouta nobis erit, sociu● & fidei consors. Again, in his Preface to the same Answer he saith— Respondebimus ergo, nihil nostrum afferentes, sed ex Sanctis Septem Occumenic is Synodis [the last of which is that so befooled by this Dr. in his Book of Roman Idotatry, p. 78. etc.] & ex sententiâ Sanctorum Doctorum Interpretun●que divinitùs inspirata Scriptura, quos Catholica Christi Ec●lesia unanimi consensu recepit, quando oratione & miraculis, tanquam alter Sol, orbem terraum illustrarunt: cùm Spiritus Sanctus in ●is spiraverit, per eosque locutus fuerit, qua in aeternum immota mano●unt, utpote in Verbo Domini fundata, Ecclesia enim Christi (ut cum Paulo loquamur) columna est, & fundamentum, veritatis; cui ne portaequidem inferorum (ut divina Domini promissio habet) praevalebunt. That here we see in the East the same zeal for Councils and for Fathers (taken collectively) as an Infallible Guide, as is in the West; and the like endeavour to reduce Protestants to the same acknowledgement and humble submission of Judgement.  
§. 57 Lastly, N. O. insisteth p. 31. etc. That both Dr St. himself & Archbishop Lawd do seem to hold such General Councils as have an universal acceptation from the Church Catholic diffusive to be infallible. 
Consid. p. 31  For, both these admit 
‖ Archbishop Lawd, 139, 140. compared with p. 160, 195, 258, 346. See also Rat. Account, p. 58, 59, 537. — that the Church diffusive is for ever preserved infallible in all Fundamentals or Points absolutely necessary to falvation; and this, by virtue of the Divine Promise, That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her; and other Texts▪ and therefore such Councils whose Decrees are admitted by the whole Church diffusive must be so too. I say, as to Fundamentals; though as to other points not Fundamental, they affirm these Councils also liable to error and fallible, because the Church Catholic diffusive (say they) is so also. Dr. St. also Rat. Account, p. 537. saith of such Councils universally-accepted,— That both the truth of God's Promises, the goodness of God to his people, and his peculiar care of his Church seem highly concerned that such a Council should not be guilty of any notorious error. Where we see he saith, that the truth of God's Promises is concerned, that these Councils should not fall into any notorious error. Now such an error it must needs be, if an error in Fundamentals or necessaries. And such a notorious error, I suppose, this among others would be, if they should hold themselves (when they are not) Infallible in their Decrees, and so should require a general assent (such as that in the Athanasian Creed) from Christians to them, as to Divine Revelations, and make them De Fide; thereby, in case any Decree be not true, obliging all the Members of the Church to an Unity in Error. Thus far, then, as to Fundamental errors, it seems God's Providence secures both such Councils, and their Subjects. And then also; for their erring in nonfundamentals, 
Rat. Account. p. 535.  both He and the Archbishop put this among the rarò contingentia.  
§. 58 The Archbishop also is much in asserting the Catholic Church infallible not only in its Being, but Teaching; 
Consid. p. 34 Archbishop Lawd. §. 37. p. 318.  and that must be by its Councils.— Dr White, saith he, had reason to say, That the Visible Church had in all ages taught that unchanged Faith of Christ in all points Fundamental. And again 
‖ Ib. §. 21. p. 140. , It is not possible, the Catholic Church [that is, of any one age] should teach against the word of God in things absolutely necessary to Salvation. Where the word [teach] shows that he intends the Governors of the Church in every age. Likewise in another place, 
Ib. §. 25. n. 4. — If we speak (saith he) of plain and easy Scripture, the whole Church cannot at any time be without the knowledge of it. And, If A. C. mean no more, than that the whole Universal Church of Christ cannot universally err in any one point of faith simply necessary to men's salvation, he fights against no adversary that I know, but his own fiction. Where it follows: But if he means, that the whole Church cannot err in any one point of Divine Truth in general, if in these the Church shall presume to determine without her Guide, the Scripture, than perhaps it may be said, that the whole Militant Church hath erred in such a Point. Here then the first, of the whole Church not erring in fundamentals, as well as the second, are spoken of the Church, as determining. And so is that saying of his, viz. That,— Though the Mother Church, 
Ib. p. 258.  Provincial or National, may err, yet if the Grand Mother the whole Universal Church [that is, in her General Councils universally accepted controlling the other Provincial or National] cannot err in these necessary things, all remains safe; and all occasions of disobedience [that is to the Grand Mother's commands] taken from the possibility of the Church's erring [namely, as to all necessaries] are quite taken away. Thus Herald But safe, etc. it could not be, if the Catholic Church the Grand Mother, as she held, so could not also witness, all the necessary truths against such Mother Churches Provincial, or National. Here then an Infallibility in teaching, in determining &c, is an Infallibility of the Church in its Governors, not only believing, but testifying, the Truth. 
Consid. p. 36.  [Though N. O. indeed seethe not, how these things consist with what is said by Dr. St. elsewhere 
‖ Rat. Account, p. 154 — You much mistake, when you think we resolve our faith of fundamentals into the Church as the infallible witness of them. For, though the Church may be infallible in the belief of all things fundamental (for otherwise it were not a Church, if it did not believe them,) it d●th not follow thence necessarily, that the Church must infallibly witness what is fundamental, and what not].  
§. 59 This Infallibility of Councils, if universally accepted, being thus granted by these persons: Next; as for the Universal Acceptation, the conditi on of this Infallibility, or of our assurance thereof; they allow the first four General Councils to have been so accepted, and therefore profess to them all obedience (and that which these Councils required, we know, was Assent). And concerning this Obedience and submission of Judgement to these, 
Consid. p. 32.  upon such an universal acceptation of the Church Diffusive, Dr. St. writes thus 
‖ Rat. Account, p. 375. — The Church of England looks upon the keeping the Decrees of the four first General Councils as her Duty; and professeth to be guided by the sense of Scripture as interpreted by the unanimous consent of the Fathers, and the four first General Councils.— that is, she professeth to take that, which such Councils deliver, for the sense of Scripture; Not then to admit that which they deliver, if she first judgeth it to be the true sense of Scripture. So also elsewhere he saith; 
‖ Ib. p. 59 — The Church of England doth not admit any thing to be delivered as the sense of Scripture; which is contrary to the consent of the Catholic Church of the four first Ages [that is, in their Ecumenical Councils, as he expresseth it in the preceding Page]. And here also he gives the ground of such Submission, viz.— a strong presumption [he might have said, an absolute necessity, for, what he urgeth provesit] that nothing contrary to the necessary Articles of faith should be held by the Catholic Church, whose very being depends upon the belief of those things that are necessary to Salvation. These first Councils therefore being, as they allow, universally accepted, the Universal Acceptation necessary to render any General Councils infallible can be exacted no greater or larger, than that which these first Councils actually had; &, upon this account, the same title of Infallibility must be allowed by them to several others; yet whose Definitions in matters of Faith they to several others; yet whose Definitions in matters of Faith they oppose.  
§. 60 Lastly, to that which this Author presseth against such pretended Infallibility in His Reply to the Cousiderations, p. 150. 
† Conseq. 4.  and in his Principles, (and frequently elsewhere) 
‖ See Rat. p. 117.567.— Rom. Idol. p. 540. — That in Opinions absurd and repugnant to the first Principles of Sense and Reason which any Church obtrudes upon the faith of men, men have the greatest Reason to reject the pretence of this Infallibility, as a grand Imposture: N. O. answers clearly to it thus. 
† Consid. p. 92, 93.  1. That, where the Divine Power supernaturally worketh any thing that is contrary to our senses (as no doubt it may), here we are not to believe them. And that this he thinks none can deny. 2. And next; That we are to believe this Divine power doth so, so often as certain Divine Revelation tells us so [because we have no Divine Revelation herein not to believe them]; and yet we are not to believe the same Senses in the thing wherein they inform us contrary, to what this Revelation tells us. For, otherwise Lot and his Daughters or the men of Sodom were not to credit the Divine Revelation (supposing that Divine History then written and extant) that the seeming Men who came to Sodom were Angels, because this was against their Senses. Now here would he argue well, (as Dr. St. 
† See Stillingst. Rom. Idol p. 540. Rat. Account, p. 117, 567.  and Dr. Tillotson 
‖ Rule of Faith, p. 275  do, against Transubstantiation) who, because Lot's sight was actually deceived upon this supernatural accident, in taking the Angels to be Men, as certainly it was, from hence would infer; that the Apostles had no sufficient certainty or ground, from their seeing and handling our Lord, to believe him risen from the dead? Or, that no belief could ever be certainly grounded upon our Senses? which Senses are appointed by God the ordinary instruments of conveying faith and his revelations to us, viz. by our hearing, or reading, them; and do afford a sufficient certainty whereon to ground our belief in all things subject to them; excepting only those, wherein we have some Divinerevelation of the Divine Power interposing and working something above Nature, & that in such particular matter we are not to believe them. 3ly. Which Divine Revelation we are to learn [that is, where the sense of the Scriptures, God's word, is any way controverted] from God's Church infallibly assisted in necessary Faith [I add, or also by Tradition, evidently from age to age conveying to us such a sense ' of such Scripture to be the true]. Thus N. O. to that obstacle much urged of late, That no pretence of Church-Infallibility may be admitted in any thing, that is repugnant to our Senses.  
§. 61 And thus, since no truly Divine Revelation can be false, whether it stand with or against our Senses, or seeming Reason, the dispute here as to any particular point of our saith (suppose Transubstantiation) is clearly removed from what is the evidence of sense or seeming Reason in such a matter, to what certainty there is of the Revelation its being Divine. Neither can we conclude any thing from the former evidence of our Senses, where Divine Revelation is pretended contrary; till the latter evidence, that, of the certain truth of the Revelation is first disproved. The evidence therefore of Tradition, (an evidence sufficient, as for proving the Scriptures to be God's Word, so for such or such sense of any part of Scripture to be Divine Revelation), not of our Senses, is first to be enquired after: Which Primitive Tradition interpreting Scripture, this Author also I think elsewhere saith, he will stand to.  
And, 
§. 62. n. 1.  if these things be so, his arguing in his Rational Account p. 567. (if he pleaseth to reflect upon it) cannot stand good; where he saith the Testimony of the Fathers carries not so great an evidence, as that of our Senses.— The question (saith he there) in short is, Whether there be greater evidence, that I am bound to believe the Fathers in a matter contrary to sense and reason, or else to adhere to the judgement of them, though in opposition to the Fathers? And afterward— Supposing (saith he) the Fathers were as clear for you (as they are against you) in this subject, yet that would not be enough to persuade us to believe so many contradictions as Transubstantiation involves in it, merely because the Fathers [i.e. thus interpreting the Scriptures] delivered it to us.— For, nothing but a stronger evidence than that of sense and Reason, can be judged sufficient to oversway the clear dictates of both— So that, suppose Catholics could prove, for example, for the literal sense of Hoc est Corpus meum, an universal consent of Fathers or of Tradition, yet what shall we be the nearer in dealing with such men, who say, they must rather believe the evidence of Sense; as being the foundation of the Christian Faith? But, if the evidence of our Senses, then, is to be preferred before that of Tradition concerning the Revelation; hence it follows, that so often as Tradition delivers God to have done any thing contrary to the evidence of our Senses (as, in the former Instance, God's sending Angels that appeared to Lot and the men of Sodom to be Men) so often the Tradition or Revelation is not to be credited for Divine, or any Text in God's Word concerning this not to be taken in its literal, (as that Gen. 19 1. implying them to be Angels) but in some figurative, sense, And is not this cum ratione (or sensu, if you will) insanire?  
And, 
§. 62. n. 2.  here, may we not use the same words, (as this Author doth in his Roman Idolatry p. 540 against Transubstantiation,) against such a sense of the 19th. chapter of Gen. that these to-Sense-appearing Men should be really Angels— I desire to know (saith he there) how the Sense [he means in the Eucharist concerning the Bread; suppose we, of Lot and the men of Sodom here concerning the Angels:] comes to be deceived, supposing a Revelation contrary to it [Viz. that those whom they saw to be Men, were indeed Angels]? Doth God impose upon their senses at that time? then he plainly deceives them; Is it by telling them they ought to believe more, than they see? that they deny not: but they desire only to believe according to their senses in what they do see; as (saith he) in what they see to be bread, that that is Bread; [so I, in what they see to be Men, that those are Men.] etc.— Besides if this Revelation is to be believed [by them] against sense, then either that revelation is conveyed immediately to their minds, &c, or mediately by their senses [which we affirm], as in those words, This is my Body [saith he, and I, as in those words Gen. 19.1. And there came two Angels to Sodom]: If so, than they are to believe this revelation by their senses, and believing this revelation they are not to believe their senses: which is an excellent way of making faith certain.  
Try we the same arguing again, 
§. 62. n. 3.  in his Dispute against Transubstantiation, Rat. Account p. 117, by this Instance, That these Persons being seen to be Men the Divine Revelation was not to be so understood, as that they were Angels. There he pleads thus— If this Principle be true here, that the judgement of the senses [suppose here, of the men of Sodom, that those persons they saw were really Men, which he speaks of the Eucharist being really Bread] was not to be relied ●n, in matters which sense is capable of judging of, it will be impossible for any one to give any satisfactory account of the grand foundations of Christian Faith. For, if we carefully examine the grounds of Christianity in Christian Religion, we find the great appeal made to the judgement of Sense (That which we have seen, and heard, and handled). If then the judgement of Sense must not be taken in a proper object, at due distance, and in such a thing whorein all men's Senses are equally judges, I pray tell me, what assurance the Apostles could have, or any from them, of any Miracles which Christ wrought, etc.— In things which are the continual objects of Sense, if men are not bound to rely on the judgement of Sense, you must say, that our faculties are so made that they may be imposed upon in the proper objects of them; and if so, farewell all certainty, not only in Religion, but in all things else in the world. And so all the rest of his discourse there, if any please to view that place, will pass as currently against understanding the Text in Genesis literally, that those persons were Angels whom Lot and all the inhabitants of Sodom saw to be Men, as against the General sense of Hoc est Corpus meun, that that is Christ's Body, we see to be Bread; or rather collect from the Accidents we see, that it is so.  
To what is said by N. O. in this matter, 
§. 62. n. 3.  I find no answer returned by him; Nor can I imagine how he can shape any, but by removing the Controversy from what is the evidence of Sense concerning the thing, to what is the evidence of Tradition concerning the Revelation: till which cleared against the truth of any such Revelation, any evidence of or from Sense, or seeming-Reason, must be laid aside. Several of the other things that are here pressed by N.O. for Infallibility are also by the Dr in his Answer passed-over in silence (whether neglected by him for the slightness of them, or avoided for the difficulty, is left to the Reader's judgement) and some others, spoken to; with what success is now to be weighed.  
§. 63 To that mentioned before §. 51. of the necessity of a perpetual Infallibility in the Church-Governors for preserving a stability and Certainty in the Christian faith; especially supposing there had been no Scriptures (as for some time there was not, nor, in every place, the presence of an infallible Apostle) or, supposing the sense of them in several such points doubtful, he answers p. 124. to this purpose; That men's Faith and Religion may be well grounded, stable and certain, either without Scriptures, or Church-Infallibility, viz. by virtue of common and Universal Tradition: instancing in the Religion of the Patriarches received by Tradition without any such Infallibility; and in Christian's receiving the Scriptures, or the Roman party maintaining Church-Infallibility upon Tradition, as a sufficient ground thereof. But N.O. speaks of a stability and certainty of the Christian Faith not as to some one of a few parts or points thereof (which as instanced in by the Dr, so are here willingly granted by N. O, to receive a sufficient evidence and firmness from Tradition antecedently to any Infallibility of the Church: for neither doth N.O. require Church-Infallibility for the proof or assurance of Church Infallibility): but, as to all the necessary parts and Credends thereof: to the believing of which, being not all of them, especially as to all sorts of Christians, delivered with the same evidence of Tradition, as the Canon of Scriptures, or Church-Infallibility are, he affirms this Infallibility necessary for the establishing a certainty in their faith, when such persons are left either without Scriptures; or with Scriptures, in such points, of an ambiguous sense; in which necessary matters surely it is necessary, that all men believe aright; though not, that they have an infallible certainty, that they do so. Where (as N. O. observes) such an Infallibility signifies much, 
Consid. p. 54.  for men's having a right and saving faith in all these matters proposed by the Church then, when perhaps it may signify nothing, as to their infallible assurance of that which it proposeth.  
§. 64 Again; to the proof of Church-Infallibility from the practice Councils (allowed and submitted to by the whole Church Catholic diffusive), in their requiring assent to their definition in matters of faith upon Anathema to all dissenters: in their inserting them as thought fit in the Church's Creeds, and the Church Catholic upon this having esteemed all opposers of them Heretics, etc. mentioned before §. 50. He answers thus p. 128.— That this argument is so weak, that he wonders N.O. had not considered how often it had been answered by their own Writers. For that it is certain, that Provincial Councils, as well as General, have Anathematised dissenters, & pronounced them Heretics;— & that Bellarmine 
‖ Council l. 2. c. 10.  saith that this doth not imply their Infallibility. And that if it doth not in the case of Provincial Councils, why should N. O, think it doth in the case of General? Thus Herald And whereas N.O. who had well preconsidered such Objection, said to it, 
Consid. p. 40.  that these subordinate Councils (granted in themselves fallible) did not denounce such Anathemas, nor require assent to their decrees but with relation to the same Infallibility residing in the General Body of Church-governors, and their concurrence therein: that they passed not such Acts without consulting the Tradition and Judgement of other Churches, and especially of the Apostolic See: To this he reply,— That the Anathemas of Provincial Councils did not relate to the acceptation of their decrees either by the Pope, or the whols Church, as N. O. supposes, but did proceed upon their own assurance of the truth of what they decreed, otherwise their Anathemas would have been only conditional, and not absolute and peremptory, as we see they were. last; That he needs to give no other answer to this argument, than in the words of Dr. Field 
‖ l. 4. c. 4. — That Councils denounce Anathema, not because they think every one that disobeys the decree of the Council to be accursed, but, because they are persuaded in particular that this is the eternal truth of God which they propose, therefore they accurse them that obstinately shall resist, as S. Paul willeth every Christian man to anathematise an Angel coming from heaven, if he shall teach him any other doctrine that he hath already learned: yet is not every particular Christian free from possibility of erring. Thus the Doctor.  
§. 65 To which I return this; That, whereas the Concession of Catholics and particularly of Bellarmine De Council. l. 2. c. 10. is produced as ruining this weak argument of N.O. that would prove from anathematising dissenters Infallibility; First, here consulting Bellarmine I find him, De Council. l. 2. c. 3. where he maintains the Infallibility of General Councils, to urge (together with N.O.) this Argument for it, in these words:— 2º Docent Patres & Concilia esse Haereticos, & excommunicandos omnes, qui non acquiescunt Conciliis plenariis. Ex quo manifestè sequitur, eos putasse Concilia non posse errare: atque in primis omnia Concilia Generalia dicunt anathema contradicentibus, ut Athanasius testatur de Nicaeno, etc. Next; That, for the Objection concerning Provincial Councils which N.O. well considered, he thought it sufficiently solved, (and so may think still) by those words of his before recited; and that Bellarmine also (because the Dr. quotes him) answers this Objection much-what in the same manner, saying— Provincial Councils have sometimes used such anathemas to dissenters in such points— Quando res est facilis: and this facilis he explains, in quâ omnes ferè Doctores [i.e. Ecclesiae Catholicae] conveniunt. [Ferè: for, it is not necessary that all should, no more than in the first four Councils they did]; Et quando a Seed Apostolicâ confirmation●m accipiunt. [Which seems to say the same with N.O.; namely, when Provincial Councils have such a concurrence of the whole Church, as is sufficient to render their Act equivalent to that of a Council General; and so, in all necessaries infallible]. And therefore in the same place the Cardinal, instancing in the Anathemas passed in the African Councils against Pelagianism observes out of Prospers Chronicon A.D. 420. that Pelagianism, condemned by them, yet non priùs ab Ecclesiâ totius orbis damnata est, quàm Zosimus Papa decreta illius Concilii firmasset: Prospers words are,— Concilio apud Carthaginem habito 217. Episcoporum ad Pentificem Zosimum synodalia decreta prolata sunt [their Anathemas]; quibus probatis per totum mundum Haeresis Pelagiana damnata est, [and these Anathemas obtained their just force]. And that S. Austin in his Retractations 
‖ l. 2. c. 50.  saith [not, postquam Pelagiana haeresis a Conciliis Affricanis, but] postquam ab Episcopis Ecclesiae Romanae, prays Innccentio, deinde Zosimo, cooperantibus Conciliorum Affricanorum literis [i.e. relating to those Pope's these their decrees] convicts atque damnata est: though the African anathemas were pronounced before the Pope's confirming their Acts; for which Confirmation we find them writing to him, after their Council ended in this manner.—  statutis nostrae mediocritatis (say they 
‖ Apud. August. Ep. 90. ) etiam Apostolicae Sedis adhibeatur authoritas, etc. who in his Answer to them also justifies them to consent with whole Body of the Catholic Church. Thus then were their Anathemas grounded. To the Dr's Reply that follows, that in such a case their Anathemas would have been made only Conditional, I answer.  
§. 66 That their Anathemas, though relating always to the general approbation of their Decrees, yet were penned not Conditional, but Absolute; either because such a sufficient concurrence with them of the Catholic Church was well known to them before the composing their Decree; as it may be, when yet the Confirmation of their Act is only received after it: Or, because such Post-Confirmation and Acceptation after the penning of the Decree, yet precedes the promulgation and just force or obligation of it; It being to run absolute upon such a consent presupposed; as it is the ordinary custom in all Laws, the establishment whereof depends on many successively, yet in their first stile to run absolutely, because such ratification is presupposed to their having the due force of Laws. And so in General Councils the Anathemas are penned absolute, though these Councils and their Decrees have not their full strength till the Confirmation thereof by the See Apostolic, and also such an admittance and acceptation of them by the Church Catholic Dissusive (where the Representatives of a Considerable part of it are absent,) as is thought necessary †. Next, That, 
‖ See Bellarm. de Concil. l. 1. c. 17. §. 4. l. 2. c. 11. §. objiciunt.  by the Dr's words of the Anathemas of such Councils proceeding upon their own assurance, I know not what he means. Doth he allow fallible Councils upon a persuasion they have of the truth of what they decree, to anathematise dissenters, and pronounce them Heretics? 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 Catholics do not desire to be allowed to General; viz. the certainty that these Fathers met in a General Councils have, whether by the evidence of Scripture, or of Tradition, or of a necessary Consequence from something Traditional or at least of our Lord's promised Assistance, that they do not err in those things they decree, though in many other things they be fallible.  
§. 67 To the Answer he makes out of Dr. Field, mentioned before 
‖ §. ●4.  and perplexed enough, I say, 1. That a Council cannot justly pronounce an Anathema on any, of whom some are thought by them not to deserve it. 2. That it is clear, these Councils do not anathematise obstinate Resisters, (whose obstinacy may lie in contradicting) but any Dissenters; inserting also their Decrees sometimes into the Creeds. 3. That no Council, only persuaded, i.e. so as to have no doubt of the truth of what they propose (which full persuasion may well consist with erring), and not certain and infallible therein, can justly require from others the belief of it; and anathematise dissenters: Unless such Judge perhaps knows, that none other can be certain of the contrary to his persuasion: or, that all others are commanded to follow his Judgement. Which things cannot be applied to Provincial Councils: and this Author maintains, that the power exacting an internal assent requires infallibility. This to Dr. Field, That a full persuasion is no just Ground for an Anathema.  
§. 68 To that which follows out of S. Paul, I answer: That S. Paul or a Galatian must be not only persuaded, but certain of his not erring in that, for the mere dissent in which he can justly anathematise Angel, or Man; or esteem him as an Anathema. Nor may any one do this for any particular point in the Gospel, controverted of the truth of which point he is persuaded only; nor yet in general for the truth of the Gospel itself, but as he is certain thereof; which all either are, or may be, from the certainty of Tradition; or the Galatians, to whom S. Paul writ, further, from Miracles.  
§. 69 This to his Replies. But now the Reader may observe; that that to which the Dr. hath replied is only a piece (divided from the rest) of what N.O. presseth; & to a principal part of his Plea no answer is returned. As, this he omits to speak to urged, by N.O. That General Councils have not only Anathematised Dissenters, but sometimes inserted their Decisions in the Church's Creeds; and so required an internal assent and belief of them, as of matters of necessary Faith. Again; Omits to answer to N. O's urging against him 
‖ See before, §. 57, 58.  both Archbishop Laweds, and, sometimes, his own, asserting not only the Church in its Being, but Teaching, and in its General Councils, if these be universally accepted, to be infallible in all Necessaries; his asserting also, 
† See before, §. 50.  That none can justly require an internal assent [as, I hope, the sour first Councils did] but an authority that first proves itself infallible, where N.O. also objects, That Councils fallible, according to the tenants of Protestants, can justly require no more than an external obedience, or silence and noncontradiction. [From which it follows, that such Councils are infallible as do justly require more; as did the four first Councils with the voluntary acknowledgement also and submission of their Subjects to such an authority assumed by them]. To which I add; that therefore Protestants say; that the Church of England requires no more than this noncontradiction to her 39 Articles: [for which Dr. St. 
‖ Rat. Acc. p. 55.  quotes these works of Bishop Bramhal— Neither do we oblige any man to believe them, but only not to contradict them. By which (saith Dr. St.) we see what a vast difference there is between these things which are required by the Church of England in order to peace [not belief] and those which are imposed by the Church of Rome, as part of that faith, extra quam non est salus]. And, Protestants on this account condemn the Council of Trent, that being a Council fallible yet it required more; and made, as they call it, a new Creed: but so, say I, must they condemn the first four Councils if not infallible. He omits this also urged, That the whole Catholic Church hath admitted the Decrees of Councils made in this stile; and held the Dissenters from them Heretics: where we have the judgement of the whole Church agreeing with that of General Councils concerning their Infallibility in such Decrees.  
§. 70 Now, if neither Anathematising Dissenters, nor the Councils putting their Decrees in the Church's Creeds, nor the Church Catholick's afterward esteeming those Heretics that dissented from these Councils, are a sufficient evidence or proof, that these Councils (& the Church also in accepting them) accounted them infallible in these their Decrees: I ask what could the most infallible Judge do, or exact more? Doth not the Dr. below 
† See p. 182, 183.  blame the Roman Church for assuming such an Infallibility to herself [such than it is in Her, though not in General Councils,] in requiring such a belief of her additional Articles defined in Trent, as of the most fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith? And here, in what hath been urged out of him but now, doth not the Dr grant the just requiring of an internal assent to infer Infallibility? And so, must he not either hold the first Councils infallible, or that they injustly required such assent; unjustly put their Definitions in the Creeds; lastly erroneously the Church diffusive accepted of their Definitions, as such, and esteemed the contrary Tenants Heresies against the faith? Must he not either hold, that these Councils knew not this he saith, that, unless infallible, they might not do such things? nor, else, took themselves for infallible, when they were not? But, whom shall we believe herein? them, or the Dr rather? And, if holding themselves fallible, why used they such language, In Spiritu Sancto congregati? and, Hac est Fides Catholica: relating partly to their own Definition? And, after all, if fallible they were, what assurance hath any Christian, that he hath not erred in his Creed? Can any one prepare a better Plea for the Socinians, than this man hath done? Or here, since, I hope, He will not, with Mr. Chillingworth, and against the judgement of the whole Catholic Church, deny, that the four first General Councils did these things justly, will he, deserting his former opinion, justly the lawfulness of a Council, that grants itself fallible in such its decrees, notwithstanding to do all these things? And, then, may not the Council of Trent rightly do so? And, lastly, for what good reason than may the Church of England be said to forbear the using such authority? I say, a Solution of such difficulties urged by N.O. I find not in the Dr's Answers.  
§. 71 Lastly, to the proof of the Church's Infallibility out of S. Austin mentioned before §. 54. he returns an answer extended from p. 250. to p. 200.  
Where I find him p. 251. urging S. Augustine's words, that— In this matter we follow etc.— Sequimur sanè nos in hâc re [i. e, in Non-Rebaptization:] etiam Canonicarum authoritatem certissimam Scripturarum: and there fore that men might attain a certainty of the sense of Scripture in this matter without the Church's Infallibility [to decide it]. Thus the Dr. But, this Father, every where confessing the difference about Rebaptisation to be a most difficult and obscure Question, and not clearly resolved, as to all apprehensions, in the Scripture, speaks this Sequimur sanê nos in hac re etc. quite in another sense; namely, as he himself expounds it in the next words, when the Donatists urged to him there was no proof or example thereof in Scripture.— Neque enim (saith he) parvi momenti habendum est quòd— hoc per universam Catholicam ecclesiam, quae toto orbe diffunditur, observari placuit, quod tenemus, Explicating himself yet in the words following much more, thus.— Quamvis hujus reicertè de Scripturis non proferatur exemplum ●arundem tamen Scripturarum in hâc re a nobis tenetur veritas cùm hoc facimus quod universae jam placuit Ecclesiae, quam ipsarum Scripturarum commendat authorit as. [Commendat: i.e. to be the true Church; and then both S. Austin and the Donatist were agreed, that the true Church must, or did, in this matter hold and state the truth.]— If this yet satisfy not, see the same said again elsewhere De unitate Ecclesiae c. 22. where speaking of the non evidence concerning Rebaptisation in Scripture— Hoc apertè atque evidenter [i.e. in the Scriptures, saith he] nec ego lego, nec tu— Nunc verò cùm in Scriptures non inveniamus etc. put●, si aliquis Sapiens extitisset, cui Dominus Jesus Christus testimonium perhibet; & de hàc Quaestione consuleretur a nobis, nullo modo deber mus dubitare id facere quod ille dixisset; ne non tam ipsi, quam Domino Jesu Christo, cujus testimonio commendatur, repugnare judicaremur. Perhibet autem testimonium Christus ecclesiae suae. [Testimonium, that we should follow its judgement, facere quod dicit; otherwise a testimony to it concerning something else would have been nothing to S. Augustine's purpose. Facere, which is more than non-contradicere; and which implies also assentire verum esse, quod dicit.] By all these passages we see the certissima authoritas Scripturarum is concerning the Church, which is it; i.e. the Catholic Church: and then, it discovered, is concerning the matter in Question also, as unerringly determined by it.  
§. 72 Again p. 253. he urgeth out of S. Austin,— That, where the testimony of Scripture is very plain and clear, we are not to regard what Donatus, or Parmenianus, or Pontius hath said: for neither, saith he, are we to yield to Catholic Bishops themselves: if they be at any time so much deceived as to hold what is contrary to Canonical Scriptures. By which it is evident, that he supposed no Infallibility in the Guides of the Church. All which N.O. grants very true, if understood as the Father speaks it: of particular Doctors of the Catholic Church, not of its General Councils. Nor can one rationally plead the sense of Scriptures plain and clear on his tide, where a General Council understands and expounds them contrary.  
§. 73 Ibid. He urgeth as S. Augustine's words— That the [true] Church is to be proved [and so the Dr would have it understood of other Controversies] by nothing but plain Scriptures; neither by the authority of Optatus, or S. Ambrose, or innumerable Bishops, nor Councils, nor Miracles etc. But such words are not S. Austin's; Nor doth he affirm that, which is the true Church, can be proved by nothing but Scriptures; for, himself saith elsewhere, that he came to know the Scriptures from the Church, first known to him; and the Church by Miracles: Nor speaks he here any thing derogatory to General Councils, or the authority or infallibility of them: (of which see more in the Annotation on p. 251. l. 8. from the b● to.) But, the Donatists with him allowing the Scriptures. he urgeth the Church sufficiently demonstrable by their clear authority; which, if clear, alone also sufficeth; and therefore requires of them, that, he waving these other proofs, viz: of Councils, Miracles, &c on his side, wherein he had much the advantage of them by Episcopi innumerabiles and Miracula vera, so they would wave the urging of their Councils far inferior, and their Miracles, Visions, &c fallacious, on their side (which Arguments of theirs he calls morarum tend●●ul●); and that they should press Scriptures again 〈◊〉 Scriptures, But, if the Judgement of General Councils was denied by him to be any proof in Controversies, why used he it as such, in Rebaptization?  
§. 74 Again, p. 254. he saith,— That all the proofs S. Austin brings for the Church, relate to the Universality of it, not to the Infallibility. Where it is true, that, as to the Donatist, the Universality of the Church was all the matter in controversy: both sides b●●● fully agreed, that that was the Truth in the Controversy of Rebaptisation which the true Church, which-soever it were, held and taught. Otherwise, from the Church determining in its General Council this point of Rebaptisation, S. Austin could not have urged its determining a truth, as he every where doth (see the quotations in Note on p. 251. l. 8. from the bott. and the Donatists would soon have replied, that his General Council erred, and that S. Cyprian's was in the right.  
§. 75 Again; p. 255. he produceth that much-worn place of S. Austin— Concilia plenaria sapè priora posterioribus emendari. The Reader may view the place set down at large there by this Author; which words of S. Austin, 
p. 256.  he afterward presseth, cannot he understood of unlawful Councils, of matters of fast or practice, but do refer to the great Question then in debate about Rebaptising Heretics; And,— that hereby S. Austin takes off the great Plea the Donatists made from the authority of S. Cyprian and his Council, which they continually urged for themselves. But N.O. had already weighed this Common-place, and replied to it, 
‖ Addit. to p. 86. l. 11. — That, if such Plenary Councils, as that which determined Non-Rebaptization, were errable, and amendable, in these Dogmata fidei, neither had S. Austin any reason, to presume (as he doth Ibid. c. 4.) that S. Cyprian would have corrected his opinion concerning this Point: or, to charge the Donatists with Heresy, for dissenting from it, after the Determination of such a Council: Nor had the 2d. General Council any just ground to put it in the Creed [Credo unum Baptisma in remissionem peccatorum]. No just cause I say to do any such thing, if Plenaria Concilia, taken in their highest capacity, are in their stating matters of faith errable and amendable by others following. Thus N. O: to which the Reader may search what answer he finds returned by this Respondent in so copious a Reply.  
§. 76 Whatever the sense therefore of this place be, of which see more in the Annotations on p. 255. l. 10. from the bott. it cannot be understood of lawful General Councils amending one another, as to any matters of necessary faith; that such Councils, when defining any thing to be by all Christians believed and assented-to, when declaring Heretics all that descent, and perhaps inserting such their Definition into the Creed, yet may be amended afterward in this by other latter Councils. For, this would overthrow the old foundations of the Nicene and Athanasian Creed; and whatever can be discovered of one such Council thus erring may well be applied to any other. This also would overthrow particularly S. Augustine's Veritas eliquata & declarata; And— plenarium Concilium confirmavit & consolidavit, for Non-Rebaptization (the chief, if not the only Argument he useth for convincing the Donatist in this point,) whilst they might here plead, something was still latens and clausum, till more experience in a latter Council should open and disclose it: and so must all, before cited out of S. Austin, be also reversed; and all the former Heresies revive again, which, when pretending Scriptures for their Tenants, have been quelled by the judgement of such Councils.  
§. 77 Whether then, that by emendari is meant not as to dogmata fidei, but in some other matters, wherein the Highest Councils, by being ignorant of some circumstances &c, are liable to error: Or, that by Plenaria (which seems the most probable) are meant such Councils as were, of the Arians, many before S. Austin's time, but these in several manners irregular and uncanorical, that were amended by others following, as by the 2d. General Council of Constantinople, and by that of Sardica, as also S. Austin, elsewhere, particularly instanceth in that of Ariminum, called a Plenary Council (but wherein the Arian Party unjustly prevailed with the Emperor and falsifyed the sense of its Decrees) amended afterward by the Councils and the Church's Judgement in the times following. See lib. Contra Maximinum. 3. c. 14. There— Homoousion (saith he) mult is paucorum fraude deceptis, haeretica impietas sub Haeretico Imperatore labefactare caepit, sed post non longum tempus liberate fidei Catholicae praevalente— Homoousion illud Catholicae fidei sanitate] [i.e. in the Constan inopoluan and Sardinican Council.] longè lateque defensum est [defensum not against the Decree of a former plenary Council, but the misinterpretation and tyranny of a minor, but then prevalent, Party in it, sub Haeretico Imperatore]; I say in whichsoever, of the forenamed ways this passage may be understood, (as probably it is to be so, in the latter) this is certain that it cannot be understood of Lawful General Councils amending one another, as to any matters of necessary Faith, for the reasons but now given. Besides the proving of nothing less to them than that Non-rebaptization was a truth could satisfy the Donatist; or invalidate the judgement of the African Council under Cyprian, as to its determining the Truth. The Dr also saying here, that S. Austin urgeth this Plenaria priora posterioribus emend●ri to take off the great plea the Donatists made from the authority of S Cyprian and his Council, which Council of Cyprian was not Plenariam ex universo orbe Christiano, shows, that S. Austin needed not, for confuting them, to take Plenatium in any higher-sense than that of S Cyprian's. Whereas taking Plenaria in the largest sense and without any limitations will make nothing at all for the Father in his present controversy with the Donatist about Rebaptisation: Nay, more against him. For, there were no two such Councils, that were both General, whereof the latter had amended the former concerning Rebaptisation at all: and, had there, the same uncertainty of truth would have been in the Decree of the latter, as of the former; and in this case the Donatist would not have failed to have taken the advantage of the former Council. These things, I hope, the equal Reader will consider (though the Dr hath not); and will not admit such a sense of this place as, if true, contradicts what S. Austin saith so often elsewhere, and quite ruins this Father's Plea, and Cause.  
§. 78 Pag. 256.257. I find several places produced, wherein S. Austin prefers clear Scriptures before humane, though never so learned, authority varying from them; but find in him no comparison, or opposition, between these and the Judgement of a General Council as running counter to one another. How could this be, when in the Controversy, for which he urgeth Scripture, he requireth the Donatists to submit to the exposition of the Council?  
§. 79 Ibid. He saith— The utmost by a careful consideration of S. Austin's mind in this matter that I can find is; that, in a Question of so doubtful and obscure a nature as that of Rebaptization was, it was a reasonable thing to presume, that what the whole Christian world did consent in was the truth, not upon the account of Infallibility but the reasonable supposition, that all the Churches of the Christian World would not consent in a thing repugnant to any Apostolical doctrine or Tradition. 
Consid. p. 86  But N.O. presseth that S. Austin's mind was clearly otherwise; not that it was only a reasonable thing to presume, but a thing most certain, that what the whole Christian world did consent in, was the Truth, as appears in those places cited before §. 55. and. 71. else it could not be true what he saith— Earundem Scripturarum etiam in hâc re [i.e. in Non-rebaptization] tenetur veritas, cùm id facimus quod universae placuit Ecclesia, if the Church may possibly decide it amiss. And S. Austin's— Siquis falli metuit hujus obscuritate quaestionis Ecclesiam de illâ consulat would no way relieve his being deceived still, if the Church consulted might also be mistaken in it. Nor, especially, such Article, only upon a reasonable supposition that they erred not in it, be inserted in the Creed. Before that the Dr therefore should have concluded such to have been S. Austin's mind, he should, in answering these things alleged by N.O. have showed such his mind to have agreed with his words.  
§. 80 Lastly, he concludes thus p. 259— In such a case as this, I agree to what S. Augustine saith, and think a man very much relieved by following so evident a consent of the Universal Church: not by virtue of any Infallibility, but the unreasonableness of believing, so many, so wise, so disinteressed persons should be deceived.  
Though N.O. hath showed S. Austin requiring submission of the Donatists upon the General Council's determining a most certain truth; Yet this were somewhat well, (if this Author or Protestants would generally stand to it), that private men should follow such an evident consent of the Universal Church on this account; viz: the unreasonableness of the believing, that so many, so wise, so disinteressed persons should be deceived. But, I am afraid the Dr, if put to follow constantly such a consent will relieve himself here with a clause that lies dormant, and which his Reader perhaps takes little notice of; viz. in such a case as this; i.e. a case doubtful, and difficult. Yet, one would think, if we have reason to follow these wise men's judgement in things that are difficult, and that have little evidence, and light in Scripture, (as Rebaptization was), much more have we reason to follow it in such things still, as are more clear in Scripture; since this is more incredible, that so many, so wise, so disinteressed persons should be deceived in them: Or that, That is there clear to us, which is not so to them; but the contrary. And so I take leave of the Dr's Answer, to return again to the progress of N. O's Discourse.   

CHAP. V Concerning Sects and Heresies not suppressible without an Ecclesiastical Judge.  
§. 81 V. FIfthly N.O. much presseth against such Principle: 1st. that the remitting thus all manner of persons, for the understanding of all points necessary to salvation Scripture, as asserted clear therein, only they using a due endeavour, without requiring any submission of their judgement, or of assent in such matters to the Definitions of the Church, as pretended in these not infallible, is a Plea no more justifying the Reformation, and the dissent from superiors, of the Church of England, 
Consid. p. 97  than that of any other Sect whatever, even of those which the same Church of England most abhors: For that all these Sects also, for the Doctrines and Extravagancies they maintain, and Discessions they make, do equally appeal to the Clearness of the Infallible Scriptures, in them, sufficiently intelligible unto their sincere endeavours, and decline as fallible, all other Ecclesiastical Authority.  
§. 82 So Volkelius 
† Volkel. de verâ Relig. l. 5. c. 7.  pleads for the Socinians (as the Dr for the Church of England)— Quae de fide in Christum statuenda sunt ex Sacris Literis patere. And again— Deus, qui religionem, Christianam usque ad mundi finem vigere voluit, curavis etiam tale aliquid perpetuo extare, unde ea, quatenus omninò ad salutem est necessarium, cogn●sci indubitatè possit. At nihil tale extare, praeter Sacras Lateras. 
Crell. de uno Deo Patre in Praesat.  To the same purpose Crellius another Socinian saith— Haec Sententia [by which Christ's Divinity is denied] plurimis ac clarissimis Sacrarum Literarum testimoniis nititur. It is needless to cite more. From whence is manifest: That such Principles, as here appear only in the defence of the Religion established in the Church of England, make the same Apology also for all those other Protestant parties, and for the most blasphemous Sects disclaimed by it: 
Consid. p. 98  The Dr in the mean while omitting that, by which the former learned Defenders of his Church usually have justified it against them; namely the Church of England's adhering to the Traditional Exposition and sense of Scripture received from the Primitive Church: This, I say, he omitts, perhaps, because it may be thought to relish a little of Church-Infallibility.  
§. 83 2ly. Neither doth such Principle leave any just and sufficient means, in such Church as maintains it, of suppressing any Sect, Schism or Heresy; 
Consid. p. 98.  By Sects here I do not mean any Parties, that are of different opinions in matters not determined or stated on any side by the Church, or those Ecclesiastical Superiors to whom they own Obedience; but such, as descent from and refuse conformity to her established Doctrines and Injunctions. And, by suppressing them, I mean preserving the Church perpetually in its integrity and unity of faith, by excluding all such, if otherwise uncorrigible, from her Communion; and purging herself from such a leaven and contagion. For which effect our Lord hath left a perpetual Authority to his Church, in her General Councils, equally taking upon her in all ages to judge what is Heresy, or Schism and who Sectaries; and requiring a strict assent to her Definitions in matters of faith; and removing such as do not so submit out of her Society by Excommunication, according to our Lord's— Si Ecclesiam non audicrit sit tibi sicat Ethnicus; 
Tit. 3.10.  and S. Paul's— Haereticum hominem, post unam & fecundam correptionem devita— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And— utinam abscindantur, qui vos conturbant Gal. 5.12. By which she preserves herself Vnam, Sanctam, Catholicam; one Body, and not only of one language by the silence and noncontradiction of any of her members; but, by assent also, of one mind, and one faith; and without any rent or schism; all the Parts of this Body (as hath been said before §. 26.) being placed in an exact subordination; by which it is well known, in any division and dissent of these Governors, to whom Obedience is due. [By Obedience of Aff●nt, I say, preserved of one mind: for, though a General Non Contradiction to any of the Church's professed doctrines may possibly procure the Church's peace and prevent the spreading and contagion of such Heresies, and Sects, where such an Obedience is strictly observed; Yet 1st. So long as no submission of Judgement is required, Heresy is neither at all prevented in, or ejected out of, the Church, if any of her Members be stained therewith, but only silenced. 2ly Where there is a dissent in Judgement, it is almost impossible that none also shall appear in discourse or writings: for, out of the abundance of the heart, the month will be speaking. 3ly. If the obedience of a Noncontradiction sufficiently secures the Church's Peace, Yet Protestants, upon their ground of Church-fallibility in Necessaries, cannot Universally allow or admit such an obedience; because so there could never have been any Reformation of such Church her Errors, though never so gross and fundamental, where no lawful gainsaying or contradicting them, either by Laics or especially by the Clergy.] The Church then, by requiring such submission of Judgement, and removing dissenters, preserves her subjects for ever, not only of one Language, but of one Mind, in the common faith. But, according to this Principle of the Dr's which leaves all persons, (upon the securing them if using a just diligence they cannot err in necessaries), to their own judgement, as to their assent to, or descent from, what the Church determines; (which Assent is maintained by him not to be justly required, as to matters of Faith, by any Judges, save the infallible) here can be no just excluding any dissenters from such Church's communion: and so all Sects, and opinions equally remain, if they please, in it. Or, in their separating one from another, (as an Union of Charity and peace lasts not long, where is once a diversity of Opinion, or Faith) there is no means left here, upon such a ground, for reducing any to the sentiments of the rest, though in those points which are of the greatest moment. For, when two contradicting parties, (after both repairing to the Scriptures and supposing a due endeavour used to understand them,) do contend Scripture clear for themselves, the clearness of such Scripture how great soever it be on one side, & how falsely soever pretended or imagined on the other, cannot be made an instrument of conviction to the other: here than can be no suppression of any side, nor abscission of them from the Catholic Communion, how pernicious soever their doctrine be, unless things be prosecuted, further than Scripture, to their hearing the Church, that is asserting and submitting to its judgement; or else being esteemed and treated as Heathens. Matt. 18.17. Now the Church, here referred to by our Lord in case of differences, is not so proper an Arbitrator, and Judge of any contentions, as of those that happen in the matter of the Christian Faith; (in which matter also we see S. Paul, Timothy, and Titus used their Ecclesiastical Authority and Judicature): and therefore they seem to do much wrong to this Text, who would limit it especially, if not only, to trespasses in Manners.  
3ly. N.O. adds also that the great licentiousness of opinions that follows upon such a Principle seems very contrary also to the former pretences and practice of the Church of England for which he urgeth, 
§. 84. n. 1.  Consid p. 77. * the Title of the 39 Articles which are said to be— Agreed upon for the avoiding of diversities of opinions and the establishing of Consent touching true Religion: 
Preface p. 6.— & Consid. p. 77.  And * 5. Canon Synod 1602.— Whosoever shall affirm these Articles agreed on for establishing Consent in true Religion such as he may not with a good conscience subscribe [i.e. assent] unto, let him be excommunicated, and not restored, but after repentance, and revocation of such his wicked [not, gainsaying, or contradiction, but] Error: and * Can. 36.— Where the Clergy are obliged— To allow and acknowledge all the Articles agreeable to God's Word [i.e. to assent to them]: and the * Statute 13. Eliz. c. 12. Where such as enter into the Ministry are required— to declare their assent and subscribe to the 39 Articles of Religion [this being there added also] which only concern the confession of the true Christian faith, and doctrine of the Sacraments: Entitled Articles whereupon it was agreed &c, and shall have from the Bishop a testimonial of such assent and subscription etc. (Of which matter the Reader, if he pleaseth may see much more in the 3d Disc. concerning the Guide in Controversy ch. 7.).  
N.O. also contends Ibid. against the Dr's 26th Principle, 
§. 84. n. 2.  That the Church of England's rejecting in her Articles several points believed in the Church of Rome as contrary to Scripture (as she doth Purgatory, Adoration of Images, Invocation of Saints, Article of the Church of England 22 Works of Supererogation Art. 14. Sacrifice of the Mass Art. 31. Transubstantiation. Art. 28.) is as plainly making the Negatives of these Articles of her Faith, as the Roman Church doth the Positives, and using the same severity herself, which she complains of in others. Because the declaring any Positive proposition to be contrary to Scripture makes the Negative thereof to be a thing revealed in Scripture, and therefore this to be believed by all, who hold it is so. Thus, though, if I profess not to believe Transubstantiation because neither contained in Scripture, nor deducible thence, I do not hereby make the denial or Negative thereof an Article of my Faith; Yet, if I profess not to believe it, because contrary to Scripture, I do.  
Now, in all these things, this Church seems to have an aim at the preservation of an Unity of Faith and opinion amongst her subjects, and a removing from her Communion of such as shall not assent to her Doctrines, and acquiesce in her Ceremonies. And, (I know not whether by some later different Comments on the sense of these her Canons and Laws, but) so it is, that since Chillingworths ●imes, who seems the first that made this Principle more current and authentic in this Church, Sects have much more multiplied in this Nation, than formerly. And— By this way N.O. saith, 
‖ Consid. Pref. p. 7.  our later English Divines seem to have brought the Authority of their Church into a great disreputation and waning condition, and to have excused, yea justified all Sects which have or shall separate from her, [i.e. as to the liberty they take of such a s●paation]. For, indeed what fault can it be to forsake, when they imagine the contrary to be truth, the doctrine of a Church, whose teaching none is bound to believe or obey out of conscience?  
§. 85 4 But N.O. yet further observes, that, though the Church of England should or also doth require assent and submission of judgement from her Subjects to her Decrees and Articles of Religion for hindering Sects and divisions from her, yet that she cannot ju ify to her subjects any such proceed; nor justly restrain them ●rom doing toward her that, which she indulged herself, in the Reformation toward her Superiors. So that if, in some cases, viz. in what not indeed were, but seemed to her, manifest and intolerable errors, she might departed from and publicly oppose the doctrine of Church-Councils superior to her National one, so might others again break off and reform from her on the like to-them-seeming good grounds and causes. Such submission of assent being, by no particular Church divided from the more Universal, 
Pref. p. 5.  with the least pretence of reason to be challenged from her subjects, when she herself, (and particularly the Church of England,) refused the same to all the Superior Church-Authority that was extant when she departed: as surely there was and is always an Authority Superior, to a Primate, as to Persons; or, as for Councils, to a National one.  
Now, to consider the Dr's Replies to these things.  
§. 86 To N. O's pressing here, that he seems in his Principles to discede from the intentions of the Church of England, which in several passages 
‖ See b fore, §. 84.  requires an Assent from her Subjects to the verity of her Articles of Religion, and conformity to her Ceremonies which implies Assent, I do not remember he hath said any thing; Yet a Point that, if it were but for the Presbyterians sake who boggle much at such a submission, needs some clea●ing. Nor hath he said any thing in Answer to the Church of England's being showed 
‖ §. 84. n. 2.  to make the Negatives, Articles of her faith; whilst she condemns the tyranny of the Roman Church in making the Positives so.  
§. 87 Next; to N. O's, words— That, by their way, the late English Divines have excused yea justified all the Sects which have or shall separate from their Church; 
Prefa. p. 7.  which N.O. speaks not of their justifying these Sects universally in whatever they hold or do; or, what being practised in the Church of England, they take offence at, but only, of justifying the liberty they take in disceding in their Opinions, as they see fit, from the Doctrines and Principles of this Church, (so limited by N.O. both in the precedent and following words); whilst these Late men also tell them, that they may safely follow their own judgement, at least as to all necessaries for their salvation; wherein they cannot err, if using a sincere endeavour to understand the Holy Scripture; which is in all such points clear. In answer to this, this Author from p. 180. etc. to p. 186. undertakes to show— That there is a different case of the separation of Dissenters from the Church of England, and of Her separation from the Church of Rome, showing several Reasons or Motives of the Church of England's departing from the Roman Church, which the sects (being of the same opinion in them) have not, of departing from her: But this thing is willingly granted him beforehand; that differences herein he may show many, that no way concern N. O's discourse, who chargeth him and others only with this; that, from their teaching, that none do owe a submission of judgement to that of their Ecclesiastical Superiors, every one may rightly collect, that he may follow his own; Or; that, if You may departed from your Superiors, Persons, or Councils, upon a just cause; of which cause, you say, it is all reason that you, not your Superiors, judge: then, so may They from you, upon any cause also they think just; Or; that, if there be no decisive Judge, for differences between you and your Superiors, to whose sentence you can be obliged; so neither is there, for differences between them and you: and that, as you appeal from your Ecclesiastical Superiors to Evidence of Scripture, so seeming to you, in your cause; so may they from you, in theirs. For, I suppose here, the Dr will both acknowledge ¹ Some Councils to be superior to a National one; and some Ecclesiastical Persons to a Primate; And 2 that these Ecclesiastical Superiors, fallible, when proceeding against Evidence of Scriptures, may be therein relinquished. And This is the thing wherein N.O. affirms you to countenance and warrant the proceed of all these Sects.  
§. 88 1. Frist then, to show these Differences, he saith p. 181.— Here lies a very considerable difference, that we appeal and are ready to stand to the judgement of the Primitive Church for interpreting the letter of Scripture in any difference between us and the Church of Rome; but those who separate from our Church will allow nothing to be lawful, but what hath an express command in Scripture. To which I say: That, this difference supposed or granted here (of which see more in the Annotations 
‖ On p. 181. ) notwithstanding he will be found still to justify the Sectarists in their departure from the present Church of England, as she did the present Church that was before Luther, which, as the Dr maintains, she might do, upon a just cause, that is appearing so to Her from the evidence of the Scripture; so say the Sectarists, they may, and do from her, upon a just cause: but I need not say, the same Cause. And, as he holdeth, that this Church owed no submission of judgement to the definitions of that Church's former Councils, being fallible; so neither, say, the Sects, do they to the National Synods of this. But, if the judgement of such matters be removed from these latter, to the Primitive times, & to Antiquity; This, as taken ad libitum in a several latitude, is a Precedent all Parties pretend to; and is a Judge, the sense of whose sentence all parties may cispute, as they do that of Scripture, without matters coming hereby to any strict Decision. Neither will the Presbyterians I believe, abandon this Hold to the Dr; and his Irenicum perhaps will help them to maintain it. And, for some such reason it may be, that he here, in comparing the Church of England and the Sects, declines the direct Antithesis, of their deserting, or renouncing contrary to Her Owning or adhering to, these Primitive Times: As the ingenuous Reader may observe.  
§. 89 2ly. P. 182. He saith— The Guides of our Church never challenged any infallibility to themselves, which those of the Church of Rome do. [He should have said— Which the Catholic Church in her lawful General Councils doth]. Now from this may well be gathered, that the Dissenters from the Church of England depart in their judgement from a pretended, not infallible, but, fallible, Church. And I ask, What advantage hence, for confuting what is said by N. O? Doth not this fallibility of the Church of England in her Doctrines, confessed, secure any to departed from them and her, as they shall think fit, without being justly for this called to an account by her? And are not all Sects hereby justified in following the persuasion of their own judgement against hers; as she also following hers against her Superiors, because fallible? He saith also there,— That the Church of England declares in her Articles, that all the proof of things to be believed is to be taken from Holy Scripture. She may declare so, & yet the Sectarists not therefore admit, that all, that Holy Scriptures are alledged-for by the Church of England, is to be believed; since these differ, in the sense of several places of Scripture, from this Church, and so, as to these, may departed from her Judgement.  
§. 90 3ly. He saith P. 183.— That the Church of Rome makes the belief of her doctrines necessary to salvation.— But nothing of this nature can be objected against the Church of England by dissenters, that excludes none from a possibility of salvation merely because not in her Communion. To this I say, as I did to the last; The lesson cessary the Church of England makes the belief of her Doctrines, the more liberty still the Sects will think they have of dissenting from them. But, changing here the Dr's Roman (of which N. O. said nothing) into the Catholic Church, headed by her General Councils, she freely tells those who dare departed from her, that there is no Salvation to those out of her Communion; and that their Conscience mispersuaded doth oblige indeed, but not therefore excuse, them. And this causeth those, who are careful of their salvation, and believe her in this, to secure themselves in her Communion.  
§. 91 4ly. P. 184. He saith— The Guides of the Roman Church pretend to an immediate authority of obliging the consciences of men [i. e, as I understand him, affirm that their Subjects are obliged in conscience to yield an assent and submission of judgement to their definitions and decrees: which is true, changing Roman into Catholic,] But (saith he) ours challenge no more than Teaching men to do, what Christ had commanded them. Means he not this here of the Church of England in opposition to the Roman obliging men's consciences; that it only teacheth such things; but challengeth not any absolute obedience or belief from its Subjects, that Christ hath commanded such things as it teacheth? If so: Doth not this still spur on the Sects to cast about for themselves; since this Church may tell them, Christ hath commanded them, what indeed he hath not? and since this Author tells them moreover, that the Scriptures, read by them with a sincere endeavour to understand them, will be clear to them in necessaries?  
§. 92 5ly. P. 185. He saith— The reasons we plead for separation from the Church of Rome are in themselves far more considerable than those which are pleaded by such wh● separate from our Church. And— That our Church's imposing of three Ceremonies, declared to be indifferent by those who require them, cann●t be thought by any men of common sense so great a burden to their consciences, as all th● load of superstitious fopperies in the Roman Church. To this I say: Be it a less or a greater load that is laid upon us, both oppress us, where neither can be born. Ceremonies (he saith) declared to be indifference, by those who require them. But, what if not, by the Dissenters, believed to be indifferent, as a fallible Church tells them? May these be imposed upon them so as to require conformity in the practice, which includes assent to the lawfulness, thereof? Or, if the departure of the Church of England from Rome, for many things imposed, for the preserving her Conscience▪ otherwise persuaded, is justified; why not the departure of these Dissenters from the Church of England, though for fewer things imposed, justified here also? And can this Author blame them therein? And saith he not to this purpose in the beginning of this Answer 
‖ p. 180.  That the persuasion of conscience equally serves to all Parties?  
From all these instances he would collect; that the Sctarists have less reason to departed from the Church of England than she hath, from Rome; which is true as to these matters whilst the sects are of the same Judgement with her therein; therefore also for none of these do they departed from her. But yet, for other matters they may and do, wherein they think her faulty and defective: and do this, according to the Grounds of a lawful departure, which they have learned from her; and the Example, which she hath formerly given them in her separation from her Superiors. [Which matter having been showed at large in the 4th. Discourse Concerning the Guide in Controversies, I may save this labour, and refer the Reader to it. Where, for an Instance, the Socinian draws up his Plea, proceeding on the Protestants Principles and Concessions, and particularly those of this Dr (which there are frequently cited by him), that in his Tenants concerning the Trinity he holds nothing either repugnant to the Holy Scripture, i.e. rightly understood; or to the unanimous sense of Antiquity, or Definitions of lawful General Councils, so far as these two are admitted by Protestants to oblige. Nor that he stands guilty either of Heresy; or of Schism; i.e. according as Protestants state them.] And also, in all these Replies here of the Dr, let the Reader consider, Whether N. O's Objection is not rather more fortified by what he pretendeth to dissolve it?  
§. 93 Lastly; to N O's urging 
† See before, §. 83. , That such Principles leave no just and sufficient means, in such a Church as maintains them, of suppressing Sects, Schisms, or Heresies, He returns an answer from p. ●86. to the end of his Discourse to which he gives this Title ●n● is Contents, The Roman Church's way of suppressing▪ Sects compared with ours. Where I find him, 〈◊〉 ●87. &c, very bitterly inveighing against the Roman Inquisition, and spending the most of his Reply upon it. Which Inquisition, as used in some Catholic Churches, so is not admitted in others; and which, no way mentioned in the Dr's Principles, or in N. O's Considerations, I wondered how he brought it into his Answer, or why he spent so many pages upon it; but at last I considered, it might be much to his purpose, as a thing which to his Protestant Reader would seem odious, though it be nothing to N. O's discourse; who presseth not the Roman Inquisition but the Catholic Church in her Councils, requiring Assent to her Definitions, pronouncing the Dissenters Heretics, and expelling them from her Communion, and so preserving among the Subjects of this Body the same Faith and Unity, at least proportionable to the extent of her laws and decrees: of which means of suppressing Sects and Heresies, or any other that can be effectual, the Dr, in dissallowing such practice, and leaving every one to the liberty of their own judgement in the matters most necessary to their salvation, seems destitute.  
§. 94 Again I find him p. 289. saying— That, setting the Inquisition aside, the Church of England hath as many reasonable means, and I think many more of convicting dissenters, than they can pretend to in the Roman Church. But, expecting he should name these means, he saith 
‖ p. 290. — We recommend to the people the virtues of Humility, Obedience, due submission to their Spiritual Pastors and Governors, and that they ought not to usurp their office, and become their own Guides— Yet we do not exact of them a blind obedience, etc. Thus he. But, if the Church of England doth only this, and no more, it is a means apparently unsufficient for suppressing Heresies or Sects. For, men are still left to the liberty of their former tenants or practices, so long as the contraries are (in his stile) only recommended to them, not required of them; and Counsel is no Power of the Keys. The Recommending of a due submission to our Spiritual Pastors will not serve the turn, if this due be not stated, and understood to extend to submission of judgement, (which the Dr will not admit; and therefore in repeating N. O's words and professing the like endeavour against Sects performed by Protestants as is by Catholics, he changeth them here, and instead of N. O's Submission of judgement, pu●s in due submission:) For, some submission well consists with the liberty of enjoying our own opinions, and corrupting by them the Common Faith. As a submission to the Church's Rules and Canons in matters in their own nature indifferent, in matters of Order and Decency, in necessary Religious Ceremonies, and ancient Rites of the Christian Church; a submission of judgement conditional in matters of Faith; viz. in what the Church shall determine according to the Scripture; a submission of Silence or non-publick contradicting her Doctrines or Decrees; but this not absolute, but only where her errors herein are not manifest, or intolerable. [For, if Protestants would admit an absolute obedience of noncontradiction, it is granted, that this would preserve the Church's peace and her non-disturbance from Heresies, and consequently the Schisms that ordinarily follow them. But, in conceding such a submission, Protestants well see, there could have been no justifiable Reformation in Luther's time, nor can be hereafter in any other, against such erroneous doctrines of the former Church]. Again, the teaching them that they ought not to become their own Guides, what sense soever he will put upon it, yet if not this, that they ought to submit their judgements to the Doctrines of their Guides, I mean, as to the Decrees of their General Councils, and aught to follow their faith, a thing his Principles admit not, it must fall short of suppressing Heresies or Sects, whilst every one retains his own opinion still, notwithstanding the contrary doctrine of his Guides.  
§. 95 For what he adds; That his Church exacts of none a blind obedience: if it be not meant a blind, i.e. an obedience which there is no Reason for (which obedience it is granted, may never be exacted or exhibited), but signifies, the Church not to require of her subjects an absolute assent (where all either do, or aught to, know they own it, though they perhaps do not yet see the Reason or grounds of those Truths, wherein they give it) so, any less obedience than this exacted can never crush Heresies and Sects. We see, the Church of England made her Articles for establishing consent in judgement and for avoiding diversity of opinions; Yet these Articles are not proved by her to their Reasons, there where they are delivered. And S. Austin writ a book De Vtilitate Credendi, i. e, of believing the Church upon some other grounds, before men saw the Reasons of those things that were proposed by her to be believed: and relates a Story of those, who first doing this, yielding their obedience to her proposals, said a Gratias Deo afterward for their understanding the other, viz. a good reason of the things she proposed;— Gratias Deo, Qui expertos doevit, quàm vana & inania de Ecclesiâ mendax fama jactaverit; S. Augustin, Epist. 48. and, when we see no Reason of the thing to be believed being not yet cleared to us, we may see much, to believe and rely on the judgement of the Church proposing it to be believed, rather than our own.  
§. 96 These things our Author here hath returned in his own defence. In which methinks Mr Chillingworth hath dealt somewhat more plainly and openly; Who, seeing that a diversity of Opinions, according to such Protestant Principles, must be allowed; and that all Judge, to decide and end them, or declare amongst these opinions what is Heresy, must be taken away, besides only the Scriptures; the clearness also of which Scriptures for one side can hardly be maintained as to such places thereof, (though touching matters of great moment,) where whole Nations do understand them in a contrary sense one to another; thought of another way of preserving perpetually the peace of the Church; in ordering rather, that diversity of opinions might be no hindrance to unity of Communion; i.e. that men of all opinions should peaceably live to gether in one external communion. His words to this purpose are 
‖ ch. 4. §. 39, 40. — This is most certain, that to reduce Christians to unity of Communion there are but two ways that may be conceived probable: the one, by taking away diversity of opinions touching matters of Religion: the other, by showing that the diversity of opinions, which is among the several Sects of Christians, aught to be no hindrance to their Unity of Communion. Now the former of these is not to be h●ped f●r without a miracle,— that is, unless it could be made evident to all men that God hath appointed some visible Judge of Controversies, to whose judgement all men are to submit themselves. [What can be made more evident, than, besides the Scriptures, the Laws, and Practice of the Church in her General Councils have made this? He goes on.]. What then remains, but that the o●her w●y must be taken; and Christians must be taught to set a higher value upon these high points of fa●th and obedience wherein they agree, than upon th●se m●t●ers of less moment, wherein they differ; and understand, that agreement in those aught to be more effectual to join them in one Communion, than their difference in other things of less moment to divide them? But here I pray, why must the matters wherein they differ be of less moment, than some of those wherein they agree? Or, are there not some points wherein those that are involved within the General Name of Christians do differ of the highest consequence and concernment; or of much greater than some others are, wherein they ac●ord? Since then this is a law, that aught, if in any, to be observed in all, times, men may consider here of what great consequence some of the ancient Heresies and differences were: And, in some of t●ose points of greater moment wherein men agree now, may not they differ hereafter?  
§. 97 Suppose them, among these diversities of opinions, there happen to be also some error in some Fundamental or Essential (as they use to style it) to the constitution or being of a Church, which is Heresy in their notion, surely such Errors ought not to be tolerated among the rest; (for example, Socinianism); but suppressed; and, if to be suppressed, how may it be discerned; or by what Judge is it to be declared such? for, knowing it must precede suppressing it.  
Is it to be known by clear Scripture? because in all such points Scripture is affirmed clear on their side. So Mr. Chillingworth saith, being asked this Question by his Adversary 
‖ ch. 2. §. 127 . For— If Scripture (saith he) be sufficient to inform us what is the faith, it must of necessity be also sufficient to teach us what is Heresy: seeing Heresy is nothing but a manifest deviation from, and an opposition to, the faith. That which is strait will plainly teach us what is crooked; and one contrary cannot but manifest the other. Thus he. Now, this is very well; If all men, that read the Scriptures, were all agreed in the same Opinion. But, in our endeavouring to discover, what, or on which side is Heresy, the Sense of Scripture is the very Ball of the contention; and the Heretic, suppose a Socinian, will say for himself as readily as the Catholic, that the Scripture, the strait Rule for what he holds, plainly shows him the tenant crooked, which he opposeth. This, I say, were a good Answer, if Mr. Chillingworth will maintain (as I think he doth,) and can justify it, that no points are necessary or essential in the Christian Religion, but what all Christians (or all, except a very few) in their reading the Scriptures are agreed in To which purpose 
‖ Answ. to Pref. §. 26.  in requiring the using men's best endeavour to believe the Scripture in the true sense, he saith also, that— He hopes many on all sides [I understand him in all Sects of Christians and Divisions of Opinion] do perform this truly and sincerely; which they doing, he saith— It is impossible but that they should believe aright in all things necessary to salvation: Seeming thus to make Necessaries those points only, wherein all sides, or the many on all sides, are agreed. But then there can be no Heresies; i. e, contradictions of any Christian Societies or Parties in points necessary; if all sides be thus agreed in them: Or, at least, all those differences we have hitherto seen will be no Heresies, if hitherto in necessaries hath been no difference. And so, if any necessary point, now generally agreed on by Christians, shall happen, hereafter, by any considerable party to be contested, it must be thenceforth cashiered as a non-necessary.  
§. 98 The same Mr. Chillingworth elsewhere 
‖ ch. 6. §. 48.  answers a like Question methinks with as little satisfaction: the Question,— How a Protestant, without any Guide save Scripture, may know he holds no fundamental error against Scripture? To which he answers— That we believing all the Bible, are certain enough, that we believe all that is fundamental; and so maybe certain also that we hold no Heresy. But, so, all Heretics too will be no Heretics (suppose a Socinian); for, they believe the Bible to be God's Word as well as others. But, if he means by the Protestants believing all the Bible his believing the true sense of it all; what he saith is very true that such may be certain, he holds no Heresy. But, Is the Protestant then certain of this his believing the true sense of it all? Or, if not; but only he believes he doth so, at least in all necessaries; so may the Heretic too and still remain an Heretic. Since, then, Heretics also do both urge and on their side pretend the Scripture clear, here the Question returns, who there is to decide on which part it is clear?  
Is this then to be decided by the Common Sense, or Reason, of Christians? For, I know not what else can be said; our Lord's Dic Ecclesiae being declined: and this Common Reason the Dr often appeals to. But this also is common to, and pretended by, Catholic and Heretic. Shall it be then the Common Reason of the much major part, or the more learned part of the Christian World? But now we are fallen upon a Judge beside the Scripture to decide what is Heresy in points necessary; and, it seems, there is need of such a one. But then, if such Common Reason may decide Controversies for suppressing Heresy, these are so decided already against the Protestants, as to many points, wherein the major part of the world doth declare the Scriptures to be against them. For which the inquisitive may see 3d. Discourse Concerning the Guide in Controversy chap. 8. formerly referred to. But, suppose here it be said, No: But the Common Reason of Antiquity shall decide this matter; Yet, since both sides pretend also this Antiquity, (as Roman Catholics and Protestants do in their Controversies), will not this again return us to the Common Reason of the major part of the present Christianity (suppose against a Socinian) to judge; what is the sentiment of Antiquity in such matter?  
§. 99 But, besides these difficulties, this Device of Mr. Chilling worth and his Disciples seems much to sail in one thing more; viz. that diversities of Opinion will cross one another in the very Service and Form of that External Communion wherein he would have them all to be joined, so that in this Public Service what pleaseth one will dislike another (for which reason he saith often elsewhere, that, though Protestants have no cause to departed from the Roman Communion because of her other Corruptions, yet have they for those in her Communion, a concurrence wherein is exacted of them). Here therefore at last must not the Communion be brought to this, that all Christians keeping, as they think fit, several external communions, yet should preserve amongst themselves one Internal? But then, as for remedying such quarrels also about the Form, he seems to propose, that in such external communion no manner of Service or Worship of God should be used, but what all Christians approved: for, so he requires in the following words— That it should be a joint Worship of God after such a way, as all esteem lawful. But, besides that thus scarce any part of the Church's former Public Service would remain; and the Church of England's Liturgy would no more stand, than the Roman: thus the Public Service must continually vary hereafter as any Christians shall dislike something in it; and then, what all agree in to day, they will not to morrow, for— Nunquam futurum est, ut idem omnibus placeat [I add, especially where a thing is established, modò placeat omnibus] sire's velut in medio positae, singulorum arbitrio relictae fuerint, as Calvin 
‖ Instit. l. 4. c. 10. §. 31. . The same proposal or design as Mr Chillingworth, for conserving the Church's Peace, in the declining of an Ecclesiastical Judge, had also Mr Hales of Eton in his Tract of schism. There p. 10. his words are these— Were Liturgies and public forms of Service so framed, as that they admitted not of particular and private fancies, but contained only such things, as in which all Christians do agree, Schisms on [the variety of] opinion were utterly vanished: for, consider of all the Liturgies that are and ever have been, and remove from them whatsoever is scandalous to any party; and leave nothing but what all agree on, and the evil shall be, that the public Service and Honour of God shall no ways suffer. Whereas to load our public forms with the private fancies upon which we differ, is the most sovereign way to perpetuate Schism unto the world's end. And a little before,— I do not see that, opinionum varietas and opinantium unitas are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; or that men of different pinions in Christian Religion may not hold communion in Sacris, and both go to one Church. And, that you may know what manner of opinions he includes here, he proceeds— Why may not I go, if occasion require, to an Arian Church, so there be no Ariams●e expressed in their Liturgy. We see what a different complexion this man is of from the Ancient Church and its Governors: from our Lord's si non audierit Ecclesiam, sit tibi sicut Ethnious: and S. Paul's— Haereticum hominem devita: against whom may be repeated the same as hath been against Mr. Chillingworth.  
§. 100 Not well satisfied with such answers allowing, as seemed to me, no means effectual for crushing Heresies, or diminishing Sects, but rather countenancing and increasing them, if the toleration of diversity of opinions may be thought to do so, I reviewed what the Dr had said in some pages before 
‖ p. 267.  concerning the Authority that is still left in the Governors of the Church, though Infallibility be taken away; to see if this Church-authority might be there, as to this present matter, any further enforced. There I find p. 267. mentioned— An authority of inflicting censures upon offenders, or of receiving into and excluding out of the Communion of the Church. And— That a Christian Society cannot be preserved in its purity and peace without it. But looking further, whether this Authority was extended to excluding from her Communion persons dissenting in their opinions from the received doctrines of such Church in matters of Faith; which only serves the turn for curing Heresies and Sects, of this I sinned nothing, but only this Power couched in these general terms— To receive into and exclude out of the Church suchpeople, which, according to the Law of a Christian Society, are fit to be taken in or shut out.  
§. 101 I find him, 2ly, p. 268, allowing an Authority in the Church— Of making Rules and Canons about matters of order and decency in the Church: Not merely in the necessary circumstances of time and place, and such things, the contrary to which inply a natural indecency; but in continuing & establishing those ancient Rites of the Christian Church, which were practised in the early times of Christianity, and are in themselves of an indifferent nature. But, when these Sects deny those things to be of an indifferent nature which this Church declares such, as he knows the Sects in England ordinarily do, may the Church here lawfully require their assent & acknowledgement that they are of an indifferent nature, and so their practice of them, upon penalty, if nonconforming, of ejecting them out of her Communion? Nothing less than which can purge her communion of such Sects, and preserve her in purity, Uniformity, and peace? I do not find him adventuring thus far, as to tell us, whether the Church may require assent or submission of judgement (which must necessarily precede that of practice) from those persuaded that the matter, by the Church declared indifferent, is not so; and may upon the disobedient inflict her censures; when perhaps she, (as fallible) not they, is mistaken in it: and, it seems contrary to his Principles. But here he seems to tread suspensopede, and manage the Church's Authority somewhat timorously; as we may see by those words of his that follow— that in such matters required by a lawful authority there is an advantage on the side of authority [I understand him, that authority hath the advantage for challenging obedience] against a conscience scrupulous [or doubting; but what for a conscience not doubting but fully persuaded otherwise? As men may be free from doubting in a thing, whereof they are not certain] which [authority] aught to overrule the practice of such who are the members of that Church. overrule the Practice; but what saith he of such Authority its overruling the Judgement? Which standing contrary, it is certain none may practise, though that which is right, against their judgement. This wary Conclusion in the 2d Proposition concerning Church Authority is somewhat like to those general words in the first— A power of excluding out of the Church such persons, as are fit to be shut out according to the laws of a Christian Society. [I suppose he means such laws as are, or else aught to be, in a Christian Society. Of which ought to be who must judge?]  
§. 102 Again, he affirms (p. 261.) an Authority in the Church of proposing matters of faith, and directing men in Religion: directing several ways; by particular instruction of doubtful persons to whom the help of their Guides, he saith, is the most ready and useful: by a public way of instructing [viz. in Sermons]: by the representative Clergy meeting together to reform any abuses in practice, or errors in doctrine; and, when a more General consent cannot be obtained, to publish and declare what those errors are; and to do as much as in them lies to reform them, viz. by requiring a consent to such propositions as are agreed upon for that end, of th●se who are to enjoy the public offices of teaching and instructing others. Not to the end that all those propositions should be believed as Articles of Faith; but because no Reformation can be effected, if persons may be allowed to preach and officiate in the Church in a way contrary to the design of such a Reformation. Here than we have an Authority allowed to propose matters of faith [which proposal any Heresy or Sect can well comply with]: to instruct doubtful persons [but in points necessary, wherein Scriptures are clear according to him, no such doubt needs to be]: in which doubting the help of their Guides is said to be the most ready and useful [but, for some reason or other, this Author declines to say, Necessary]: an Authority of Synods to declare what errors there are in doctrine, or abuses in practice, and [in general he saith] too do as much, as in them lies, to reform them by requiring a consent of its Clergy to such propositions as the Synod agrees upon.  
§. But, meanwhile, here occurrs nothing, that such as said hold the errors in doctrine, against which this Church declareth, may not yet peaceably enjoy her Communion. He saith; these synods as much as in them lies may reform such errors; but he saith 〈◊〉 this lies in their power to require any one to assent to the contrary truths upon penalty of being expelled from this Church's communion: By which means only this Church can be purged and cured of the mixture of Sects and Heresies, and be preserved in its purity and peace and consent of judgement in matters of Religion: which the Title prefixed saith is the design of the Church of England's 39 Articles. I say, Whereas the Church hath no way for her preservation in unity of saith and worship, but that of our Lords, and his Apostles, post unam aut alteram correptionem to shut such out of her Communion, the Read er may observe, here is no word of this; I do not say of shutting any at all out of the Church's Communion (this he allows in his first Proposition); but not shutting any out on this account, viz. their dissent and nonconformity to the Church's Articles of Faith and Religion.  
§. 104 For, as for consent said to be required from the Clergy to such propositions as such Synods shall agree upon, supposing here he means by this Consent, a profession of the belief of the truth of them, 1. This consent is required of the Clergy only hypothetically, if they desire to officiate in the Ministry; not absolutely, that they may enjoy her Communion: Nor will this remedy any Sect or Heresy as to such, who for this cause decline the Ministry. 2ly. By the Church's requiring their consent he seems not to mean an assent to the truth of such Articles, but either with Mr Chillingworth 
‖ Pref. §, 39  a consent to them or to the doctrine of this Church that who believes and lives according to them undoubtedly shall be saved, and— that there is no error in them which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturb the peace or renounce the communion of this Church; both which fall short of requiring an assent to the truth of these Articles, or of this doctrine: Or, with Bishop Bramhal, and himself Ration. Account p. 55. a Consent for peace sake not to oppose them; for so Dr Stillingfleet quotes the Bishop there saying 
‖ Reply to Chalcedon p. 264. — We do not oblige any man to believe, but only not to contradict them. And so the Qualification the Dr adds in the words following here seems to explain this Clergy Consent:— Not, saith he, to the end that all those propositions should be believed as Articles of Faith; but that none might preach or officiate in a way contrary to the design of the Reformation, [i.e. as I understand him, preach against any of the reformed doctrines]. Not that all th●se propositions (saith he) should be believed as Articles of Faith. Very perplexed this. For I ask, Are not some of these Articles at least then required by the Church of England to be believed as Articles of Faith? Otherwise the English Clergy, as to the whole Body of Christian Faith, is left to their liberty to disbelieve any part thereof. And, if some be required to be so believed; yet, so long as no distinction at all is made, any of the Clergy may leave out of his Faith which Articles he pleaseth. For example: one inclined to Socinianism, leave out that of God the Son's Consubstantiality with God the Father. But, next, supposing the belief of some Articles expressly and distinctly required of this Clergy; yet then, what if this Church, as being fallible, should be mistaken in some of them? But now, considering the Clergies consent not required for belief, but on the latter account; viz. that none of them should teach the people contrary to the Church's Reformation; Yet here again, since this Church may possibly be faulty in something it reforms, is this just to stop the mouths of all God's Ministry in this Church, that none of them may speak against it? If it be, why is not the same thing as lawful to the Church of Rome, as that of England? And then, if her Clergy also had been obliged to observe this, Luther and other Reformers being part of this Clergy, how could there lawfully have been a Reformation? and why is the modern practice of the Roman Church in this matter declaimed-against by Protestants, as the highest Tyranny? as also that of the Church of England is by the Presbyterians. These perplexities seem to attend the Dr's qualification: But, as hath been said before, whatever consent may be exacted of the Clergy, there is still left to Heresies and Sects the liberty of this Church's Communion though not of its Ministry, for any Bar that the Dr hath put in here to hinder it. And so I leave these things here, briefly represented, to the further Consideration of the Dr, and his Protestant Reader.    

THE SECOND PART.  

Annotations on Dr Stillingfleet's Answer to N. O's Considerations of his Principles.  
HAving in the former Discourse reviewed the Considerations, and made some Necessary Reflections on the Drs to me seeming-unsatisfactory Answers, as to several principal matters urged therein against his Principles, I see not why I might not take the same liberty, as himself hath used toward N. O, to let pass the rest of his Discourse unreplied-to; especially where it digresseth to many other by-matters, and neither vindicates his Principles, nor refutes the Considerations. But, lest that in his Book, which is little pertinent to the answering of N. O's Discourse, yet be said to be much to the defence of the Protestant Cause; and such things in it to have most weight, whatever I shall have omitted, I have drawn up some Annotations upon his whole Book; following him, whither his matter leads me: Though these Animadversions many times be very compendious, as supposing an intelligent Reader, and endeavouring to avoid tediousness in Recapitulations, self-justifications, complaints on the Adversary, and the like; with which, in multiplied Replies after a Controversy formerly agitated to and fro, the Reader (as one much more unconcerned in the Writer's reputation, than themselves are) useth to be much afflicted, confounded, and tired out; for which cause Writings of this nature are soon laid aside; and therefore I may be excused if I bestow the less pains, where I see it likely to be cast away.  
For the matters in him which I think fit to speak to; in Epitomizing or summoning up in brief what he saith, the Reader, or perhaps himself, would complain I wronged his sense; to transcribe every thing at length I have not the leisure; nor (had I this) a purse well to beat the charge of the Impression: So, mentioning some words only, and noting the page, I leave the Reader rather to peruse it in his own Discourse uncontracted and undivided from the rest; and with all the vigour that the Context and other circumstantials may afford it; well knowing, that who desires rightly to understand a Controversy must inform himself what the Disputants say, not in one another's, but their own, writings: and also chiefly intending these Remarks for such, who have, and value, his Book: and, where I speak to any passage that which may seem satisfactory, I desire the judicious Reader to apply it himself to the consequents, or to the like matter recurring in other places, without my further trouble herein. Meanwhile I offer my Prayers for him to our Good Lord, that he would illuminate and direct him, through the many great Controversies which are now agitated in Christendom concerning the sense of the Holy Scriptures, in the safest way to his salvation: whether this be, from the Church's Fallibility in Necessaries, every Christian's liberty to judge and discern Truth for himself; or, from the Church's In fallibility in Necessaries, every Christian's duty to obey and learn the Truth, where disputed, from Her: the main Contest between us. I likewise humbly beseech his Heavenly Majesty to protect his Truth, & the maintainers of it, whoever they be: and, if in any thing here I have offended (though unwillingly) against it, to discover at least to the pious Reader my errors; that, wherein deceived myself, I may not also deceive others.  
The Figure enclosed in the following Discourse between Parentheses thus () is to be numbered from the bottom of the page.  

Annotations on Dr Stillingfleets first Section.  
Dr St's Answ. to Consid. p. 75. l. 13. I pass by therefore all those unhandsome Reflections, etc.  
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 Catholic 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 the Heathens. 
‖ See Rom. Idol. p. 69, 134. etc. 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 Host, of Invocating Saints, of Worshipping Images] to be a Fundamental Error. Thus N. O there. Now, of this Church Catholic in every age we say in our Creed— Credo Vnam Sanctam Catholicam & Apostolicam Ecclesiam. But, how is it Sancta (as Archbishop 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 expressly contrary to the Divine Command, be a fundamental error; if an error 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 Still.  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 Error, 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 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 Catholic 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 inferior 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 myself 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 mind; 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 mere 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 Host 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 persuaded [one] that the Sun is now the tabernacle of Christ, and that he is really present there— he being so often in Scripture called 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 worshipping false Gods, supposing them to be true, as venial a fault, as worshipping that for the true God which is not so [supposed by him the Roman case in Adoration of the Host]. 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.— Upon the same account that the Heathen did give divine honour to their inferior 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 inferior 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 public 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 worshipped 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. 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 error, 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 worshipping and sacrificing to their false Gods and Heroes, and the Manicheans in worshipping 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 mere 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 show 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 Catholic Church, & both the Western and Eastern, as is showed 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 error or mis-practice, than he must, by his rendering the Church Catholic guilty thereof, unchurch It also for many ages; and so deny an Article of our Creed. From whence it appears, that he, how far 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 Catholic: 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 Catholic 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 Catholics, that such Idolatry doth unchurch any Society that teaches and practices 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 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 Catholic 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 show such Idolatry no fundamental error or miscarriage, so to retain still the Roman Church a true Church, viz. That so also the Catholic 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 owns 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 aught 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 Catholic Church. Where, if the belief of nothing is to be accounted necessary to salvation, or to the being of the Church Catholic, 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 Catholic; 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 Catholic still; which it remains to be by virtue 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 Catholic:) and so the Arian, Nestorian, Pelagian, are true Churches, and parts of the Catholic.  
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 Catholic 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 inquire 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 itself 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 join false Gods with the true in the same worship is a a fundamental error, 
‖ 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 worshipping false Gods supposing them to be true is as venial a fault, as worshipping that for the true God which is not so: [as he saith the Roman Church doth]. Again; will not this also be an error 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 mere 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 Catholic, though it should be still a Church professing Christianity) save only such? The Creed speaks not of matters belonging to God's Worship, nor of the Ten Commandments, the First and Second of which prohibit Idolatry: Yet is the Worshipping of God as essential to a true Church, as Believing in Him; and the observance of the Tenn Commandments 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 men's 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 else were necessary) but also on the promise of yielding obedience to God's Commandments. No Heretical Church is any true member of the Catholic; And would not such doctrines teaching contrary to the 10. Commandments 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 Commandment? 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 Catholic Church, and all the parts of it are believed in our Creed to be Holy, as well as Orthodox, 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 destroys Salvation. And, whether the Roman Idolatry, as he hath described it before, contrary to the express words and sense of the Second Commandment, 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 Gild; 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 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 own 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 Catholic 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 Superior 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 until they should repent (not their external disobedience or contradiction, but) their wicked error: 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 Style of the two Canons runs generally: Whoso shall hereafter affirm the Articles &c, in any thing erroneous: And the excommunicating of those, who will not abjure their holding Popery or Socinianism (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— Simo un ou plusieurs &c. If any one or more of the people shall raise any debate, to the breach of the Church's Unity, concerning any point of Doctrine, the Form of the Catechism, Sacraments, Public Service etc. [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 errors recorded [now surely this disavowing their errors 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 Synod. 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 show the same proceed of other foreign Synods of the Reformed with these of England. To which now to return] Either in the forementioned expressions these English National Synods do excommunicate all those, whoever affirm, any thing in the former Common-Prayer-Book to be repugnant to the Scriptures, (as all those must do, who affirm, the imposing, something there to be done or used in God's worship which he hath not commanded, to be a thing repugnant to the Scriptures) or who do affirm any thing in the 39 Articles to be erroneous; and then, what a number of persons are there at this present in this Kingdom of England that are excommunicated by the Church of England? Or, if no consent to her Articles is required in general of all her Subjects, what an indulgence is here for variety of Sects, every one being left in matters touching true Religion to Liberty of Opinion? Yet, for the avoiding of which, this Church saith, she composed these Articles. This of the Doctor's Passings-by in the Preface.  
Pag. 76. l. 3. The Controversy in short is this; Whether Protestant's 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 judgement to the Authority or Infallibility of the Catholic 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 judgement 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 Catholics, and sufficiently confuted by Experience.  
Ib. l. (9) The occasion was my Adversaries calling for Grounds and Principles, etc. 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, etc. Doth not this make the Archbishop 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 applied 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 understanding 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 described, viz. the Testimony of a multitude in all ages of illustrious Persons qualified with the many Motives of Credibility, their Wisdom, Sanctity, Martyrdoms, 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 styled, 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 days 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 Martyrdoms 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 misapprehension 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, something 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 entering Sodom. Since then none desires or needs a greater evidence of his faith, for example, concerning our Lord crucified, or risen again, than Sense may afford us, or S. Thomas by his Sense had, consequently must we not say, either that an evidence cui potest subesse falsum, as this is taken in the strictest sense, is abundantly sufficient for a ground or Reason of faith; Or, that a ground of faith cui non potest subesse falsum ought not to be taken in any higher notion than it is verifiable of our Senses? And such a Ground is the Tradition we speak of; a ground cui non potest subesse falsum, considering the Nature of Man; which Nature in such a Tradition improved with such circumstances cannot have the least inclination or inducement to deliver or propagate to posterity so general an Untruth.  
N. 4 3ly. That an infallible assent is said, in a Divine Faith, to be yielded to Divine Revelation or God's word, as well by Protestants, as Catholics; 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 Catholics 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 own word, is believed to be most supremely Infallible and immutable. [As the Archbishop's 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 Catholics 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, God's 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 Catholics are infallible in the assent they give to the Articles of their Faith, not formally, by an infallible knowledge or certainty that the thing, or person, they believe is so true or infallible; but materially, by their adherence to that which is a real truth: who therefore, from the Object of their Faith, God's Word, and the Proponent of the sense of it, where disputed, viz. the Church, being both infallible, are always 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 God's Word; or, of the Proponent, that he is not liable to error): 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 judgement 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 Catholics in the former proposition, explains himself in Error Nonplussed, p. 133. 139. 143. etc. the same Author mean while affirming; that all Catholics 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 Catholics 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 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 Catholics 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, wherever 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 Catholics 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 Catholics, I refer the Reader to what F. Bacon hath said of it in his Analysis Fidei extracted out of other Catholic Authors, Disp. 3. c. 7. and 8. Though it is affirmed necessary in the Catholic 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 equal.  
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 Governors 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 terms; 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 errors that may happen to assault them. Again, Because, though this Tradition is also assisted or improved, with the Infallible Scriptures for a completer direction in the Christian Faith, yet are not all Credends and Agends so clearly delivered in these Scriptures, as that Christians, the illiterate especially and plebeians, have no need of such an Interpreter thereof, as may not mistake or misguide them in any such necessary Agends, or Credends. To which unlearned persons though it is said not to be necessary, that they be infallibly certain of the truth of that which they believe; and therefore Church-Infallibility cannot be said necessary as to them upon this account; yet it is necessary to them, that, in such points where one of the two contradictories is of necessary faith, it be truth that they believe; and hence necessary also that the Proponent thereof be infallible, as to all such points. And it is here observable, that, though in the Descent of Tradition the Congregatio fidelium, when it first delivers to a person the Infallibility of Church and of Scripture, appears not to him as yet absolutely infallible; Yet indeed as to delivering necessaries it then, and always, is so: For, this Congregatio fidelium in every age that testifies such things, It, or some part of it, is the very same Body that is promised by our Lord his perpetual assistance, and is preserved for ever by God's 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 happened 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 thorough 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 rendering 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 God's 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 find early in Genesis, mention of Sacrifice, Firstlings, Holocausts, Peace-offerings, clean and unclean beasts, birds in Sacrifice not divided, not eating the blood; mention of Holy Times, Places, Persons, Priests, Prophets; of Tithes paid to the Priest, Purifying, Cleansing, 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 Superiors 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 publicly 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 No & 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 shows 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 something 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 reconsidered, and ●●nd no advantage to our Author's cause from N. O's yielding them.  
Pag. 87 l. (9). But he quarrels etc. 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 etc. 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 learned 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 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, etc. Catholics by Church-Infallibility as assisted with God's 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 error.  
Ibid. l. 7. We all say, matters of faith have sufficient certainty. What, that all matters of faith have sufficient certainty as to us, if Church-Infallibility be excluded; as it is, by Protestants? I ask, from what have we this certainty? From the Scripture? How this, where its Sense is doubtful, and controverted, as in the Text; Hoc est Corpus meum? From Tradition? But all Necessary Points of Faith are not in such clear and express terms delivered by It, that no Christian can have any reasonable doubt therein.  
Ibid. l. (12.) I only desire to know, why a like right and saving faith may not be had concerning the Scriptures, without their Church's infallibility? A Catholic 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 Catholics concerning What assurance of their faith in some Catholics is necessary to salvation, yet all agree, that all Catholics 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) Protestant's cannot have in many points thereof; as ●elying on their own Judgement 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, etc. N. O's words p. 56. that he refers 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 Universal 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 jests, even in the most grave and serious subjects. N O, before he writ these Considerations on his Principles, found him in this merry Critical humour, in his Rational Account. Where pag. 154. the Replier to the Archbishop saying, that the Church's infallibility must come from the Holy Ghost, and so be more than humane and moral; He falls on descanting thus upon it— You tell us very wisely that this infallibility is not a thing that is not infallible. And— It is well you tell us of such a rare distinction of infallibility; for else, I assure you we had never thought of it, viz. of an infallibility that may be deceived. Thus Herald But forgetting the like language in the Archbishop whom he defends. The Archbishop's 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 etc. 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 evidence, 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 grossly deceived in a matter of such moment (especially supposing a Divine Providence) than I freely and hearty 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 Catholic 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 something spoken improperly? But one material thing here may be observed by the Reader; that this moral Infallibility, where mentioned by N.O. is always applied to the said Tradition viz. the Testimony of so great a multicude of learned and pious men: but never to Church Infallibility as a Body assisted with the Holy Ghost; which Church is always believed not non-morally only, but non-possibly, fallible; as also other Articles of the Christian Faith are, as being all Divine Revelations: but these certainly known or proved, by a rational evidence, to be Divine Revelations, only from Tradition. And Lastly that N.O. in his applying Moral Infallibility to Tradition, leaving every one to express it otherwise, adds; or, whatever certainty that may be called, which Tradition affords. 
‖ Consi. p. 56.   
Pag. 91. l. 6. This were well enough, If in the precedent page he had not said etc. 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 Chimeras of Infallibility, notwithstanding the pains taken by Catholics to undeceive him and others therein: whenas the Infallibility maintained by Catholics is only that of the Church Catholic 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 Catholic Church), defining such points; and putting them into the Creeds; and anathematising 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 afraid 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.) Loath to part with the sound of Infallibility. See Note on p. 90. l. (5).  
Ib. l. (6.) He yields, that moral certainty is a sufficient foundation for Faith. Such terms neither occur in the Dr's 27th Proposition, here referred to as conceded by N.O. nor in any words of N.O. nor any thing equivalent to them, without some qualifications annexed. The proper Foundation of a Christian's Faith, or that on which it mainly relies is God's 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 tenants 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 Catholic 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 Catholics Tenants, thus to have something 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 Catholic having once learned 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 judgements, 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 Catholics cause, and stands to it: but so doth he also yield up this of a moral infallibility ex parte subjecti its being necessary to every one for having a right faith.  
Pag. 94. l. (12.) I desire N.O. and E.W. to agree better, etc. 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 men's 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, etc. 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, young, 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. Add, I say, these; and N.O. will own the Proposition.  
Ibid l. 3.3. That all the arguments which overthrew the Church's Infallibility do destroy the Church's Authority. There is no such thing said by N.O. Nay; the contrary is often said by him: that, Church-Infallibility being destroyed, yet the Church's Authority, though fallible, may upon many reasons justly challenge submission of judgement to her Decrees from her Subjects. See N.O. p. 18. 26. 48. 50. and in the former Discourse §. 35.37.39. But this is said by N.O. and must be still, till the Dr better clears himself, That some Arguments used by the Dr against Church Infallibility are as strong, and stronger, against Church-Authority: as namely, that made in his 19th Principle, if any one please to read there [Authority] instead of [Infallibility.]  
Ib. l. 16. If God hath not given an infallible assistance to the Guides of the Church, the Principles laid down by me must hold. No. For, private judgements 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 judgement 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 lie or practise things unlawful, but only to believe that to be most credibly true or just, which their Parents and Superiors, much wiser than themselves, inform them to be so; And where, if there be some incertainty in following their Judgements, this is not less, but more, in following their own. Men rightly submit their Judgements 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 useful, 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 far greater part of Christians seems no way capable of using all such Helps: 3 Or, if they were, yet all these helps being held by him fallible, they will still, after these, be liable to error 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 indefinitely to all sober Christians, who, without any necessary consulting and depending on their Teachers instituted for th●● by God, shall use their sincere endeavours 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 misled [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 falsehood. 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 Judgements 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 Saviour's 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 judgement, 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 Lords and his Apostles discourses, I think this Author 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. etc. 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 tyre out the Reader with so often repetition of the same limitations and restrictions, applied to a discourse that renders itself plausible by omitting them. The use of Indefinite Terms and propositions is a sure way, and a fine art, for Controvertists to answer one another, and both speak truth. So these two: Scriptures are clear in points of necessary faith, and Scriptures are not clear in points of necessary faith, are both very true as to several persons, and in several matters of necessary faith.  
Pag. 103. l. 14. But when I had expressly 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, etc.] 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 talon 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 etc. 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 herself and not her Subjects, is the most proper Judge.  
Ib. l. (6) So that not making use of this talon of Infallibility gives us just reason to question, whether God continues it. Then, from the Church's having well used this talon we may gather the contrary, viz. the Divine Providence it's still preserving it to her.  
Pag. 107. l. 9 Which several expressions [of Dr Field's] amount to no more than this, that there will be always some true Christians in the world. Contrary to this; Dr Field holds, that in all ages there is and shall be, not some true Christians only, but some Visible Society and Church, or other, consisting of a Ministry or Clergy openly publishing and teaching, and a People receiving their doctrine, that in such age, doth not err in necessaries to salvation: which tenant 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 Household 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 Judgement. Thus he. Which cannot be spoken only of the being always 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 Judgement. And, (to show 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 discernible, that do communicate therein. Such than 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 ministry of salvation continued and known in the world; For how (saith he) should there be a Church gathered without a Ministry?— And the like l. 2. c. 6.— That the Ministry of Pastors and Teachers is absolutely necessary to the being of a Church: For how should there be a Church gathered, guided, and governed, without a Ministry? [Therefore he will have in every age a Ministry 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 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 said in quâ sunt Praelati & subditi]; for, all this we do most willingly yield unto. Expressly 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 Heretics, yet it is not proper to the happy number and blessed company of Catholic Christians; because Schismatics 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 Catholic Christians, that they may serve as Notes of difference, to distinguish them from all, bo●● Pagans, Jews, Heretics, and Schismatics. 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 always retaineth a saving profession of heavenly truth such— that, by strength of Reasons, force of persuasions, 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 suiting 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 public 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 gins thus his 6th Chapter — Thus having spoken of the Church's assured possession of the Knowledge of truth, in the next place we are to speak of her Office of Teaching, and, Witnessing the same. [The Church therefore which he understands to possess this truth, is such also as teacheth and witnesseth it.] Thus Dr Field, justifying some such Church always to be not erring in Necessaries; but, not always the same, or the most eminent; Or those that possess 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 alleged here the mistaking of Dr Fields sense appears not on N. O's but the Dr's side, this his own error 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, etc.  
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 departed 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 judgement? 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 show 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 Company of Holy O●●●, that Household 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 Judgement; 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, aught to rest in her judgement, so as not to forsake her communion for any cavils that are raised about particular controversies, of which he is not a capable Judge. Upon being convinced that the Church of England is a sound [or orthodox] Church to rest in her judgement, is only to rest in her judgement 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 judgement 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 than need they a fallible. But, if he makes this Society, Dr Field speaks of, only useful for private men to submit their judgement 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 aught to rest in the judgement of a particular Church so qualified, why are not such much more obliged to rest in the judgement 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 judgement of the supremest Courts of the Church Catholic that can be had; which Church Catholic is but One, and subordinate in its members, see-before, §. 26? In stead therefore of some particular Church Orthodox, let this be sought out; and perpetually adhered to, when found.  
Pag. 109. l. 7. Do make all men impeccable if they will. So far as God gives any man grace not to sin, every one may be impeccable or may not sin, if he will; i. e, if he uses his best endeavours. That all are sinners, I speak as to Actual Sin, is from all failing in their will and endeavours.  
Ibid. l. 14. Who can believe the Goodness of God, and yet think, that he will suffer those who sincerely endeavour to know what is necessary to their salvation not to understand it? They are not to be supposed sincerely to endeavour to know things Necessary as they ought, who do not repair to the Church to learn of her God's 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 knowledge 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 judgement 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 judgement 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 lie scattered up and down; but to give them the greater strength I shall bring them nearer together. N.O. writing no set Discourse on a chosen or single subject, but Considerations on 30 several Principles of the Dr's, and some Consequences also drawn from them, his Considerations varying so as the Principles, expected the Dr should in the same order have vindicated his 30 Principles, as he laid them down, and have discovered the Considerer's mistakes. Instead of this, as if loath 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 shown), contracting and giving the sum 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 epitomised); and telling his Reader here p. 112. that he will bring nearer together N. O's arguments which lie 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 mind 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 knowledge of which Promise of our Lord concerning such an infallible Assistance to be for ever continued to his Church and its Guides should always 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 the 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 Catholic always in one Faith and one Body. And by these unfailing Guides the Church hath ever understood the Supreme Governors and Pastors of the Church assembled in a lawful General Council, or otherwise unanimously agreeing; Of which Councils the first was that convened Act. 15. about stating the Controversy concerning Mosaical Ceremonies; when, S. Austin saith 
‖ Contra Cresconinm l. 1. c. 3. — Inter Apostolos de Circumcisione quaestio, sicut postea de Baptismo inter Episcopos, non paruâ 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 Catholic Church continues always Apostolica [preserving the Apostles Rules Traditions and Doctrines], and una [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 styled Sancta, i.e. so far, 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 alleged as certain and infallible against Heretics.  
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 God's 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 error: [as an error in any Necessary must be].  
N. 4 Lastly, The Scriptures showing these Promises (since the Dr so earnestly calls for them) which are usually produced by Catholic Writers, (and which are the Church's old Armour, as the Dr calls it 
† See p. 127.  for this point; Armour 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 etc. 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 Unity 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 Unity of Opinion I ask how it can be had, unless there be in the Church some Persons, whose Judgement, 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. etc.  do put upon them, in the 1. Disc. concerning the Guide in Controversies §. 78. etc. 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 Catholics 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. p. 57 tells the Dr, that Catholics are not necessitated, in arguing against Protestants, who grant the Scriptures to be God's 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 itself and the fulfilling of such a sense of them as applied to S. Peter's Successor, and to the Roman & other Churches united to it, the Dr I think grants, that these Churches or their Prelates 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 Catholic 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 Catholic, 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 show either that the Church 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 show either of these things (saith he) let him; for my part I cannot. [He goes on] Yet I willingly confess the Judgement 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 for public peace sake. Where the words though not infallible show 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 judgement 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 men's judgements to General Councils, as such; or withdrawing it from them, as not such: viz. Unity, and Division.  
Pag. 113. l. 19 How easily might all the contentions of the Christian world have been prevented, if Christ had said, etc. We must not prescribe to God, but humbly leave to him the way, how he shall be pleased to manifest 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 etc. 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 etc. I refer 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 etc. N. O. ●s not obliged to say every thing in every place. This Author will needs transform. N. O's brief Considerations on his Principles into a set Discourse of Infallibility, and then show 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 God's 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 God's 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 than 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 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 refer 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 fail? 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 Archbishop meant it not only of a number of true Christians, as our Author doth here; but, of true Pastors also and Doctors of the Church.] If this Promise then be enough for believing of this, the non-failing of Christians that shall believe all necessary truth without Miracles; will it not, supposing such a promise made to them, be as sufficient for believing the other, the indefectibility of the Church-Guides as to teaching all necessary faith, without their doing Miracles?  
Ib. l. 16. But, in case any persons challenge an infallibility to themselves antecedently to the belief of Scriptures &c, such persons are equally bound to prove their infallibility by Miracles as the Apostles were. What if they challenge this Infallibility like wise from the Scriptures; as most certainly they do? This latter challenge of theirs, surely, will supersede Miracles. But let us suppose no such challenge. What thinks he, if they produce the evidence of Tradition for their Infallibility antecedently to Scripture, as also they do? Is not this (we here suppose there is such a Tradition, which is proved before 
‖ Note on p. 113. l. 14. ) a sufficiently clear and self-evident proof of it? If not of their Infallibility; how then is the same Tradition, without Miracles, a sufficient proof to Protestants of the Canon or Infallibility of Scriptures? Suppose the same promises made & no Scriptures written, would not the Catholic 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 etc. In the Dr's suming of N. O's Answers still something is lost: as here, the Reason is omitted, why no such need of Miracles to be done by the Church-governors, 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 Universal.  
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 loath to let go the Miracles of their Church done in latter times as well as formerly. N.O. 
‖ See Consid. p. 29. . is loath to let go the Miracles of their Church: i.e. of the Catholic Church, East or West, (for both have been noted for Miracles). In latter times: i.e. from the Apostles days 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. loath 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 nonnecessity. 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 loath, 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 blind 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, lie hidden within the Church of God) be not numbered amongst them. As, for the Confirmation of the Catholic Faith against Heretics and Schismatics; Or, for attestation of the Sanctity of those who work such Miracles, for others imitation of their mortifications and virtues: or for the more visible testimony of God's 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 Diocese. 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 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. Vzalietiam, quae Colonia Vticae 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 Milan; 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 public Bills or Records and Memorials to be recited to the people, imitated in this by the Church-Governors in latter times.— Id namque 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 Heretics perhaps, but) not 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 Milan, a Cancer, a Fistula, and two shaking persons in Africa: 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 loath to part with Miracles in the Church for the times that followed the Apostles: and to be loath 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 suit to the latter, ages.  
N. 3 Neither aught 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 Catholics, to sway any so much, as from thence to draw a Conclusion, either that none at all of latter times, related in Saints Lives, or other Church-History, are true and sufficiently testified; or that, being true, they do not sufficiently 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 showed, 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 Lords 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 showed the many Catholic Authors he citys, 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 Catholic 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 Catholic 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) elsewhere by Heathens, or by Heretics. 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 Catholic, 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 would come to have an undiscernably equal Plea of their Confirmation by Miracles. Therefore in the Scripture we find not the End, why the Miracle was done, chief 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 Catholic 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 Catholic, 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 shown 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 show, 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 Catholic Church.  
But, to reflect on these words of his,— [They would do well to show, etc.], a little further. If our Author means here, by the Miracle's showing the infallibility of the Worker, such an Infallibility as the Apostles had in delivering nothing by word or writing but God's word and the Dictates of the Holy Ghost, I can show 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 God's Faith, certainly is so, (who otherwise would never be assisted with Miracles, [which are always a seal of truth] if delivering falsityes as Divine truths); Yet it cannot be said of them as of the Apostles; that whatever they deliver is God's 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 pretention. But, if those whom God honours 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 profess 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 Catholic 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 Heretics: true Miracles such as our Lord and his Apostles did being distinctive signs 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 Catholic 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 Catholic 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 theirs 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 application of some natural Agents, though this transcending any humane Art or Capacity. For, such miracles, I willingly grant both Magicians and also Heretics and Schismatics may operate by the assistance of these Angelical powers therein; either Voluntary, or also constrained as to the inferior sort of these Spirits compelled thereto by their Superiors. 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, viz. give sight to the blind, cure the sick, raise again the dead, etc. From which it follows, that whatever Church doth such Miracles must be the Catholic; & from this, that such Miracles wherever they are found in any age, do show the Church wherein they are done to be Infallible in Necessaries; for so the Catholic 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 Catholic, 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 show, 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 show; that those, who have related our Lords and his Apostle's Miracles, have, to give these their just force and value, expressed always 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 chief to be informed; not of the fact: Or * to show, that our Lord or his Apostles always cleared this to be their end, to their Auditors and spectators; 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) alleging 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 rendered 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 Catholic Church (if such a Church 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 Catholic Church were of the very same kind as those wrought by Christ and his Apostles; i.e. giving sight to the blind, 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 Author 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 Catholic in the ancienter times, as in S. Austin's, this Author 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 God's 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 Heretics to Miracles being no way comparable, for number, or greatness. to those pretended in the Church Catholic, 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 feigned, in emulation of the great reputation of those of Christians. But Pretences on any side signify nothing. The Catholic 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. That the first Article that a Christian believes, or that, in his learning the Faith, is by his Parents or other instructer's first made known to him, may be this, that the Scriptures are God's 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 God's 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 God's 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 Catholic 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 Catholic believes, or is sufficiently certain of, be Church-Infallibility. See the Catholic Authors cited in 3d Disc. of the Guide, §. 129. n. 4. etc.  
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 showing at all, how the infallibility of the Church can be proved from Scripture. And the reason of this was, to show that Catholics 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, etc. 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 Governors of the Church in their General Councils inserting from time to time, as they thought fit, their Decisions in the Church's Creeds; which shows 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 Anathematising 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, than also, they had Priests and Prophets endued with God's 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 error 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 in them. But, however it be in the Church under the Old Testament, the Promises of an infallible guidance by God's Holy Spirit to its Governors 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 Church's infallibility by virtue 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 our 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 general 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 etc. 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 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 Catholic 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 subtlety may be used by such who seek to pervert the Catholic 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 Catholic 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 Catholic 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 etc. They speak evil of Dignities Judas. 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 Governors (which is made known by Divine Revelation to those first persons who communicate it to posterity) from Tradition descending from age to age in such manner at the Protestant saith, he learns his Canon of Scripture from Tradition. To which Tradition also may be committed by our Lord or his Apostles, whatever is, to Scripture. Perhaps His falling into a Fit of drollery here made him oversee it.  
Pag. 127. l. 5. What are its weapons? See before Note on p. 113. l. 14. n. 4.  
Pag. 128. l. 3. It is I suppose agreed on both sides, that the Tradition on which we receive and believe the Scriptures to be the word of God was universal as to all ages, and times. No. Not so universal, as to all parts of the Canon.  
Ib. l. 14. Let any thing like this be produced for the infallibility of the Guides of their Church [i.e. for the Infallibility of lawful General Councils; for N.O. the Considerator treats of no other, and often mentions this], and we will yield up the cause to them. See then what is produced concerning this before, Note on p. 113. l. 14.  
N. 1 Ib.l. (7). The only argument etc. That which our Author allegeth here, the Councils anathematising dissenters, and the Church's styling them Heretics 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 Governors 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 anathematising dissenters, and the Church's styling them Heretics ever after upon it. For that no authority (if we believe the Dr) but that which proves itself infallible, [and therefore which is infallible], can justly require our internal assent or submission of judgement. And that the Protestants their allowing only an external obedience or silence due to Councils fallible infers, 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 acknowledgement 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 sometimes matte●s of Faith, censuring Heretics, and requiring assent to their Decrees; but still with relation to the same Infallibility residing in the General Body of Church-governors, and their concurrence therein: They not passing such Acts without consulting the Tradition and Judgement of other Churches, and especially of the Apostolic See: and a general acceptation rendering such their Decisions authentic 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 judgement, and all this upon penalty of damnation. And this, if justly required by them infers, upon the Dr's arguing, their Infallibility. For (saith he 
‖ Rat. Account, p. 506 ) where Councils challenge an internal assent by virtue of their Decrees [or, because their decrees are in themselves infallible] there must be first proved an impossibility of error 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 anathematising dissenters, and pronouncing them Heretics, as he expresseth it; though N.O. spoke of the Church always afterwards, styling such Dissenters from the Councils Decrees Heretics. The Doctor's 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 anathematised dissenters, and pronounced them Heretics, which is his only argument to prove this Tradition of the Church's Infallibility; and they [the Catholics] 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 replied in the former Disc. §. 65. etc. (and I think fit here to repeat, at least some part thereof, to give the Reader the less trouble, by making frequent References): First in general, that I do not understand what it is that our Author would maintain here against N.O. Is it this? that neither anathematising Dissenters, nor the Councils putting their Decrees in the Church's Creeds, nor the Church Catholick's afterward esteeming those Heretics that dissented from these Councils, are a sufficient evidence or proof that these Councils at least (and also the Church) accounted themselves Infallible in these their Decrees? What could the most Infallible Judge do or exact more? Doth not he below 
† See p. 113.  blame the Roman Church for assuming such an Infallibility to herself, 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 infer Infallibility? Or, will he justify it lawful for a Council, that grants itself 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 anathematising Dissenters, and yet these Councils granted by Catholics not Infallible; which Concession of Catholics, and particularly of Bellarmine the Council l. 2. c. 10. is produced as ruining this weak argument of N.O. that would prove, from Anathematising 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 find indeed subordinate Councils also stating sometimes matters of faith, censuring heretics, and requiring assent to their decrees; but still with relation to the same Infallibility residing in the general Body of Church-governors, and to their concurrence therein: They not passing such Acts without consulting the Tradition and Judgement of other Churches, and especially of the Apostolic See: and a general Acceptation rendering such their Decisions anthentick and valid, so as those of General Councils are. (And Bellarmin's answer 
‖ l. 2. c. 16.  is showed 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 preceded 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 Herald 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 Catholic Church is known to them before the composing their Decree; as it may be, when yet the confirmation of their Act is only received after it: Or, because such post-confirmation and acceptation after the penning of the Decree yet precedes the promulgation and just force or obligation of it: It being penned absolute, upon such a consent presupposed, as we see the African Anathemas were: and as it is the ordinary custom in all laws, the establishment whereof depends on many successively, yet in their first stile to run absolutely, because such ratification is presupposed to their having the due force of Laws. And so in General Councils, the Anathemas are penned absolute, though these Councils and their Decrees have not their full strength till the Confirmation thereof by the See Apostolic, 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 Mathematics.  
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 persuasion they have of the truth of what they decree, to anathe matize dissenters; and pronounce them heretics? 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 Catholics 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 anathematise 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 than were good from anathematising dissenters, and calling them heretics, every particular person must by it be proved infallible who are bound to anathematise 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 [too dissenters] because they think every one that disobeys the decree of the Council [i.e. by dissenting] to be, [or to incur 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 persuaded in particular that this is the eternal truth of God that they propose, therefore they anathematise them, that obstinately shall resist. But 1st, N.O. presseth not these General Councils their anathematising them, that shall obstinately resist that which they propose; but them, that shall descent 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 persuaded, 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 anathematise Dissenters. But it is agreed that the four first Councils did justly these things, and therefore they were not only persuaded, 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 mere dissent from which he can justly anathematise Angel, or Man: and none may anathematise another for his dissent not receiving, or for his not believing, any thing, of the truth whereof he himself is not certain; much less, 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, etc. What thing is there more public 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 affairs required, or times permitted it, (following the precedent of Acts 15.) to General Councils, or those some way equivalent, for deciding the more important Controversies in Religion that disturbed the Church: and than, of these Councils, when met, their requiring a belief and assent from all Christians to their Definitions: and this assent accordingly yielded by the Universal Church; which infers also a General belief and acknowledgement 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 always 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 Catholic Clergy, manifesting a concurrence in their judgement, 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 public Writings, Catechisms, 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-governors. This of the standing Judge. 2 As for the Infallibility thereof, the Universal 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 showed 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 showed to have always had as General an Acceptation, as any other: Or, that the Definitions of Chalcedon equal, in this, those of Nice.  
Pag. 131. l. 5. The Infallibility of a standing Judge is utterly denied by one side, and vehemently disputed between several parties on the other. Not the infallibility of General Councils in all necessaries disputed, save only by some Protestants: agreed in by all the rest, whether Eastern or Western Church. And, if the Common Reason, or Body, of Christianity were to decide this contest between N. O, and Dr St, Dr St. would be cast.  
Pag. 132. l. 15. If the Infallibility of the Church be as liable to doubts and disputes, as that of the Scriptures, it is against all just laws of reasoning to make use of the Church's infallibility to prove the Scripture by. It is true; that the Infallibility of the Scripture cannot be proved from Infallibility of the Church to any that doubts as much of this as of the other, till this proof is also proved to them. But then, it is true too, that a Neophyte may first be taught from Tradition, the Infallibility of the Church, and from this, so made known to him, have the Infallibility of the Canon of Scripture proved to him, as this Church hath in her Councils declared and delivered it; for which Church it were to no end to define the Canon, if the Canon thereby received no more certainty, as to any Christian, than formerly.  
Ib. l. (3). N.O. turns my words quite to another meaning. In the meaning the Dr now explains his words, the sense of the latter part of this Principle (which I leave the Reader to compare) seems coincident with the former; and so is granted to him, 
Princip. 17,  as the former is. And, if N.O. not imagining such a reduplication, mistook the Drs sense, here, from what he found him to say in another place 
‖ Rat. 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 expressly 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● 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 proceed 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 etc. Yes: very well, say I; because other decrees, in that, and other Councils, may be clear enough.  
Pag. 134. l. 17. They [Councils] aught never to be liable to the same ambiguity. True: but, if it misshapen, 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. Upon the account of which obscurity Scripture is rejected from being a certain Rule of faith. Contrary. Scripture is received by Catholics 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 etc. To the reason given for the Unity of Catholics, viz. their being ready to submit their judgements to the determinations of the Church in her Councils, our Author returns this reason (as good, or better, he saith) for the Unity of Protestants, viz. their being all ready to submit their judgements 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 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 Catholics, 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, than 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 saved 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 Catholics 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 clearness 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 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 Governors, as much as to private men, and from their endeavours as well as private men's, to understand them (these two supposed) that the Church-Governors cannot err 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 Governors 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, because otherwise in their inserting such things, as they thus falsify, in the Creeds, and in their anathematising all dissenters, they shall make a public profession of their faith just contrary to their Faith, and anathematise themselves.  
Pag. 141. l. 8. The Guides of the Church, supposing the same sincerity, shall enjoy the same privilege, 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 mankind as the other is, than 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 Governors in like manner as to Mechanics; 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-governors 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. infers 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 judgement 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 than 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 proceed of the Council of Trent will see reason to be over-confident of the sincerity of Councils, so palpably influenced by the Court of Rome. The sincerity and just proceed of the Council of Trent are ill learned from such persons of a contrary interest. If all Bishops, rightly, have an influence on Councils, much more ought the Prime Patriarch and other Bishops that assist him.   

Annotations on §. 10. Of the Authority of the Guides of the Church.  
PAg. 142. l. (4). God hath entrusted every man with a faculty of discerning truth and fashood, supposing that there were no persons in the world to direct or guide him. The Reader may be pleased to review the brief Replies, 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 falsehood; Meaneth he, so as every one to be able to discern truth from falsehood in every thing, without any Guide or instructor? 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 falsehoods more easy, one's own judgement 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 judgements about these matters: [viz: matters of Religion.] Exercise of private men's judgements in all things General Councils, Church-governors, N. O, allow. For, this also is an act of our judgement when, by it rightly used, we find it our duty to submit these our judgements (or the particular reasons we have for, or against, such a point in Religion) to the judgement of our Canonical Superiors in such matters as are defined by them; and not clear to us.  
Ib. l. 11. Accordingly we find the Apostles appealing to the judgements 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 descent from, the contrary doctrine of an Apostle. Yet this also is true, that, whenever they shall so descent, such judgement 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 judgement 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 judgement made of th●● 〈…〉 could not do so. And therefore the Apostles commanded 〈…〉 persons (as supposing these two things, belief of their 〈…〉 and the Use of ones Judgement, well consisting together 〈…〉 fast and firm in the doctrines delivered to them by the●● 〈…〉 and not to be carried away with every doctrine, because 〈…〉 Pastor's appointed to guide them; and to observe those 〈…〉 sed any Divisions among them contrary to the Doctr●●●● 〈…〉 and to reject any person heretical, etc. See Rom. 16. 〈…〉 11.2.— Phil. 4.9.— Heb. 13.7.— 1 Tim. 6.10.— 2 Tim. 3.10.14 Tit. 1.9.— 3.10.— Eph. 4.11, 13.  
Pag. 145. l. (10). They are frequently charged to beware of seducers and false Guides. I add, and frequently charged to follow their true and Canonical Church-governors, that they may not be misled by those false Guides. See the Texts now quoted, to which may be added Judas 4. here quoted by our Author.  
Ib. l. (7) They are told, that there should come a falling away, etc. All this more makes for a most close adherence, especially of the more simple and less able to examine Controversies, to their Canonical Superiors 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 judgement 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, etc. 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 Governors?  
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, aught 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 judgements, were not Christians obliged in this to the very Apostles and their Doctrines? See before Note on p. 144. l. 11. See we not the effects here of the Dr's 13th Principle; in the people's not needing Guides for understanding necessary Scriptures; but meanwhile, in the Scriptures being needful to them, for trying by it their Guides?  
Pag. 147. l. 7. Where there is a Rule for them [the Church-governors or Guides] to proceed by, there is a rule for others to judge of their proceed. 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 shown. 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 determined nothing? and than 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 expressly commanded, and prescribed. What authority is to end this? I say for such who hold some Ceremony unlawful and repugnant to Scripture, are they, or the Church, to judge of this unlawfulness? and, may the Church lawfully enjoin it, and oblige them, under excommunication, to practise it? Or, will it not come at last, according to these Principles, that the Subjects, not the Church, are to decide the indifferency or non-indifferency of such Ceremonies?  
Pag. 148. l. 7. We allow a very great authority to the Guides of the Catholic 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 etc. This will not serve the turn; it must be as an authorised Expositor of the true sense of Scriptures doubtful and obscure in Necessary matters, to whose definitions all aught 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 Universal 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; Apostolic? Ourselves, or the present Church-governors?  
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 judgement 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 Catholics, 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 spoke by an infallible Spirit, and where they have determined matters of faith & practice, we look upon it as arrogance & presumption in any others, to alter what they have declared. Where they have determined matters of faith or practice. But who's Judge of this, what Christ and his Apostles have determined? the Church's Councils; or private men, each for himself?  
Ib. l. (13). Till 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 judgement on this account, to what other Courts or Persons will He direct us to apply ourselves, 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 judgement 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 judgement of his Senses, than credit the Father's concerning the truth of such a Divine Revelation, as contradicts his Senses. So The certainty of the Divine Revelation is here the only thing in question; which once any way proved the evidence Sense gives-in against it is to be neglected. Now, of the certainty of the Divine Revelation, or of the true sense of Scripture we reckon the unanimous consent of the Fathers or Primitive Church (if such can be shown) 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 alleged 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 Catholic 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 willbe guided by another's opinion in them. Catholics 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 mean with his Exception; unless it be Divine.  
Ib. l. (3) We prefer 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 barbarism, 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 judgement of our Senses, appointed by God the Instruments (by hearing, or reading, them) of conveying Faith, and his Divine Revelations to us, affords a sufficient natural certainty or infallibility, whereon to ground our belief in all those things subject to our senses, wherein the Divine Power doth not interpose. But 2ly. That, where the Divine Power worketh any thing supernaturally, that is, contrary to our sense (as it may, no doubt) here we are not to believe them. And 3ly. That we are to believe this divine power doth so, so often as certain Divine Revelation tells us so; though by the same senses it tells us so. We believing our Senses (as our Hearing or Reading) for this (as we ought, where we have no Divine Revelation or other evidence concerning their deception) when at the same time we do not believe the same Senses for some other thing, (as, that that which we see is Bread) when a Divine Revelation tells us the contrary. The truth of which Divine Revelation, in any nonevidence and questioning of the Sense of Scripture, we are to learn from God's Church infallibly assisted in necessary Faith etc. For which I refer 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 uà.  
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 worshipping of Images do so of any Creature in heaven, earth, or under it: but mean a Divine and Sovereign 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, etc. He goes on.  
Ib. l. 5. That we must pray with understanding. Therefore are all public Forms of Prayer that are thought necessary for the vulgar by Catholics 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 Saviour's Institution of the Lords Supper. Surely no Precept obligeth us to our Lord's Institution or Practice in every thing; not, in communicating after Supper, Sitting at table, taking it into our hands, washing of feet before it, nor in communicating always in both kinds; a thing sufficiently cleared by the practice of Antiquity and purest times; which on several occasions, and that where no absolute necessity, gave it in one kind only, (believing our Lord's Body and Blood to be received in any one Species. Now, where a Divine Precept obligeth, the contrary Practice in no time would be lawful. The Eastern Churches also, for the same reason as the West, viz: to prevent the many abuses and irreverences that have happened 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 judgement.  
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 judgement 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 aught 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 ourselves sooner, than General Councils. In this 7th Proposition p. 149. what hath our Author said in defence of his Religion against Church-Authority, that a Socinian or Arian may not say for his?  
Pag. 152. l. 12. These Guides of the Church have declared each other to be fallible by condemning their opinions and practices. Lawful General Councils have not condemned the opinions of one another. And, what former Councils have been held for lawfully General, where any doubt is made, it is fit private men should learn from their present supreme Ecclesiastical Guides. Those Councils urged for this contradiction by Protestants, are either Particular, against General Councils; or Councils styled General, that are not allowed to be so by the judgement of the present Church Catholic: Or those definitions of them to contradict, which do not, in the foresaid judgement: 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 Arianism, when almost all the Guides of the Church declared in favour of it Arianism at no time prevailed upon a greater part of the Church or its Governors. That of S. Jerome— Ingemuit totus orbis, & miratus est se esse Arianum only signifies, that the whole Catholic world wondered, that its Decree which passed in the great Council at Ariminum was interpreted by the Arian party, which was favoured by the Emperor, 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 nonconformity 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-governors and the Bishop of the Apostolic 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 Author fairly free a Socinian from any obedience due to the decree of the Nicene Council concerning Consubstantiality?  
Pag. 153. l. (4.) Liberius went so far, that Hilary denounced an Anathema against him, N. 1 and all that joined with him. The Relation in which this passage is found is none of S. Hilary's. See thereasons given by Baronius A. D. 357. The Historians of those times differ in their Records concerning Liberius; some speaking more favourable of him, than others. The Syrmian Confession subscribed by him may be taken in an orthodox sense, and it is justified as such by S. Hilary 
‖ De Synod . And, if he communicated only with such a party, as those called Semi-Arians who joined with him in this profession, though understood by them in a sense different from his, his fault seems hereby much extenuated, as that of some Catholic 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 Catholics could then deliberate, Whether they were to follow the judgement 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, etc. 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 chief 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 Judgements perusing the Scriptures (as the Socinians do) for what tenant they shall rather hold in our Lord's 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 judgement, 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 settling of such doctrines by these General Councils. Which if he speaks of persons suspending their judgements 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 immediately was) which only makes to his purpose, all than are to yield submission of judgement 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 Catholics 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 Author's 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, suits 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 wholly 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 Heretic.  
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 judgement 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 Apostolic and any succeeding Pope, if any such difference should be, the former Decree of a Pope joined with a General Council will doubtless prescribe to any contrary one of a Pope single. Lastly, If the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon were not generally submitted to; and so, as to some Party, were ineffectual for the suppression of the heresies they condemned, yet ought they to have been so admitted and obeyed by all after that their Decrees have received a sufficient validity from their being accepted by a much major part of the Church, and confirmed by the Bishop of Rome: and I hope our Author will not deny this, lest Christians totter still in some of the Articles of the Athanasian 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 judgement of the Church-Guides in such a Council after a sufficient Acceptation of it by the Church Catholic diffusive and confirmation of the See Apostolic. 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 judgement, 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 Chalcedon; to the Definition of which both the differing Parties willingly consented, whilst one endeavoured, that the error of such particular persons here concerned might no way prejudice the doctrine of that Council: the other, that the persons, whom after some former errors this Council had approved, might not be afterward condemned.  
Pag. 163. l. 12. And after these to anathematise Honorius, as agreeing in all things with Sergius, and confirming his wicked doctrines. Here, what should I trouble myself 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 freedom 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 heretic, 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 Catholics grants, may be. See Bellarm. de. Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 30. §. Resp. Sunt— Pighius contendit Papam non posse esse Haereticum, 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 Heretic, De Conc. l. 1. c. 9— Quarta causa celebrandi Generalis Concilii est suspicio Haresis in Romano Pontifice, etc.  
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 Apostolic. In the intervals of which Councils, to matters clearly determined formerly by them the present Church Governors, 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 shallbe so decided.  
Ib. l. (2). But a man, who is bound to rely only on the authority of his Guides must suppose them to be agreed; and, in case of difference among them, he must first choose 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 wherever 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 choose 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 Superior; (as in England on a Provincial, or National Synod, rather than on the Rector of his Parish, or a single Bishop): and, wherever its judgement can be had, on the Supreme; a lawful General Council, confirmed by the Bishop of the See Apostolic.  
Pag. 172. l. (8.) Now the Question proposed is, whether it be not fit for me to submit to the Guides of the Catholic Church, than to trust my own judgement? I should make no scruple in all doubtful matters to resolve the affirmative, supposing that all the Guides of the Catholic Church were agreed. Will he submit his judgement, 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 tenant. He goes on.  
Ib. l. ult. For I should think it arrogance and presumption in me to set up my own private opinion in opposition to the unanimous consent of all the Guides of the Catholic 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 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-governors is still to be observed. And our obedience, in any clashing of these Church-governors in several parts, to be performed to the Superiors. As for example. The African Bishops and their Councils, differing about Rebaptisation from other Christian Churches, were, observing their subordination, to submit to the judgement of a Council Ecumenical. A private man then, where are many different Churches and Communions, aught to consider under what particular Governors 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 judgement to the Superiors. 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 judgement 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 judgement, 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 far 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 Judgement, as the Supreme of this National Church.  
N. 2 The same, then, let any doubting person do in any higher division and opposition of Metropolitan Churches, suppose in the Western Patriarchy wherein he lives. Let him examine which is the most Universal Body of them, which the most dignified Persons, and submit to their Guidance; which as it is more safely relied on may be easilier examined, than the Controversies: and indeed is a case clear and obvious enough to the most of men. And, as for others, their invincible ignorance it is hoped, may excuse their error. Where also let such a person consider; whether such Councils, as are assembled of most of the National Churches in the West joined with the Patriarch of it, and deciding the many points disputed in these Western parts, are not to be submitted-to by all private persons, not certain of the contrary to their Decisions (as how should they be so?), before a National only of the English Bishops; especially, if these opposing them in those things, wherein for the most part the Eastern Churches also agree with them. And, if any here, for standing out against this major authority, should plead Certainty on his side, as Archbishop Lawd and others do, then let him consider, how few there are among Christians so well seen in all these Controversies themselves, as to withdraw their obedience on this account; whilst it seems agreed that all others ought, leaving these Certainists by themselves, to conform to the Decrees of the Superior Courts?  
Ib. l. (10). What then makes those Church's [the Eastern] to be left out in our inquiries after the Guides of the Catholic Church? How orthodox and Catholic soever the Eastern Churches may be, one living in the Western Church owes no Canonical subjection or obedience to them: whose whole care it ought to be to pay it where it is due according to the forementioned subordination; which done, he cannot miscarry as to all necessary Faith. But however, I think, Dr St. might have spared the Description, and proposal of these to a Protestants choice, by reason of their many tenants in the Points controverted, and particularly in those of Transubstantiation, and the Idolatry of Images and Invocation of Saints, agreeing with, or also some of them more disliked, than the Roman.  
Pag. 174. l. (9). Now of these five parts four of them [Nestorians, Eutychians, Greeks, and Protestant Churches] are all agreed, that there is no necessity of living in subjection to the Guides of the Roman Church. As they are agreed, so it is granted. For Example, that the Metropolitan Church of England owes no subjection to the Metropolitan Church, of Rome, nor to the Pope, as the Metropolitan thereof. And the other three own him no subjection neither as he is Patriarch of the West, but the fourth doth; and yielded it together with other Occidental Churches, till of late. But, meanwhile, the Eastern Churches, are agreed, that they own all subjection and submission of judgement to the Definitions of lawful General Councils, (and on this account render it to the 2d Nicene) and that these Councils are infallible in them; (for which see what is cited in the precedent Discourse §. 56.) And, from the determination of these Councils, do the same Churches entertain several Opinions rejected by Protestants.  
Ib. l. (3.). Only those of the Church of Rome take upon themselves against all sense and reason to be the Catholic Church; and so exclude four parts of five out of a capacity of salvation. The Roman Church confesseth itself a particular Church, and only a part of the Catholic. Nor doth it exclude any other Churches from being true parts thereof, save those which are Heretical, or Schismatical; both which Heretics and Schismatics, I think, learned Protestants exclude also from being members of the Catholic Church. See Dr Field l. 4. c. 2.— That the Visible Church [he means, Catholic] never falleth into Heresy we most willingly grant. And l. 1. c. 7.— The name of Orthodox Church is applied to distinguish right-believing Christians from Heretics; the name of the Catholic Church, men holding the Faith in unity from Schismatics. Nor doth the Roman Church deny in such Heretical or Schismatical Churches a capacity or possibility of salvation to all generally; but only (as I think Protestants also do) to those among them that are formerly guilty of the crimes of Heresy, or Schism: because indeed either of these is a mortal sin; and so, unrepented of, excluding from salvation. Lastly, Heretical the Roman Church, with all Antiquity, takes those to be, that maintain the contrary to any known Definition, in a matter of faith, of a lawful General Council: and Schismatical those, that, upon any cause whatever, do separate from the Communion of the present Church Catholic, and their true Superior Ecclesiastical Guides.  
Pag. 175. l. 11. When he finds so many [Churches] and those not inferior to the Roman Church in any thing, save only in pomp, pride, and uncharitableness. Eph. 4.31. And evil-speaking be put away from you. Et blasphemia tollatur a vobis cum omni malitiâ.  
Ib. l. 13. All (saith He) opposing Infallibility in it. In the Church of Rome; but not in the Church Catholic; which or wherever, it be. He proceeds.  
Ib. l. 15. What reason can he have, supposing that he is to submit to any Guides, that he must submit only to those of the Roman Church? Why not as well to those of the Eastern, Greek, or Protestant-Churches? Persons, and Churches, are to submit only to their lawful Canonical Superiors, Persons, or Councils. And so are to avoid such Persons, or Churches, as these do declare Heretical, or Schismatical; whom they come to know, or are to believe, to be so, from such Declaration without a necessity of studying the particular Controversies: the Supreme Court of which Superiors, a General Council of these Church-Guides, cannot misguide them in any thing necessary to be known: and the Decrees also of others inferior, though fallible, yet in all prudence are to be obeyed and believed, wherever themselves have no Certainty of the contrary. It follows.  
Ib. l. (11.) If any one goes about to assign a reason, by charging them with Heresy or Schism, He unavoidably makes him Judge of some of the greatest difficulties in Religion, before he can submit to his infallible Guides. No. For, by other ways forementioned 
‖ See Note on p. 173. l. 5  a private person comes to know his true Guides and Superiors, and from them learns what is, and what persons are guilty of, Heresy and Schism. Else all men must turn Students in Divinity, or know nothing of Heresy, or Schism. He proceeds.  
Ib. l. (7). He must know what Nestorianisme, Eutychianisme, Monothelisme mean. This being supposed, that all Heresies and Schisms are to be avoided by all good Christians, I see not, without dependence on our Guides for knowing these, but that all Protestants are obliged by this Author to take the course he here sets down through two or three pages. Let him consider better on it. Unless he will make all Heresy and Schism manifest to all men, learned, or unlearned, upon the virtue of his 13th Principle.  
Pag. 177. l. 6. All these things a man must fully be satisfied in, before he can pronounce those Churches guilty of Heresy; and so, not to be followed. See Note on p. 175. l. (10).  
Ib. l. 10. Why must the Greek [Church] which embraces all the Councils which determined those subtle controversies, [be rejected]? The Greeks embracing these Councils, may lawfully be rejected for Heresy, if opposing what other like Councils have defined: and so may the Protestants: or yet either of these, if guilty of Schism.  
Ib. l. (12). Here a man must examine the notes of the Church etc. i.e. Examine some Indications and marks of it, sufficient to sway and determine his judgement. Which examination is easy and obvious (See before Note on p. 173. l. 5.) without his studying that particular Note of its Consent with Primitive Church. Of which thus N.O. had spoken before p. 89. after having recited S. Augustine's common Marks— Where also, (saith he) according to the disparity of several men's capacities, I suppose nothing more to be necessary, than that this evidence, received either from all, or only some of these Notes (to those who have not ability to examine others) be such, as that it outweigh any arguments moving him to the contrary; and such, as the like evidence is thought sufficient to determine us in other Elections. And then, this Church thus being found, he may be resolved by it concerning the sense of other Divine Revelations more dubious, and generally touching all other difficulties to him in Religion: to wit, so far as this Church, from time to time, seethe a necessity of such Resolution, and the Divine Revelation therein is to her sufficiently clear; only if such person, not spending so much of his own Judgement, will afford, in stead of it, a little more of his Obedience. And thus, p. 81.— In case these Guides [Persons, or Churches; for, both have a subordination] shall disagree, yet every Christian may easily know, whose judgements among them he ought to follow: namely always of that Church-authority, that is the Superior, which in most cases is indisputable; this Ecclesiastical Body being placed by the Divine Providence in an exact Subordination. As here in England it is not doubted, whether we are to pay our Obedience rather to a National Synod than to a Diocesan; to the Archbishop, or Primate, than to an ordinary Bishop, or Presbyter: And then, he who hath some experience in Church-affairs, if willing to take such a course, cannot but discern, what way the major part of Christendom, and its higher and more comprehensive Councils, that have hitherto been, do guide him. And the more simple and ignorant, who so can come know nothing better, aught to follow the example of the more experienced. See below Note on p. 251. l. 8 n. 6.  
Pag. 178. l. (10). He must think me a very easy man to yield [a submission of my understanding] till I be satisfied first, that God hath appointed such to be may Guides: and in the next place, that he hath promised Infallibility to them. If I am satisfied of the first, that God hath appointed such to be my Guides, I may safely commit myself to their guideship in all things where I want it; i.e. in all my uncertainties, without enquiring after the next, their Infallibility.  
Ib. l. (2). We desire to know whom they mean by these Guides; and at last we understand them to be the Biship of Rome, and his Clergy. No. They are the universal Clergy, Persons, and Synods, that are set over us by Christ: ranked in a due subordination, in Persons, ascending (here in these Occidental Churches) to the Patriarch of the West; in Synods, to a Patriarchal, or General, Council. And, in any dissension among these, the Superior, Persons, or Synods, are our true Guides.  
Pag. 179. l. 2. Here we demur; and own no authority the Bishop of Rome hath over us. Then we do not what we ought; He being justly the Patriarch of the West, and the Prime Patriarch of the Catholic Church, and the Precedent in General Councils.  
Ib. l. 4. We have all the rights of a Patriarchal Church. I suppose, He means of a Primate— and Metropolitan Church; Primats having sometimes had the title of Patriarches. But these rights are such as are subordinate to other higher Persons, and Councils: and this of England is but one of the Western Provinces, the Bishops whereof constitute a Patriarchal Council. And what remedy would there be of suppressing the Heresies or Schisms that may and often have infected such Provincial or National Churches, if there were no superior Church-Authority above them?  
Ib. l. 12. To these [viz. the Bishops of our own Church] who are our lawful Guides, we promise a due obedience. But neither are they our lawful Guides, nor our obedience to them due, should any or all of them be Heretical, Schismatical, or opposing their Superiors. In such case those, not they, are our right: Guides.  
Ib. l. 15. For the Bishop and Clergy of Rome we own none to them. Nor none is required, save to the Roman Bishop as S. Peter's Successor, and Supreme Pastor of the Church, and Patriarch of the We●● more, (as to any submission of the Metropolitan, English, to the Metropolitan Roman, Church, these being ,) 〈◊〉 not desired.  
Ib. l. (7). We are not to submit to those who are lawful Guides in al● things they may require. Yes, To submit to all their Definitions, if they Supreme. Yes; though they fallible yet to submit in all things, where we not certain; say learned Protestants.  
Pag. 180. l. 9 So my adversary N. O. in his Preface saith, that by the principles, we hold, we excuse and justify all Sects which have or shall separate from our Church. By the Principles we hold: i.e. by the Dr's and some other's Principles, the followers of Chillingworth. Excuse and justify Sects. N. O. saith not that you excuse or justify them in every thing, but in this one thing; that every one of them may undertake to be his own Guide in Necessaries upon such a Principle as the Dr's 13th; since the sense of Scripture in all these points is said to be so plain, as none well▪ endeavouring can mistake it: and then, for non-necessaries, what need they seek for a Guide? * Or; that, Since none own submission of their judgement to * their Ecclesiastical Superiors, every one may follow their own. Or, that, if you may departed from your Superiors, Persons, or Councils, upon just cause; of which cause you say, it is all reason that you, not your Superiors, judge then, so may they from you upon any cause they also think just. * Or, that, if there be no decisive Judge for differences between you and your Superiors to whom you can be obliged; so neither is there, for differences between them and you: * and that, as you appeal from your Ecclesiastical Superiors to Evidence of Scripture, (so seeming to you), in your cause; so may they, from you, in theirs. Exemplified at large in the Socinian's Plea, in the 4th Discourse concerning the Guide in Controversies. Hence, I say, Sects take liberty in this Church, I think contrary to the intention of the 4th and 5th Canon of the Synod 1603. to hold and believe what opinions they please, though different from the Church of England's Articles, since they think, she cannot justly require an Assent from her Subjects, which she denies to her Superiors. In this thing it is that N. O. saith, you seem to justify these Sects, that daily fall from you upon such a mistaken Christian liberty from Obedience to their Guides: who also observes 
‖ p. 98.  that Dr St's Principles that appear in the defence of the Religion established in the Church of England, for any thing he sees, make the same A pology also for all those other Protestant parties, and Sects disclaimed by it. But N. O. is far from saying, that you excuse and justify these Sects in every thing they do, or differ-in from you; or that you do not descent from them in many things, very just on your side, culpable on theirs; which may be granted, and the other thing still be true: viz: that Dr St's. Principles make an equal Apology for all dividing Parties as to several other their practices. And therefore much of that He saith in the Consequents here to that purpose, seems no way pertinent to N. O's Observation.  
Ib. l. (12). We appeal to the doctrine and practice of the truly Catholic Church in the matters of difference between us and the Church of Rome: 
Compare p. 182. l. (7.)  we are as ready as they to stand to the unanimous consent of Fathers, and to Vincentius Lerinensis his Rules of Antiquity, Universality and Consent; we declare let the things in despute be proved to have been the practice of the Christian Church in all Ages, we are ready to submit to them. N. 1 1. First here by appealing and standing to the doctrine and practice of the Catholic Church doth He mean submission of his private judgement to the doctrines taught by it? But, what if the Catholic Church be fallible in such its doctrine (as I think he saith it is; see before §. 7. p. 118.— When I speak of Infallibility [i.e. of the Catholic Church] 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. And Protestants ordinarily affirm, that in non-necessaries the whole Catholic Church of any age, and consequently the unanimous consent of the Father's, or Primitive times may err; nor will they here allow the Church-governors of any Age to be the Judges of the necessity or nonnecessity of the doctrines they teach.). I say then, what if the Catholic Church be fallible in such its Doctrine? And next, what if he should be Certain of the contrary, as possibly he may? How therefore he can rightly engage thus, I see not. Again; in this truly Catholic Church, to whose doctrine and practice he will submit, doth he include all particular Christian, at least Metropolitan, Churches, and so his own? (which there is no reason for, if Heretical, or Schismatical Churches be extra-Catholick). And by the consent of these Churches doth he require an unanimous and universal consent of them all, so that if any, suppose his own, do dissent, he shall be disobliged? But, thus, he makes sure work, and may safely venture his submission upon these terms; for, if his own Church be but true to him, or he to himself, he shall not be cast. And an Arian, an Eutychian, a Quaker, and Heretic or Schismatic, may safely make such an appeal. Again; by the doctrine of the true Catholic Church means he the Catholic Church of the present age, which is the only now living Judge to be appealed-to and to decide any thing concerning former times, if question be made about it? Or means he not this, but the Church of all ages past, taken together? and next means he, the universal and unanimous consent of this Catholic Church also, nemine contradicente? As Bishop Tailor also elsewhere 
‖ Dissuasive. c. 1. p. 7.  saith, That it is impossible for the Roman Doctors to conclude, from the say of Fathars, their Doctrines to be the Catholic doctrine of the ancient Church— Because (saith he) any number that is less than all doth not prove a Catholic Consent. If the Dr then mean thus, Here he is as safe or safer from being refuted, than before: and whereas he requires this consent also to be proved to him, he that undertakes it would have a fine task. For, it is to be proved universally as to Persons, Times, Places, none of any age left out; well suiting with Vincentius his Rule, (which therefore he saith, he is content to follow and stand to)— Quod ab omnibus, quod ubique, qùod semper, if it is to be so rigidly understood. But▪ as Dr Hammond notes upon this Rule 
‖ Of Heresy, §. 5. n. 8. — That for the universality of Time it must be centiously understood; not so, as to signify it a prejudice to any doctrine, if in some one or more ages it had not been universally received: for then there could be no heretic as any time in the would: So must it be observed also for Universality of Place; and, of Consenters; in that these also must be cautiously understood; not so, as to signify it a prejudice to any doctrine, if in some one or more places, or by some persons, or also Churches dissenting it hath not been universally received: for else there could be so also no Heretics at any time in the world. This of the just qualifying of Vincentius his Rule.  
N. 2 But here, on the other side will our Author submit to that which is but reasonably proposed; submit his judgement to the Doctrine and Practice of the truly Catholic Church in present being? since that of former ages after the Apostles is no more infallible, than the present: or, that of any one age, than of another; and since, as to not failing in Necessaries, the promises of our Lord are made to all Ages alike, and General Councils in all ages have equal power, one as another, of making Definitions in matters of faith, and inserting them also in the Creeds, if they see fit. And again, in any differences that may be in this present Catholic Church, will he allow a much major part hereof to give the law to, and conclude, the whole so as it did in the first four General Councils; and, as it is used in all Courts consisting of many; and which thing, unless allowed, no Heresy or Schism in the Catholic Church can be suppressed by Its Judgement; because all Heresy or Schism hath a party▪ and the chief and most dangerous Heretics have been Bishops, Primates, and also Patriarches (so that the Dr's plea cannot exempt the Church of England from this trial by his calling it a Patriarchal Church 
‖ p. 179. ): Or, since it also is controverted, what hath been the Common Doctrine of former ages, or of the Fathers, will he, for the decision of this, submit to the judgement herein of the much major part of the present Church Catholic, or of Christianity, or of his Canonical Superiors? i.e. submit to the most common reason of the Church that reads the Father's Writings? If he will do this, as in all reason he should, then, as to many of these points in difference between Protestants and the Church of Rome, and particularly in these, the so much now decried, Transubstantiation, and the necessary consequent of it Adoration, and those other points exclaimed against, Veneration of Images and Relics, Invocation of Saints, &c. as also in this point what was the judgement of Antiquity in these, whose doctrine this major part of the Church declares themselves in these things to follow; I say, in all these, and many others, He will be cast even by the confession of Protestants; who also acknowledge their discession at the Reformation to have been made a toto mundo; and as well from the Greek, as Latin, Church: Or, to be short, will he submit to the judgement of a lawful General Council, if it hath determined any of these differences, or of what Councils do appear to have had the acceptation both of the East and West, excepting Protestants? But such Concessions, often used by him in general, signify nothing: and his true Plea seems contrary to it; viz. his 13th Principle, which is Clearness of Scripture to all persons in all Necessaries: which if granted, what needs, herein, the guidance of, and submission to, the Clergy either of the past, or present age?  
Ib. l. (5). Let the things in dispute be proved etc. And who to judge of this proof? yourselves? Or Superior Councils, rather?  
Ib. l. (2). But those who separate from the Church of England make etc. This is nothing to that particular, wherein N. O. said the Dr justified Sects: mentioned before in Note on p. 180. l. 9  
Pag. 181. l. 12. We defend the Government of the Church by Bishops to be the most ancient and Apostolical Government, and that no persons can have sufficient reason to cast that off, which hath been so universally received in all Ages since the Apostles times: if there have been disputes among us about the nature of the differences between the two Orders, and the necessity of it in order to the Being of a Church, such there have been in the Church of Rome too. Here, if by defending the Government of the Church by Bishops to be the most Ancient and Apostolical Government he means exclusively to a Government in other places by a Presbytery without Bishops its being as ancient and Apostolical, as it; [Whenas (contrary to this) in his Irenicum he saith— 
‖ par. 2. c. 6.  That, in all probability, the Apostles did not observe any one fixed course of settling Church-Government, but settled it according to the several, circumstances of time, places, and persons. And, p. 344.— That the Apostles did not establish Episcopacy from any unalterable Law of Christ, or from any such indispensable reasons as will equally hold in all times, places, and persons: and there 
‖ c. 2. p. 395. 396.  quotes that incomparable man (as he styles him) Mr Hales in his Tract of Schism saying— That Bishops by Christ's institution [I add, or Apostolical Constitution; for, this also would oblige] have no Superiority over men further, than of Reverence. And— making all difference between Church-officers to arise from consent of Parties: and to the same purpose citys Archbishop Cranmer; 
‖ p. 391.  (where perhaps he might have done well to have followed the discretion of the former times, in not thus publishing and exposing the nakedness of this Father of the English Reformation). From all which it follows, that the Government by Bishops as understood contradistinct to, & not the same with, that of Presbyters is no Constitution Apostolical: and that, if it arise only from consent of Parties, by consent of Parties also it may be removed.] Again, in what he saith next, That no persons can have sufficient reason to cast that off, which hath been so universally received in all Ages since the Apostles times, if he means; No Magistrate, Ecclesiastical, or Civil, hath any lawful power to cast off or change the Church-Government by Bishops; [whereas he saith the contrary to this in his Irenicum; and, from Bishop Downham, Mason, and some others their allowing a Presbyterial Government only in case of necessity, viz. where Bishops cannot be had, argues thus— 
‖ part. 2. c. 8. Conclusion.  It remains (saith he), that the determining of the form of Gorernment is a matter of liberty in the Church; and what is so, may be determined (i.e. either way) by lawful authority; and what is so determined by that authority, doth bind men to obedience. Thus he. A matter of liberty in the Church: What, where Bishops may be had, & where is no case of necessity? This follows not: and so the Design of his Irenicum is evacuated.] Again; in the next words, Which hath been so universally received in all ages since the Apostles times; if he means universally so received for places, as well as times, [contrary to what he saith in his Irenicum p. 322.— That it is probable that the Apostles did settle the Government in the Church in a College of Presbyters, and in a Bishop and Deacons too, according to the diversity of places and variety of circumstances: And Ibid.— That the Succession of Rome [i.e. by Bishops] is as muddy, as Tiber itself:— And, That the line of Succession fails us here, where we most need it]: Again; If, in his words following concerning the disputes there have been of the necessity of Episcopacy in order to the being of a Church, he holds Episcopacy so necessary to the Church's being, as that none have any power in any age or time to alter it; and so, if he will join in this matter with the belief of Catholics in the Council of Trent 
‖ Sess. 23. c. 4. — Sacrosancta Synodus declarat, praeter caeteros Ecclesiasticos gradus, Episcopos, qui in Apostolorum locum successerunt, ad hunc Hierarchicum Ordinem praecipuè pertinere; & positos, sicut idem Apostolus ait, a Spiritu Sancto regere Ecclesiam Dei; eosque Presbyteris superiores esse. [things not controverted in the Roman Church] And Ib. Can. 6.— Siquis dixerit in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ non esse Hierarchiam Divinâ ordinationc institutam, quae constat ex Episcopic, Presbyteris, & Ministris, Anathema sit: I say, if such be his meaning here, I have no more to do, but congratulate with him the correction of his former error. But, in these expressions, he may mean only, what well consists with his Irenicum; that, as the Government by Bishops is most Ancient and Apostolical in some places, so the Presbyterial was in some others. And— That not persons can have sufficient reason to cast off this Episcopal Government in such places where it hath been settled, unless the Supreme Magistrate from some necessary circumstances think fit to alter it, (as the Apostles, he saith, in some places settled a Presbytery in stead of it): I say, he may have such a meaning. And, if his former opinion be changed herein, perhaps he might have done well to have published his present contrary judgement more fully and clearly, to make an amends for his formerly published mistakes. Which else, when a future opportunity may serve, and power assist the inclinations of contrary Sects, may minister arguments afresh for the Lawfulness of their Abrogating the Episoopal Government, and introducing their own. And he may see what use the Replyer to Durel 
‖ Patronus bona fidei.  hath made of them already in Defence of Presbyterianism against Episcopacy.  
Ib. l. (8). We appeal and are ready to stand to the judgement of the Primitive Church for interpreting the letter of Scripture in any difference between us and the Church of Rome. See before Note on p. 180. l. (12.)  
Ib. l. (4). But those who separate from our Church will allow n●thing to be lawful [in the worship of God] but what hath an express command in Scripture. See the former Disc. §. 88 These Separatists ground this their tenant upon Scriptures, as they think, clear: some of whom at lest are supposed to have used their best endeavour rightly to understand them; the sense also they take these Scriptures in being very contrary to their interest; and having brought great sufferings upon them. The point seems very necessary to be clear to them in Scriptures both for the right service of God, and for the peace of the Church. Must not therefore our Author here either relinguish his 13th Principle, or say; the Texts are indeed clear on the Separatists side: or that none knows when he useth his best endeavours; and so neither knows when he mistakes plain Scriptures? As for the modern Sectarists their appealing to the Primitive Church in the differences between them and that of England, as the Church of England, he saith, doth in her differences with Rome, See Patronus bonae fidei in Causa Puritanorum, in his Prodromus p. 88 89. where also he citys as on his side contra Hierarchicos abeuntes a primaeuâ praxis Dr Stillingfleets Irenicum p. 66. 67. 68 See also in fidei Patrono. p. 4. 5.  
Pag. 182. l. 2. Which [infallibility] those of the Church of Rome do challenge. They plead only the Infallibility of the Church Catholic, whose Subjects they are, in her General Councils. Neither is there one word in the Principles Considered concerning the Infallibility of the Church of Rome, with which yet the Dr so often relieves himself.  
Ib. l. 16. To talk of Accommodation is folly, and to design it madness Viz. against the Determinations of a lawful General Council; or also a Patriarchal, by any Ecclesiastical Body inferior and subordinate to it. What terms of Composition can an Arian expect after the Council of Nice?  
Ib. l. (7). But there is no such thing in the least pretended by our Church, that declares in her Articles, That General Councils may err— and that all the proof of things to be believed is to be taken from Holy Scripture. And not from Church, or Councils, declaring to us the sense of Scripture, because they fallible herein: then no proof in any matter of faith is admitted from Primitive times, or consent of Fathers, which He but now appealed to. See Note on p. 180. l. (12).  
Pag. 183. l. 2. And none of them charge our Church with any error in doctrine; nor plead that as the reason of their separation.  
What then means the Presbyterian Minister's complaint 
‖ See Reasons showing the necessity of Reformation of the Public Doctrine, etc. 1660. p. 5, 6.  for the Church of England's imposing upon them things in the Common Prayer Book and 39 Articles repugnant to Scripture; and, requiring their assent to them; citing the 4.5. and 36. Canon of the Synod 1603. and 13. Eliz. 12.? And do they not hold this an erroneous doctrine, but now named by Him, p. 181.— That something may be lawful to be used in the worship of God, besides what he hath expressly commanded? And see the forecited Author in Bon. Fid. Part. p. 4. requiring of durel—  purgaret Hierarchicos a Crimine corruptae doctrinae Anglicanae, & commutatae in Arminianismum, & Papismum in multis.  
Ibid. l. 6. The Church of Rome not only requires the belief of her errors, which is plain by the often objected Creed of Pius, etc. But makes the belief of them necessary to salvation; If in the Profession required by Pius no distinction is made between the Definitions of former Councils and other common Articles of the Creed, so neither is there in the Athanasian Creed between the said Definitions and former Articles of the Apostle's Creed. As for making the belief of them necessary to salvation, N. O. hath already answered Consid. p. 77.— That none are obliged to such a necessary belief of them, as that a person nescient of them cannot be saved; or, that the explicit knowledge of them is absolutely necessary, (though always in some manner beneficial it is) to salvation: but that this indeed is necessary to salvation, that any subject of the Church, when knowing them to be determined by her, obey her definitions, and not reject or descent from them: Such disobedience being conceived a mortal breach of God's command.  
Ib. l. (11). But nothing of this nature can be objected against our Church by dissenters. But, this is objected by them, that Assent is required to the Common Prayer Book and 39 Articles, as containing in them nothing erroneous or repugnant to Scripture, upon Excommunication, if any one affirm it, till such person reputes of such his wicked error; and without any qualification that such assent be yielded only as far as the same Articles are agreeable to God's Word. Here than I ask, Whether such a wicked error, and herein such an obstinate disobedience to ones lawful Spiritual Superiors, and continuance out of their communion, unrepented-of, is not held by the Church of England to exclude such person from being a member of Christ's Body, and from Salvation? Which Church declares Art. 33. concerning a just excommunication— That the person which by open denunciation of the Church is rightly cut off from the unity of the Church, and excommunicated, aught to be t●ken of the whole multitude of the faithful as an heathen, and a Publican, until he be openly reconciled by Penance; and received into the Church by a Judge that hath authority thereunto. Of which matter thus also Calvin 
‖ Instit. 4. c. 12. §. 4. — Nequis tale Ecclesiae judicium spernat; aut parvi astimet se fidelium suffragiis damnatum, testatus est Dominus istud ipsum nihil aliud esse quàm sententiae suae promulgationem; ratumque haberi in coelis, quod illi in terrâ egerint. and § 10.— Qui Ecclesiae censurâ [speaking of a just Excommunication by a Church Reformed] excommunicantur suae etiam ipsorum perpetuae damnationis, nisi resipuerint, certi fiunt.  
Ib. l. (4). That it was necessary to salvation to be in subjection to the Bishop of Rome. The words in the Lateran Council under Leo are these— In Ecclesiâ esse non potest, qui Romani Pontificis Cathedram deserit. It is necessary to salvation that one be in the Church Catholic, be n● Heretic or Schismatic; but yield obedience to his lawful Ecclesiastical Superiors; the Supreme amongst whom is the Bishop of Rome; the Successor of S. Peter in the Prime Apostolic See, who also presides in and confirms lawful General Councils; So that Obedience to all lawful General Councils in this sense involveth also obedience to him, their Precedent.  
Pag. 184. l. 1. The Guides of the Roman Church pretend to as immediate authority of obliging the consciences of men, as Christ or his Apostles had. Means he not here requiring Assent to their Decrees upon Anathema? But let him then urge this against lawful General Councils, which have practised it, and declared such matters to oblige men's consciences to obedience, as being God's Word. But, if he means here, that the Roman Church pretends such an immediate authority in obliging men's consciences as to her Injunctions or Constitutions in matters indifferent, and no way commanded by God; i.e. as if she enjoined their obedience also to them as to things necessary and commanded by God, this is utterly denied, and makes the Church contradict herself; for, if they are commanded by God, how are they enjoined as things indifferent? But the Church affirms, men are bound in conscience to obey these, not because they are divine Commands, but only because the Persons are obliged by the Divine Command (which binds the Conscience) to obey the Church's Command in all such matters. Necessary such things are to be observed because the Church commands them; and men also bound in conscience to observe them, because they are commanded by God to obey such Commands of the Church. And this obligation of Conscience I think the Dr admits as well as Catholics, See his Irenieum c. 2. p. 65. where he saith that— What is left undetermined by the Divine Law, if it be determined by lawful Authority in the Church of God doth bind the Consciences of those, who are subject to such authority, to obedience to those determinations: and citys for it Rom. 13.5. that we are to be subject to these Governors for Conscience sake. The Church may pretend to any authority our Lord or his Apostles have given it, without dishonouring, or degrading, or equalling themselves to the Donor. He goes on.  
Ib. l. 6. But our Guides challenge no more than teaching men to do what Christ had commanded them; and in other things not commanded or forbidden, to give rules, which on the account of the General Commands of Scripture they look on the members of our Church as obliged to observe. Obliged to observe: I hope he means, as obeying here a just authority; [and not as he explains himself in his Irenicum 
‖ cha. 2. §. 7. ●. 46. — Thus far I acknowledge a binding power in Ecelesiastical Constitutions, that though they neither bind by virtue of the matter, nor of the authority commanding (there being no legislative power lodged in the Church) yet, in respect of the circumstances and the end, they should be obeyed, unless I judge the thing unlawful that is commanded, rather than manifest open contempt of the Pastors of the Church, or bring a scandal to others]. And here, when the Church of England thus obligeth her subjects to the practice of such things as she holds indifferent, (unless she makes this a condition of her obligation, if they first hold them lawful), she obligeth them also to hold such things lawful; since none may practise any thing apprehended by his conscience to be unlawful. last; as the Church of England hath authority to give Rules in things neither commanded nor forbidden by God; so, I ask, Hath she no authority in Controversies of Faith, for the deciding them? See Art. 29th. of the Church of England.  
Ib. l. 17. In the Church of Rome it is accounted as much a mortal sin to disobey their Guides in the most indifferent things as to disobey God in the plain commands of Scripture. As much? No. But, as well: for Mortal Sins admit degrees. And— Mandata Ecclesiastica non anteponi▪ sed postponi debere dicimus Divinis Praceptis: 
‖ Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif l. 4. c. 17.  saith the Cardinal; Though all disobeying our Superiors in lawful things is also disobeying God, when He, in such, commanding obedience to them. Again, As well a Mortal Sin, in some disobedience of these Governors, but not in all; not in things of no great consequence, in respect of the benefit or damage that is received by, the doing or omitting, them. And lastly these things are extended as well to the Laws of Civil, as Ecclesiastical, Governors. So that, if the Catholics seem to apply some Consciential obedience to the Ecclesiastical Judge, disliked and denied to him by Protestants, so do they also, to the Civil.  
Ib. l. (10). They challenge likewise to themselves a power to dispense with the laws of God, as in matter of Marriages. The Church only dispenseth where antecedently no Divine Law, but only a Church-law, obligeth: those about Marriages being, many of them, Levitical Judicial Laws, obligatory only to the ancient Commonwealth of the Jews, and not now to Christians, But, in impedimentis jure Divino naturali conjugium dirimentibus, the Church pretends no dispensative power.  
Ib. l. (8). And with the Institution of Christ, as in Communion in one kind. See this spoken to before in Note on p. 151. l. 6.  
Ib. l. (5). As in the five Sacraments they have added to the two of Christ. As the Roman Church reckons Seven Sacraments, so the Greek. [Sacramenta verò ritusque in hâc ipsâ Catholicâ rectè sentientium Christianorum Ecclesiâ sunt Septem, saith Jeremias Patriarch of Constantinople against the Lutherans 
‖ Resp. 1. c. 7. ]: and so the Catholic Church, before Luther appeared. And this Author cannot be ignorant, that Protestants also, since that time, as the Word Sacrament is taken in a more general sense, have willingly admitted more than two; and acknowledged this conformable to the language of Antiquity. And, in the short English Catechism, the Answer, (to the Question. How many Sacraments?) Two only, is made, as Bishop Montague observes 
‖ Appeal c. 33.  with this Limitation, as generally necessary to salvation. And on, the other side, the Council of Trent 
† Sess. 7. c. 3.  pronounces Anathema to those, who shall make them all of an equal dignity. And Baptism and the Eucharist shall have the preeminency that Protestants desire.  
Ib. l. (2). Setting aside these considerations, we dare appeal, etc. For the extravagancy of the next page, I refer the Reader to the Note on p. 180. l. 9  
Pag. 185. l. 6. Whether our Church's Imposing of three Ceremonies, declared to be indifferent by those who required them, But, denied to be so by those they are imposed-on, who therefore complain of tyranny and of forcing the Conscience; the enjoining the practice of them involving an assent also that they are lawful; which they that cannot yield must sin, if they practise them. And in such a case who must decide this matter between these two? I find him in his Irenicum c. 2. p. 63. nominating for this Judge the sense of the Primitive Church in the first four Centuries and the judgement of the other Reformed Churches. There he proposeth— That nothing be required nor determined [by Church-governors] but what is sufficiently known to be indifferent in its own nature. The only difficulty (saith he) is h●w a thing may be sufficiently known to be indifferent, because one man looks upon that as indifferent which another doth not. The most equal way to decide this Controversy is to make choice of such Judges as are not interested in the quarrel, and those are the sense of the Primitive Church in the first four Centuries who were best able to judge, whether they looked upon themselves as bound by any Command of Scripture, or no: and withal the judgement of the Reformed Churches. So that, what shall be made appear to be lef● indifferent by both the sense of the Primitive Church, and the Churches of the Reformation, may be a matter determinable by Law and which all may be required to conform in Obedience to. But here, 1st. What if when this Judge, the sense of the Primitive Church, is admitted by both parties yet there happen dispute, What, or on which side this sense is? Is it not so disputed? and will not the deciding of this need another Judge? 2ly. For the Judgement of the Reformed Churches (I suppose, he means those abroad concerning the Controversies about Indifferents here in England) they no way seem such as he here supposeth; i.e. persons not interested in the quarrel, some of them as to these things entertaining the opinion of the Prclaticks, others of the Presbyterian party. But, were it not so, their judgement being fallible, It is contrary I think to this Author's Principles for others to be enjoined or constrained to conform to them; either in their practice, where their judgement relucts; or in their judgement, where their's also may err. 3ly. The Judge in Ecclesiastical matters is not left to any ones arbitrary nomination, but is always the Superior Prelates or Councils in respect of all others subordinate to them.  
He goes on, Can be thought— so great a Burden to their Consciences, as all the Load of superstitious fopperies in the Roman Church. Supposing here, not granting, the Roman Ceremonies such, (yet some of which at lest I hope this Author will protect, because borrowed from her by the Reformed Church of England, to the great grief of these Sects;) I ask to what end is it here to compare the Degrees of Burdens imposed, where the Least, if imposed against conscience, is unsupportable?  
Ib. l. 17. Whether Transubstantiation, Image-worship, etc. be not somewhat harder things to swallow. Some of these at least, how hard soever they seem to you, are the Definitions either of the Supreme Councils, or those Superior to a Provincial or National one of England. And to these Councils therefore you own obedience either of assent, or silence; and cannot separate from their Communion without Schism.  
Ib. l. (11). Be not somewhat harder things to swallow than the Church's power to appoint matters of Order and decency. Is then the appointing matters of Order and Decency all the power the Church of England doth, or may, assume? I mean; hath this Church no power in Matters, and Controversies, of Faith?  
Pag. 186. l. 1. Not for any difficulty objected by N.O. Which, whatever it is, is omitted here by the Dr. See Note on p. 180. l. 9   

Annotations on §. 11. Of the means to attain the sense of Scripture without an infallible Guide.  
PAg. 186. l. 11. That is the second main Principle in N.O. that without this infallible assistance of the Guides of the Church there can be no certainty of the sense of Scripture. There are no such words in N.O. N.O. denies a sufficient certainty of the sense of Scripture in several points of necessary saith, 
‖ See the former Discourse, §. 2.  but not in all, especially as to some persons and capacities, without the Church's exposition of them.  
Ib. l. 17. He yields that the Church's infallibility is not necessary to the foundation of faith; for men's faith, he saith, may begin at the infallible authority of Scriptures, No such words are in N. O, neither doth he call that a Foundation of Faith, where Faith gins. Which Faith gins at that particular Article thereof which is first taught to any by their Instructor, Parents, or Pastor; and this happens to be sometimes one Article, sometimes another: N. O's words there † are— As all Articles of Faith are not by all persons learned at once, so neither by all exactly in the same order, as is frequently observed by Catholic Writers. A Christians faith therefore may begin (i.e. in the order of his learning it) either at the infallible authority of Scriptures, or of the Church; and this infallible authority of either of these be learned from Tradition; and that of the other from it. Thus N.O. Concerning the Foundation of Faith I refer the Reader to the former Note on p. 84. l. ult.  
Ib. l. (3). He often pleads for necessity of an external infallible Guide; because God hath referred all in the dubious sense of Scripture to the direction of his Ministers, their Spiritual Guides.  
This is by N.O. given for the reason of another thing; not infallibility; where N.O. in answer to the Dr's 18th Principle saith in the immediate words preceding 
‖ p. 46. — Neither can such Promise (viz. that whoso useth his best endeavour for understanding Scripture, [if meant exclusively to his consulting and embracing the Exposition of the Church] either shall not err, or not be damned for it) be pretended necessary, since God hath referred all men etc. And here the Dr omits the vindicating of his Principle and applies N. O's words to the proving of Infallibility.  
Pag. 187. l. (9). Whilst the Scriptures are ambiguous, etc. N. O's words are— whilst the Scriptures in such points, (at least to persons unlearned, or of weaker judgements, which are the greatest part of Christians) are ambiguous, which words are here left out by our Author.  
Ib. l. (6). The force of all which comes to this; that we can arrive at no certainty of the sense of Scripture in controverted places without an external infallible Guide: and therefore we are bound to submit to him. Nay: comes to this: that persons unlearned and of weaker judgements can arrive to no certainty of the sense of Scripture, in some matters of necessary faith, without an external Infallible Guide; and therefore such a Guide is necessary.  
Pag. 188. l. 1. Point to be Discussed. What necessity there is for the Salvation of persons to have an infallible interpretation of controverted places of Scripture? Salvation of persons: he should add, persons unlearned, and of weaker capacity, and doubting of the sense of such places. Of controverted places of Scripture, He should add, in points necessary, of which N.O. every where speaks: (see his words but now quoted by himself) whose Words one would think, but that the Dr surely is a man of more integrity, that he on purpose, to make his Answers more plausible almost every where, as to both these, omitteth. Now, the necessity of such an infallible interpretation is this, that such person may not err in such Necessaries.  
Ib. l. 8. Men may attain a certain sense without an infallible Guide. Here again want words. Men; all men, the unlearned, those of weakest judgement, employed in a secular vocation etc. attain to a certain sense, in all places of Scripture concerning Necessaries.  
Ib. l. 13 1st. We are to inquire into the necessity of such an infallible interpretation of doubtful places of Scripture. Add, in necessaries.  
Pag. 189. l. 1. N.O. Must prove, not that there are doubtful and controverted places, which no one denies, N. 1 but that the sense of Scripture is so doubtful and obscure in the things which are necessary to men's salvation, that persons without an infallible Guide cannot know the meaning of them. ¹ Why it lies more upon N.O. to prove, that the sense of Scripture is not clear as to some persons, in some points necessary, than on the Dr to prove, that the Scripture is clear to them in all points necessary, I see not: since he affirms these plain to all, N.O. denies it, and Affirmers, as he saith 
‖ p. 193.  aught to prove. 2 Here what thinks He of several of the points of the Athanasian Creed urged by N. O much controverted in Antiquity, and by the first Councils inserted in this Creed as thought necessary for men's salvation to be known? Are the Scriptures so clear in all these, as all capacities, using an endeavour suitable to their vocations, cannot mistake in them? Then what thinks he of his own words Ration. Account p. 58. urged by N.O. p. 63. and cited before in Note on p. 126. l. 2. The Deity of Christ. and the Trinity, are they not points necessary to be rightly believed for attaining Salvation? And Doth not the guidance of the Church-governors set over the Church by God Eph. 4.11.13. relate to Necessaries? Or, where the erring of the unlearned (which always many Christians must be 2. Pet. 3.16.) tends to men's destruction, is not the knowing of the right sense necessary to their salvation? What thinks he of the sense of Hoc est Corpus meum, urged by N.O. p. 20? Is it clear on the Protestants side to all using a just endeavour, when the much major part of Christianity, (and, before Luther's time, the wh●le,) understands it in the contrary? And, if none of this world of men hath used a right endeavour, how shall any be secure of such a right endeavour used by him that he may be confident in such clear Scripture he is not deceived? Or, is the true sense of this Text not necessary to be known, where such a gross Idolatry is affirmed by our Author to be the necessary consequent of an erroneous sense?  
But, if he will restrain Necessaries to the Apostles Creed, or perhaps only to three or four principal Articles thereof, the pure nescience of which excludes from salvation; then, as he contends these are clear in Scripture, so why will he not allow, that General Councils are in these infallible, and so the Church in Necessaries an Infallible Guide?  
But then let him consider, in any such restraint of necessaries, yet whether there are not many other points at least so highly beneficial to salvation, as that the Divine Providence is engaged to leave the truth of them also either clear to all sober enquirers in Scripture, or to Guides, that shall not err in expounding such Scriptures to the people. Indeed, after so much clamour against the pernicious doctrine of the Church of Rome, our Author seems to have a hard task of it, and also very unsuitable to so much choler, to maintain that none of the points agitated between it, and Protestants is so necessary, (for attaining salvation at least with less difficulty), to be believed on the Protestant side, that God should either leave Scripture for it clear enough to the sober enquirer; or else, in the sense of Scripture doubtful, some living Guide unerrably to determine it. Or, if he shall say, God hath left Scriptures clear to all capacities well-endeavouring in all such points; he seems to have as hard a task again to maintain this; when the major part of Christianity, reading these Scriptures, do think, against him, the contrary to be clear in them. But lastly; if what He over-lavisheth in the plainness of Scripture to all well endeavouring capacities and conditions, he will make an amends for now in the restraining of Necessaries; On whose Judgement, I pray, is it fit a particular person should rely in this Question, which seems of great concernment, What or how many points are to be called Necessary? On Mr Chilling worths or the Dr's? Or on that of the Supreme Guides of the Church, assembled in her General Councils, who from time to time declare to Christians by their Decrees, as the Apostles did in the first General Council, Act. 15. what is Necessary for them to believe, what to practise, against all such erroneous Tenants as shall arise in the Church, that may any way pervert their Faith, or Manners?  
Ib. l. (7). If a person then by reading and considering those things which are plain may do what Christ requires [all that which Christ requires] for his salvation; what necessity hath such a one to trouble himself about an infallible Guide? [I add, or Any Guide at all, as to those?] For either he may go to heaven without him [without having any such Guide; fallible or infallible,] or not? If he may, let him [the Dr] show the necessity such Guide is of to that end. which may be attained without him; if not, than the things necessary to salvation cannot be known without him: [as the Dr saith before, they may by one's reading and considering those things which are plain, and doing all those things Christ requires for his salvation]. So easily may his arguing against an infallible, serve as well against any, Guide at all. Meanwhile N.O. affirms some Persons cannot Know all Necessaries without a Judge.  
Pag. 190. l. 12. But doth S. Peter say [2. Epist c. 3.16.] that the Scriptures are so hard to be understood, that sober and devout minds cannot learn therein what is necessary to their salvation? Yes: if the sober and devout be unlearned, as they may be. Cannot learn therein [all] that is necessary; for surely, where the erring therein works their destruction, the right sense is necessary for their salvation.  
Ib. l. (11). Which men that wanted-judgment, were ready to pervert to their own mischief, etc. As some may want, that are sober, devout, and diligent; and which want of Judgement, as to some, no care or diligence can remove.  
Ib. l. (9). But if there be such difficulties [in S. Paul's Epistles,] is there nothing plain and easy? Yes: many things. But, if many things plain and easy, are there no such difficulties?  
Ib. l. (7). If bad men may pervert them, may not good men make a good use of them? And, if learned men make good use of them, may not yet the unlearned mistake them? Or, must all these get learning, that they may not?  
Pag. 191. l. 15. If on so fair and just an occasion offered, S. Peter himself, whom they believe to have been Head of the Church at that time, and at Rome at the writing of this Epistle, doth wholly omit referring men in the sense of obscure places to infallible Guides, what can we else infer, but that S. Peter thought no such thing of necessity for his Church? A Negative argument is often invalid. Every thing is not every where said. If we find not in S. Peter, 'tis sufficient if in S. Paul.— Whose Faith follow 
‖ Heb. 13.7. 1 Tim. 3.15. . And— The Church [i.e. in its Governors] is the Pillar and Ground of Truth. But we read in S. Peter such things as these— That they should submit it themselves to their Presbyters, such Presbyters as he was, that fed the fl●ck of God, i.e. with their doctrine; and so, that they should submit to It. 1. Pet. 5.5. compared with 1, 2.— We read in him 2.10, 15. That God will surely punish those that are selfwilled and despise Government, and speak evil of Dignities, which I apply in the first place to Spiritual Gevernours and Ecclesiastical Dignities. And chap. 3.2. that he writ his second Epistle to them, that they might be mindful of the Commandments of the or the. Apostles of our Lord and Saviour. [and so, of their Suecessours]. And here, in the next verse after these unstable wresters, we find S. Peter advising them to take heed of being led away with the error of these wicked ones, and of falling from their steadfastness] i.e. in their adhering constantly to the doctrine learned from their Spiritual Superiors].  
N. 2 Here then the Reader hath an account from the Dr, (how right let him judge), of the place in S. Peter urged by N. O; but what answer returns he to Eph. 4.11, 13, 14. and to the rest mentioned before in Note on p. 189. l. 1. that are cited by N.O.? and what to his own words, to make himself at least agree with himself? I find none. I find him often delivering the state of the Question between him and his adversary in indefinite, and so ambiguous, propositions: and then dividing of his discourse upon it into several heads, each copiously prosecuted. But, mean while, N. O's Considerations unconsidered slip through his fingers; and, out of the memory also of any, save a very watchful, Reader, thus amused with other things.   

Annotations on his §. 12. Of the Necessity of a Judge in Controversies.  
PAg. 192. l. 2. Is it that without this [a infallible determination of doubtful places in necessaries] the Church's peace cannot be preserved? Add; nor an Unity of Faith, which is requisite in Necessaries, Eph. 4.5, 11, 13. One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism [into this Faith].  
Ib. l. 6. Unless there be an infallible Judge to determine which is the true sense of Scripture. He should say, in Necessaries. But, then, his following Answer would not suit with the Question.  
Ib. l. 16. The strength of this argument depends upon the supposition of the necessity of determining controversies. Add, necessary to be determined, because in Necessaries.  
Ib. l. (8). The weakness of humane understanding, the power of interest and passion, and the ambiguity of words are as apt to beget disputes in Religion, as in any other thing. More need still of deciding some of these disputes; since so many things, even in the most necessary Credends, beget them.  
Pag. 193. l. 8. This Question is plainly about a matter of fact; i. e whether Christ hath appointed such judges in all ages, who are to determine all emergent controversies about the difficult places of his Law? Here, doth not He question Whether the sitting and authority of lawful General Councils, is held from Christ or by his appointment? By what authority these Supreme Ecclesiastical Courts make their Definitions and Decrees? Upon what ground Christianity appeals to them? This is the influence and fruit of his 13th. Principle. But, if he allows here these Supreme Judges to hold their Authority and Commission from Christ for determining all emergent Controversies about the difficult places of his Law; But denies their infallibility as to all necessaries, (to which N.O. confines it), than I would know whether they are constituted such Judges, as that their sentence is to be obeyed in these matters: (and why else are they Judges)? If to be obeyed; then either they must be infallible in all necessary controversies; or else the people after, as before, their judgement are still in these liable to error. Suppose in the Controversy of the Arians, or Socinians, about the Deity of our Saviour.  
Ib. l. 13. And in this case we think, it is all the reason in the world, that they who affirm should prove. May not I here return the proving upon himself, That Experience shows there is a Necessity of such an Infallible Guide, since God is not wanting to his Church in Necessaries; and since the Scriptures are not so clear in all necessary points, as to prevent all doubters and disputers; and those, that say they are clear, let them prove it: for, they, that affirm, must prove? But, both for the Commission and Infallibility of such Guides see before Note on p. 119. l. 17.  
Pag. 194. l. 2. What if Christ, having provided for the necessaries of salvation by a clear revelation, should leave other things in the dark, to exercise the wits of some, and the charity of others?  
Hath not his 13th Principle here unhappily engaged him to maintain with Mr Chillingw. that, since all necessaries are clear in Scripture, all Controversies in religion are about non-necessaries; and so no necessity of a Judge to determine them? Can we think then, that it is not very necessary, that any of the Controversies that are between Protestants & the Church of Rome about non-necessaries; and so no necessity of a Judge to determine them? Can we think then, that it is not very necessary, that any of the Controversies that are between Protestants & the Church of Rome about Merit of Works, Praying for the Dead, and Purgatory, Transubstantiation, Adoration of the Eucharist, Invocation of Saints, Worship of Images, in which is said to be Idolatry on the Roman part, etc. were decided? Had the former Decisions touching such matters, of these Judges in Controversies of Religion gone on the Protestant side, surely, we had not had so many What ifs for the nonnecessity of them.  
Ib. l. 11. What if Christ foresaw this matter of ending controversies [i.e. by a living Judge] would be an occasion of raising one of the greatest, etc. Doth not this grate upon General Councils? Apply this to the Definitions of the Athanasian Creed, and see what thanks these Fathers that composed it have returned to them for so settling the Christian Faith; and not rather leaving such things in the dark to exercise men's wits, and their charity one to another; and obliging them to their own greater honesty and integrity in knowing and doing God's-will. Are there not then too many Controversies yet on foot, for the serving all these ends? And may not the Sects that have departed from the Church of England make good use of the Drs What ifs, in respect of the things the Church of England requires from them? Whom what if our Lord hath left in all such things to their Christian Liberty?  
Ib. l. 16. What if Christ thought it reasonable to leave the failings of men's understandings and lives upon the same terms; so, as to give sufficient means to prevent either, but not effectually to hinder men from falling into either of them? Christ hath left both these here on the same terms; i.e. hath left an Infallible Guide for Manners, as well as Faith: but so, as we may possibly swerve from him in either. He may be pleased to review the Consideration on his 30th Principle p. 82. where it is said— That God hath provided by the same Church-Authority to preserve his Church in Truth, and to restrain it from Sin; giving an equal Commission to teach the Ignorant, and to correct the Vicious. And that, since their Doctrine directs our Manners, as well as Faith; their Infallibility is as necessary for things of practice, as of Speculation. That, Error in opinion also may be such, as may be much more dangerous to us, than for the present a vicious life, supposing our persistence in a right Faith: because we have our Conscience still left uncorrupted to reclaim us in the latter, but not so in the former; And there is more hope of his recovery, who as yet doth ill with a relucting judgement. That some erroneous opinions or other also are the ordinary sources and springs of evil practices; and that the Dr cannot but acknowledge this, who hath spent a considerable part of the Book to which he hath annexed his Principles, upon pretending to show, how Roman errors do induce an evil life, and destroy devotion. This of the special need of such a Guide for the failing of men's understandings.  
Ib. l. (9). What if the nature of Religion will not bear such a determination of controversies as Civil matters will? because civil matters concern the right and wrong of particular persons, in which it is not the sentence of the Judge so much as the civil force whereby it is backed which puts an end to the dispute; but, in matters of Religion, the ending controversies can be no effect of force and power, but of Reason and conviction of conscience. Doth not He argue here, that an Infallible Guide or Judge suits not with the nature of Religion, because ending Controversies can be no effect of force and power, but of reason and conviction of conscience? But how then did the Infallibility of our Lords Apostles, and their Laws, their ending the Controversy about the Mosaical Ceremonies in the Council, Act. 15. and S. Paul's anathematising or excommunicating Hymenaeus and Alexander fallen away from, and blaspheming, the true faith, suit with the Nature of Religion? How the Anathemas of the four first Councils suit with it? Was there no effect of Force and power, here? Then, how is there so in the ending controversies by a Judge? Or, if there was such an effect, was it not just? As for that He saith, of the necessity of reason and Conviction, there needs none as to the proof of the controversy that is determined, when there is once such a conviction, that such are appointed to determine it, and we to obey them. And, where this Conviction is not, it ought to be; and an erroneous conscience, that obligeth us to follow it, excuseth not our error from being culpable. Doth this Author hold all, not convicted of their fault or error, to be freed from Ecclesiastical Censures? What thinks he of the 4th and 5th Canons of the English Synod under King James?  
Pag 195. l. 9 But in our case this [who is the Judge?] is the main thing in dispute. But, it ought not to be.  
Ib. l. 14. We must therefore allow every one that pretends to it to be such an infallible Guide. No: but General Councils we must, upon the grounds mentioned before, Note on p. 113. l. 15.  
Ib. l. 17. If we must not first be satisfied, etc. You may be rationally satisfied. And, if you are not so, must the Judge leave his Seat?  
Pag. 196. l. 18. I say, the places of Scripture which are alleged for such an infallible Judge are the most doubtful and controverted of any. 1. What then? If I may be certain of the Infallibility of this Interpreter another way, than by these Scriptures that are urged for it, viz. by Tradition? Is it any news to our Author, that Catholics say this? 2ly I may be certain of the Infallibility of this interpreter from those Scriptures, not as expounded by this Interpreter, but by Tradition. I say, Tradition both hath declared such Judge Infallible in necessaries, and hath also declared the true Sense of these Scriptures to affirm this; Which Tradition hath not, so clearly, delivered the sense of all other doubtful Scriptures: Nor, if it had, is the sense of Tradition in all other Scriptures so easily to be known, at least to the meaner sort of Christians, as this concerning the Infallibility of the Supreme Church-Guides in necessaries, by reason of the Church's more evident practice herein. See Note on p. 113. l. 15.  
Pag. 197. l. 7. I come therefore to the 2d enquiry; which is about the means of attaining the certain sense of Scripture in doubtful places, without the supposition of an infallible Guide. N. 1 The Dr here, from this p. 197. to p. 250. makes a long Digression about the means used in the Primitive times of attaining the certain sense of Scripture in doubtful places, without the supposing of an Infallible Guide. Of these Means he names two. One means he saith 
‖ See his p. 249.  was by examining and comparing places of Scripture with all the care and judgement that may be. Where he gathers out of the Ancients such Rules as these.— That the Scope and design of Scripture chief be regarded, and the Connexion well considered; that nothing be interpreted contrary to the Coherents: that the sense of no pl●ce is to be so interpreted that it hath repugnancy with others: that plain places be not interpreted by obscure, nor a many by a few; bat the contrary: that figurative expressions are not to be understood literally; nor th●se intended in a plain sense, figuratively: that examples are to be drawn from plain places to illustrate difficult; and, from those which are certain to clear the doubtful: that in matters of doubt recourse is to be had to the Original Tongues: that for understanding Scriptures we are to come with minds duly prepared to it by humility, prayer, purity of heart, love of God and our Neighbour, etc. and many more.  
N. 2 But, if, after all this comparing Scriptures, the dispute about the sense of them still continues, the other Means, he saith, the Ancients speak of was, the examining the Tradition of the Apost lical Churches from the beginning concerning the sense of them delivered from the Apostles 
‖ p. 213. — For that any one's setting up other expositions of Scripture, than the Christian Church hath received from the Apostles times, this without any further proof discovers their imposture. For (as he gives us it out of Tertullian 
‖ p. 212. ) it is unreasonable to suppose that the Apostles should not know the doctrine of Christ; or that they did not deliver to the Churches planted by them the things which they knew; or that the Churches misunderstood their doctrine, because all the Churches were agreed in one common faith [and in an exposition of Scriptures contrary to theirs]; and therefore there is all the reason to believe, that so universal consent must arise from some common cause, which can be supposed to be no other than the common delivery of it by all the Apostles. Again p. 249. He speaks on this manner— If after all this [i.e. the examining and comparing Scriptures] the dispute still continues, then, if it be against the ancient Rule of Faith universally received [perhaps he means the Apostles Creed] that is a sufficient prescription against any opinion; if not against the rule of faith in express words, but about the sense of it, then, if ancient General Councils have determined it, which had greater opportunities of knowing the sense of the Apostolical Church than we, it is reasonable, we should yield to them; but, if there have been none such, than the unanimous consent of Fathers is to be taken, etc.  
N. 3 For the first of these means, the attaining the certain sense of Scripture by comparing Texts, etc. 1. First; the Reader may observe, that, if this proves the nonnecessity of an Infallible Guide, so it doth the nonnecessity of any Guide at all, as to teaching us the meaning of the Scriptures. For, in this first means, no repairing at all to our Spiritual Guides fallible or infallible, for the sense is mentioned. 2ly. I grant, that there is a means of attaining a sufficient certainty of the sense of some obscure places of Scripture from others more clear, without the necessity of any other infallible Guide therein; and that the Fathers also have laid down many excellent Rules concerning this and practised them, in disputing against Heretics. 3ly. The more, and the more certain these means are for knowing the sense of Scripture, the more they seem to infer the Infallibility and non-erring of the Supreme Governors of the Church met in Council herein, and the more security of their Subjects, as to all necessary faith, relying on their Judgement. Nor do I see any thing that can be replied here; but, That these Governors well knowing the right sense of Scriptures, yet by ambition, interest, and several other passions may be corrupted from teaching it; and also may be induced to define as an Article of their Faith to all posterity the contrary falsehoods; and themselves also first take their Oath of their belief of the truth thereof; which, though a very strange charge, yet might pass for a more tolerable exception, if those who will judge of this swerving and erring of Councils were themselves exempt from any such passions or interests, or could well know when they are biased with them; but otherwise it seems a very poor subterfuge; yet the only one they can allege for disobedience to Councils. 4ly. It is here to be remembered, that, if this means by comparing Scriptures &c. (named before) be not such as all men, those of weaker judgements and secular employments, & void of literature can use and practise, this Infallible Guide for the certain sense of Scripture will still remain necessary to such, where useless to some others. 5ly. That, If any others of more liberal education, more leisure for study, of better capacity, after such means used, shall remain still in doubt concerning any such Texts in matters necessary, as suppose in the Trinity; or Deity of our Lord Christ; our Lord's Satisfaction; Justification, &c. here also will be need of an Infallible Guide, or Judge to decide these things to him. Or, if all well capable by their parts or condition of life of using this means, yet, otherwise employed, de facto do not use it, to these also this Infallible Guide is necessary, to supply the effect of such studies.  
N. 4 As for the 2d means, viz. The Ancients urging the general Exposition and sense of Scriptures testified in the Apostolical Churches to be conformed to, Catholics affirm; that this, viz. the Apostolic Churches their unanimously delivering such a doctrine or sense of Scripture as received first from the Apostles, was always held to be infallible and not liable to error; and all Chri tians held obliged to believe or embrace such a doctrine or sense of Scripture so generally consented in; and the dissenters and opposers thereof always held by the same united and consenting Apostolical Churches for Heretics in the Faith. To which Traditive Doctrine, I add here, or any necessary and evident Deduction made, by them, from such a traditive doctrine. In both which, the Tradition, or the Deduction, the Church was con tantly believed to be so preserved, by God's providence over it, and his Holy Spirit abiding with it, as not to err in any necessaries. And the unanimous consent of these Churches concerning any doctrine to be Apostolical, however their minds were made known, whether by Communicatory Letters, or Provincial Synods, (for, it could not be, in these times of persecution, by a Council General) had then the self same authority, as afterwards the Decrees and Definitions of Councils. And thus is the Dr in urging the 2d means of knowing the true sense of Scripture fallen upon the Infallibility herein of the Church. And this was the Infallible Guide in the first times, whose Tradition and Ordination, for matters of our faith, Irenaeus saith, 
‖ l. 3. c. 4.  Christians mu●t have followed and believed, had the Apostles lest us no Scriptures: and consequently, Dissenters had been held no less Heretics— Siquibus (saith he speaking of the present Churches) de aliquâ modicâ quaestione [how much more in greater] disceptatio esset, nun oporteret in an iquissinas [i.e. by succession] recurrere ecclesias, in quibus Apostoli conversati sunt, & ab eis de praesente quaestione su●ere qu●d certum & re liquidum est [what was the certain and clear truth, to which he was to adhere.] Quid autem, si neque Apostoli quidem Scripturas reliquissent nobis, nun oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis, quam tradiderunt iis quibus committebant Ecclesias? cui ordinationi assentiunt multae gentes Barbarorum, corum qui in Christum cre●unt, sine charactere vel atramento scriptam habentes per spiritum in cordibus suis salutem, & veterem traditionem diligenter custodientes etc.  
N. 5 Neither was this general Consent of Churches then consulted or repaired-to only concerning their conserving of the Written Rule of Faith, the Canon of Scripture, or the Creed, that they received from the Apostles; the perpetual conservation of which in the Church the Fathers urged against some grosser kind of Heretics denying the same Creed and some part at least of this Canon; but also was consulted and repaired-to concerning the sense wherein the Scriptures and this Creed were understood by these Churches, so often as disputes in those times were raised about it by other Heretics more refined; and who admitted the Scriptures and the Creed, but varied concerning the sense of them in several points. Against both which Heretics the Fathers urged the prescription of the present testimony of these Churches (to those who would consult them) concerning the Tradition descending to them from the times of the Apostles. And Tertullian frequently complains, as of some Heretics not receiving the Scriptures, so of others misinterpreting them. 
‖ De prescript. adv. haeres. c. 17. etc.  Ista Haeresis non recipit quasdam Scripturas; & siquas recipit, adjectio ibus & detractionibus ad dispositionem instituti sui intervertit: & si recipit, non recipit integras: & si aliquatenùs integras praest●t, nihil●minùs, ●iversas expositiones commentata, convertit. Tantum veritati obstrepit adulter sensus, quantum & corruptor stilus. And afterward— Dicunt a nobis potius adulteria Scripturarum & expositionum mend●cia inferri. And— ubi apparu rit esse veritatem disciplinae & fidei Coristianae, illic erit veritas Scripturarum & omnium traditionum Christianarum. Where I note his urging the Church's consenting Exposition of Scriptures, as well as reception of Scriptures, as prescribing against Heretics.  
Ib l. 11. It will not I hope be denied, that the Primitive Christian Church had a cercain way of understanding the sense of doubtful places, as far as it was necessary to be understood; and that they wanted n● means which Christ had appointed for the ending of controversies. This is willingly granted; and it is contended, that this inerrability in Necessaries accompanied the Clergy, and preserved the Church in the unity of a true faith in all, even the Primitive, times; being annexed to the whole Body, or much major part of this Clergy, not only when met in a General Council, but out of it also, whenever, and however, they manifested a concurrence in their judgement, and agreement in their doctrine; whether it were by several Provincial Councils assembled; or perhaps only by some one convened in the place more infested with some new and dangerous error, and ratified by the Apostolic See, and other coordinate Churches; or not opposed and censured but tacitly admitted by them; Or by their Communicatory and Synodical Letters; Or whether in their public Liturgies and Offices: Or in a general Consent in their public Writings, and explications of Christian Doctrine. In none of which as to the Doctrine Necessary, the whole Body of the Clergy or that which in any dissent is to be accepted for the whole, did ever err. Of which times before Constantine, and the first General Council of Nice, thus Mr Thorndike in his Epilogue l. 1. c. 8.— The daily intercourse, intelligence, and correspondence between Churches, without those Assemblies of Representatives we call Councils, was a thing so visibly practised by the Catholic Church from the beginning, that thereupon, I conceive, it may be called a standing Council, in regard of the continual settling of troubles, arising in some part and tending to question the peace of the whole, by the consent of other Churches concerned: [which settlement was] had and obtained by means of this mutual intelligence and correspondence. The holding of Councils being a way of far greater dispatch; but the express consent of Churches, obtained upon the place, being a more certain foundation of peace. And afterward he affirms— That the succession of Pastors alleged by Irenaeus and Tertullian to convince the Heretics of their time; by S. Augustine, and Optatus to convince the Donatists to be Schismatics, proceeded wholly upon supposition of daily intercourse and correspondence between Churches, as of force to conclude particular Churches by consent of the whole. And this agreement in all times hath kept the Faith of the Church steady and uniform.  
Ib. l. (4). If no such thing was then heard of as an infallible Judge, it is a plain demonstration they thought there was none appointed. Such thing was then heard of, viz. the consenting Testimony (however had) of the present Apostolical Churches concerning former Traditive Doctrines, or necessary Deductions from them, was accepted and submitted-to by all, save Heretics, as infallible. And, after the Church's liberty obtained of assembling General Councils, that of Nice was in those times repaired to as an Infallible Judge by the whole Body of Christianity for deciding that great Controversy concerning our Lord's Divinity; and the Decision thereof afterward accepted by the whole Church Catholic, as Infallible.   

Annotations on §. 13. Of the way used in the Primitive Church for finding the sense of Scripture.  
PAg. 201. l. 5. What course now doth Irenaeus take to clear the sense of Scripture in these controverted places? Doth he tell them that God hath appointed infallible Guides in his Church, to whom appeal was to be made in all such cases? Nothing like it through his whole Book. Though the Dr here only urgeth a Negative Argument, which often fails; and though, as to Heretics, utterly denying Church-Infallibility, the Fathers had their liberty to choose rather to convince them upon some other Principles by both sides agreed on; Yet Irenaus we find against these Heretics frequently pleaded this Church-Infallibility as not reasonably rejectible by them. viz. Urged the consenting Testimony of the present Apostolical Churches as no way fallible in relating and delivering to posterity the former Apostolical Tradition. For which see his l. 1. c. 3.— Hanc praedicationem & hanc fidem Ecclesia (velut dixi) adepta, quanquam per totum mundum dispersa, diligenter conservat, quasi unam domum inhabitans: & similiter his credit, velut unan animan & idem cor habens, & consonè haec praedicat & docet, ac tradit, velut uno ore praedita. Nam linguae in mundo dissimiles sunt, verùm virtus Traditionis una & eadem est. Praedicatio veritatis ubique lucet, & illuminat omnes homines ad cognitionem veritatis venire volentes. And see the four first Chapters of lib. 3. where he hath much to this purpose. There he saith in the Preface.— Resistens eis pro solâ & vivifica fide, quam ab Apostolis Ecclesia percepit, & distribu●t fili●s suis. Ecclesia [i.e. Patres ecclesiae, that instruct the others]. And Ibid. c. 2. he saith— Ad eam Traditionem, quae est ab Apostolis, quae per successiones Presbyterorum in Eccleseis cust. ditur, provocamus eos [i.e. Haereticos]. And afterward accuseth them— Neque Scriptures, neque Traditioni [of the sense the Church gives to the Scriptures] consentire eos. c. 3.— Traditionem itaque (saith he) Apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam in Ecclesiâ [i.e. in the unanimous consent of the present Church] adest perspicere omnibus, qui vera velint audire. And then appealing to the preeminent authority of the Roman Church he thus goes on.— Maximae & antiquissimae & omnibus cognitae a gloriosissimis Apostolis Petro & Paulo Romae fundatae & constitutae Ecclesiae, eam, quam habet ab Apostolis, traditionem, & annunciatam hominibus fidem, per successiones Episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos, indicantes, confundimis omnes eos, qui quoquo modo vel per sui placentiam malam, vel vanam gloriam, vel per coecitatem & malam sententiam, praeterquam oportet, colligunt. Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam propter pote●tiorem principalitatem [because a Petro & Paulo fundata, hence frequent Appeals from thither all parts] necesse est omnibus convenire ecclesiam, be est, eos, qui sunt undique fideles; in quâ senper, ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est ea, quae est ab Apostolis, Traditio. [somewhat like that of S. Cyprian Ep. 55.— Post ista adhue (saith he speaking of two Schismatics) navigare andent, & ad Petri Cathedram atque ad Ecclesiam principalem, unde unitas Sacerdotalis exorta est, a Schismaticis & profanis literas far; nec cogitare, eos esse Romanos (quorum fides, Apostolo praedicante, laudata est), ad quos perfidia habere non potest accessum]. And c. 4.— Tantae igitur ostensiones cùm sint haec, non oportet adhuc quaerere apud alios veritatem, quam facile est ab Ecclesiâ sumere. And see what was quoted before Note on p. 197. l. 7.— Quid enim, si quibus de aliquâ modicâ quaestione disceptatio esset etc. In which places, suppose a fallibility of the consenting-Testimony of the present Church-governors, when consulting concerning the Traditive faith that hath descended to them, and all this Father saith falls to the ground.  
Pag. 204. l. 13. And surely then he did not imagine, that God had appointed an infallible Judge on purpose to prevent the being of Heresies by giving an infallible sense of Scripture. Yes: such an infallible Judge hence the more necessary, to cure and remedy the Heresies, which, Tertullian saith, the Scriptures were so framed, as not to prevent. Neither hath God, in providing such a Judge, constrained also all men's free wills to believe his Infallibility and acquiesce in his judgement. And so the— Oportet esse Haereses may be verified still  
Pag. 207. l. 4. The sense they [the Heretics] gave of Scripture was contrary to the Doctrine of faith etc. Which he [Irenaeus] calls the unmoveable rule of faith received in B. pt. sm; and which the Church dispersed over the earth did equally receive in all places with a wonderful consent. If the Dr here would restrain the Father's urging the Testimony of the Apostolical Churches against Heretics only to the Tradition of the Canon of Scriptures, or the Rule of Faith the Creed, Processed in their Baptism; we must know, that they urged not the concurrent Testimony of the present Churches only for those against some gross Heretics, that denied the Text and Letter of them; but also against others more subtle, perverting such a sense of them, as these consenting Churches pretend d was Apostolical. See Jrenaeus l. 3. c. 2.— Cùm ex Scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scripturarum: where amongst other their accusations he allegeth this— quia variè sint dictae [ambiguous in their sense] & quia non possit ex his inventri veritas ab his, qui nesciant traditionem.— Cùm autem ad eam iterùm traditionem [i.e. concerning the right sense of these Scriptures] quae est ab Apostolis, quae per successiones presbyterorum in Ecclestis custoditur, provocamus eos, qui adversantur traditioni [i e. Ecclesiae], dicent se, etc.— Evenit itaque neque Scripturis jam, neque tradi●●oni, consentire eos. And the words c. 4. cited before— Quid enim 〈…〉 si quibus de aliquâ modicâ quaestione, etc. show, he holds such concurrent Testimony valid concerning any such Tradition, though there had been no Scriptures: and indeed there seems no reason why these Churches should be more credited in their testimony, when pretending one thing Tradition Apostolical, than when another, though these things perhaps be not of an equal importance.  
Pag. 208. l. 1. Which Tradition they [the Heretics] accounted the key to unlock all the difficulties of Scripture. Heretics indeed so accounted their false tradition; but so the Churches also their true Tradition.  
Ib. l. 12. Irenaeus appeals to the most eminent Churches, And especially that of Rome, because of the great resort of Christians thither, [where he omits the Necesse est]. No. Propter potentiorem principalitatem (saith the Father): which Pricipalitas potentior, a Petro & Paulo fundata caused the great resort of Christians thither; propter quam ad hanc necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, &c see the words at large cited before Annot. on p. 201. l. 5.  
Ib. l. 17. And knew of no such tradition as the Valentinians pretended to. But this was not all: the Fathers pleaded also in the Churches an Anti-tradition, true and Apostolical; witnessed by the unanimous testimony of the present Apostolical Churches; as the others did a false, and untestifyed.  
Ib. l. (9). And supposing no Scriptures, we must then have followed the Traditien of the most ancient and Apostolical Churches. Thus said Irenaeus. I add: and this Tradition witnessed by the present Churches must be in necessaries infallible; else Christian Religion would be liable to error in such necessaries.  
Pag. 209. l. 14. But Irenaeus knew nothing of any infallible Judge to determine the sense of Scripture. For the contrary see Note on p. 197. l. 7. and l. 11.  
Pag. 210. l. 2. There must be a certain unalterable Rule of faith, etc. Now this Author removes his discourse from Irenaeus to Tertullian. Who also, as Irenaeus, speaks not only of the Creed professed in Baptism, nor of some chief Articles but of the whole doctrine of faith, and manners, necessary to salvation, as also of the right sense of Scriptures controverted, that it was delivered to, and deposited in, the Christian Churches by our Lord and his Apostles, and from the unanimous agreement of the same Churches therein, in any controversy made concerning it, might be certainly learned and known. What hath been said of Irenaeus needs not be repeated concerning him: both do tread in the same steps, and Tertullian had perused the works of Irenaeus 
‖ See contra Valentin. c. 5. ; both refer Christians to the consentient Testimony of the Apostolical Churches in any doubting in matters of faith, or disputed sense of Scripture; a these Churches firmly conserving and rightly delivering the Tradition Apostolical, and as not liable to error herein. Of these Churches thus he, De prescript. c. 19— Vbi [or, apud quos] apparuerit esse veritatem disciplinae & fidei Christianae [delivered to them by the Apostles] illic erit veritas Scripturarum, & expositionum, & omnium traditionum Christianarum. [And how this, if these consentient Churches not held infallible in rightly delivering such Tradition]? 
c. 21.  And— Quid Apostolis Christus revelaverit, & hic praescribam, non aliter probari debere, nisi per easdem Ecclesias,— Proinde constare, omnem doctrinam, quae cum illis Ecclesiis Apostolicis matricsbus & originalibus fidei conspiret, veritati deputandam; id sine dubio tenentem, quod ecclesiae ab Apostolis, Apostoli a Christo, Christus a Deo suscepit. [These Churches therefore in no age are errable, in conserving or delivering such such doctrine: for, else, how any certain, that not in Tertnllian's?].— Superest ergo uti demonstremus, an haec nostra doctrina, cujus regulam supra edidimus, de Apostolorum traditione censeatur.— Which he demonstrates thus— Communicamus cum Ecclesiis Apostolicis, quod nulla doctrina diversa [facit]. hoc est testimonium veritatis. And after, c. 36. speaking of the Apostolical Churches, in any diversity of doctrine, to be consulted, he goes on thus— Proxima est tibi Achaia? habes Corinthum. Si non longè es a Macedoniâ, habes Philippos etc. Si autem Italiae adjaces, habes Roman, unde nobis [Affricanis] authoritas praesto est: where he advanceth this Church above the rest, as also Irenaeus.— Faelix ecclesia, saith he, cui totam doctrinam Apostoli cum sanguine suo profuderunt. Videamus quid didicerit [i.e. haec ecclesia], quid docuerit, cùm Affricanis quoque ecclesiis contesserarit. Then, naming some part of Its Faith and doctrine against the contrary of the Heretics of those days, adversus hanc institutionem, saith he, neminem recipit; [into its communion]. Then concludes— Si haec ita se habent, ut veritas nobis adjudicetur, &c, non esse admittendos haereticos ad candem de Scripturis provocationem, quos sine Scriptures [i.e. by the infallible Testimony of the Church discovering their faith not right] Probamus ad Scripturas non pertinere. And— Illic [or apud eos] igitur & Scripturarum & expositionum adulteratio deputanda est, ubi diversitas invenitur doctrinae [from the consentient Churches]. This occurrs in his Book of Prescriptions against Heretics. In his Books against Martion are found like things. From which authority also of the Apostolical Churches, he saith there, 
‖ l. 4. c. 5.  we receive the Canon of Scripture— Eadem authoritas ecclesi●rum Apostolicarum cateris quoque patrocinabitur Evangeliis, quae [Evangelia] proinde per illas, & secundum illas, habemus.  
Ib. l. (9). He [Tertullian] shows this Rule of Faith is by repeating the Articles of the Ancient Creed. See Note on p. 207. l. 4. I hope He will not confine the consentient Church's authority and testimony only to the express Articles of the Creed used in Tertullian's time; for, than its testimony will not or may not have the same verity in those of the Athanasian.  
Pag. 213. l. 11. Discovers their imposture. Let the Reader well consider, whether the Dr's translation, in this and the precedent page, doth not also make Tertullian clearly enough affirm Church-infallibility; and whether he brings not witnesses against himself.  
Pag. 214. l. 14. Thus Tertullian lays down the rules of finding out the sense of controverted places of Scripture without the least insinuation of an infallibility placed in the Guides of the Church for determining the certain sense of them. Contrary. If we Review what hath been said, Tertullian lays down a certain Rule of finding out the sense of controverted places of Scripture: viz. a general Consent of the Apostolical Churches, touching such sense, traditional, and descending from the Apostles; which Consent ought to determine such sense unto them.  
Ib. l. (5). Prescription, or just exception against their pleading (for so prescription signifies in him). The Plea Tertullian useth against the novelty of ancient Heretics, as also roman-catholics do still against the Protestants, namely this— Mea est possessio: olim possideo, prior possideo. c. 38. And this— 
‖ c. 31.  Id est dominicum & verum, quod est prius tradtum: id autem extraneum & falsum, quod est posteriùs immissum, I say this plea seems to imply more iucluded in the word Prescription, than the Dr allows. viz. includes not only a just exception against their plead, but a just plea against their exeeptions. But this shall make no contention between us.  
Pag 215. l. ult. And makes that sufficient evidence of the truth of a body, that it is the object of three senses, of sight, and touch, and hearing. Which is the same way of arguing we make use of against Transubstantiation. And it is granted a sufficient evidence, where no Divine Revelation intervenes declaring such arguing mistaken. Which, in the matter of our Lord's Resurrection, there doth not. And in vain had Martion made any such pretence herein against these senses where he could produce no Divine Revelation for it.  
Pag. 216. l. 14. And the universal reception [i.e. by the Churches] of the true Gospels. Universal Reception. Which Tertullian urgeth as an infallible proof of the truth of these Gospels. See his words Contra Martion. l. 4. before in Note on p. 210. l 2. As also, Ibid. (contrary to what the Dr saith below) his calling in an infallible Guide, [the same Churches] for giving a certain sense of Scripture.  
Pag, 218. l. (6.) Hitherto we find nothing etc. Concerning this let the former places 
‖ Note on p. 201.  produced out of them bear witness. Though this hath the infirmity of a Negative argument.  
Pag. 219. l. 1. I now proceed to Clemens of Alexandria. And therefore so must I; though methinks he hath led his Reader and me a great way from the Consideration of his Principles. He that reads the 7th Book of his Stromata here cited, as he will find much of studying the Scriptures, and learning Demonstrations from thence against Heretics, so will he of the Unity of the Church, contradistinct to Heresies; and of the verity of its Traditions. Of which he saith there— Num ergo, si quis pacta conventa non obse●vaverit [i.e. adhaerendo Regulae Ecclesiasticae], & transgressus fuerit eam, quae fit apud nos, confessionem, propter eum, qui non stet●t suae professioni, abstinebimus nos quoque a veritate [i.e. hujus confessionis]? And he calls this afterward via regia & trita— Non dubit averit quispiam viam ingre●i propter dissensionem [of some others strayin] said utetur viâ regiâ & tritâ & sejuncta a periculo: ita cùm alii alia dicant, de veritate [hujus Confessionis & Regulae Ecclesiasticae] non est discedendum, sed est exactiùs & diligentiùs inquirenda ejus exactissima & accuratissima cognitio. Ibid. he saith,— In solâ veritate & antiquâ Ecclesiâ [i.e. Ecclesiâ deriving its doctrine from Antiquity] est perfectissima cognitio, & ea quae estreverâ optima haeresis, id est, electio. And— Homo Dei esse, & Domino fidelis esse, perdidit, qui adversus Ecclesiasticam recalcitravit traditionem, & in humanarum haeresum desiluit ●piniones. There he saith— Qui in ignoratione quidem versantur sunt gentes: qui autem in scientiâ, vera ecclesia: qui verò in opinion, ti qui sectantur haereses. And afterward— Exciso ostio, & muro Ecclesiae jam perfosso, veritatem transgredientes efficiuntur principes ac duces myst●riorum animae impiorum: and then showing, as also Irenaeus and Tertullian, the Doctrine of the Church ancienter, that of Heretics later, he goes on,— Exiis quae dicto sunt manifestum esse ex●stimo, unam esse veram Ecclesiam, eam quae verè est antiqua— quam conantur haereses in multas discindere. Et substantiâ ergo & cogitation & principio & excellentiâ, solam esse dicimus; quam etiam [dicimus] antiquam & Catholicam Ecclesiam, in unitatem unius fidei, quae est ex proprus testamentis [i.e. contained in the Scriptures] in quibus Dei voluntate per unum hominem congregat eos, qui jam sunt ordinati, 
‖ Act. 13.48.  quos praedestinavit Deus, etc.— (saith he) Ecclesiae quoque eminentia, sicut principium constructionis, est ex unitate, omnia alia superans, & nihil habens sibi simile vel aequale. And that— Fuit una omnium Apostolorum sicut doctrina, ita etiam traditio.— Ex haere sibus autem, aliae quidem appellantur ex nomine,— aliae ex loco,— aliae ex gente— aliae ex propriis dogmatibus, etc. [A parallel to which, both in his description of the Church and Heresies, may be observed in our present times]. These things than he hath of the Church there, where he hath those things our Author brings of the Scriptures. And, in all these things, he seems to own and remit us to this Church, antiqua, sola, una, eminens & omnia alia superans, as a Guide that cannot sail us in necessary truth. And as he presseth the studying of the Scriptures to the contemplative, so he leaves the unity of the Church and the verity of its doctrine as a secure refuge for all the rest, that cannot intent such studies.  
Pag. 222. l. (10) Stephen was against rebaptising any Heretics, and the others [the Eastern and African Bisho] were for rebaptising all. Any Heretics; i.e. such, whose former Baptism was not, for want of a right Form, nulled; the baptising of whom, when returning to the Church, was indeed no Rebaptisation; and thus S. Stephen and latter Councils well accord. Of whose sanctity and orthodoxness thus Vincentius Lerinensis, 
‖ c. 9  after these Councils.— Quo quisque floreret religiosior, eo promptiùs novellis adinventionibus co●trairet. Exemplis talibus plena sunt omnia. Sed ne longum fiat, unum aliquod, & hoc ab Apostolicâ potissimùm Sede, sumemus: ut omnes luce clariùs videant, beatorum Apostolorum beata successi qu n●â vi semper, quanto study, quantâ contentione defenderit susceptae semel rel●gionis integritatem: speaking of this Stephen. M●an w●●le the affection & Reverence, this Author pretends to Antiquity and the Holy Fathers, is not unliable to suspicion, when he upon every or rather no occasion given, endeavours to uncover their nakedness and lay open their deficiencies, and divisions. Those that defend their departure from the novelties of the Roman Church by their retreat to Antiquity, and the doctrine of the Fathers, methinks should have a greater tenderness of Their Reputation. But here, meanwhile, the more He aggravates the dissentings about this point, the more he confirms the necessity of the Infallibility of General Councils for fetling such Truths and allaying such Contests to which Councils we own the present peace, that the Church in latter times enjoys in this matter, once so much agitated.  
Pag. 225 l. (13) What course was taken in this important Controversy [with Samosatenus concerning the divinity of Christ] to find out the certain sense of Scripture? Do they appeal to any infallible Guides? Nothing like it. But in the Councils of Antioch etc. The sense of Scripture may be cleared either by comparing Scriptures, etc. or, by examining Church-Tradition; for confuting Heresies both ways are used: but not necessary therefore, that all writings against them use both: Or that Councils condemning them register the reason of their condemnation. But so it is, that this Council of Antioch in their Epistle to Paulus Samosatenus do use both: as they urge the Scriptures, so also the Church's consentient Tradition in these words— Decrevimus fidem scripto edere & exponere, quam a principio aceepimus, & habemus traditam & servatam in Catholicâ & Sanctâ Ecclesitâ usque in hodiernum diem. And— Qui Filium Dei non esse Deum praedicat, hunc alienum esse ab Ecclesiastica regula arbitramur; & omnes Ecclesiae Catholicae nobiscum consentiunt.  
Pag. 228. l. 1. I would advise them to be conversant in the Divine Oracles. 
‖ Athanas. count. Arian.  S. Athanasius in all th' gives very good advice: for, in the Father's confuting Heresies by Scriptures and by Councils, Scriptures have the prime place; with Athanasius' limitation there, writing to Bishops, and those, quibus gratia data est, ut discernant spiritualia; whilst he saith there— Contra Arian. Orat. 1. simplex & non firmiter institutus, dum solummodo verba [Scripturae] considerate, statim illorum astutiis seducitur. Especially these Scripture-proofs are necessary to Bishops, when dealing with Adversaries that contemn Councils; as now also Scriptures are urged by Catholics to Protestants declining Church-Authority.  
Ib. l. 7. But did not the Arians plead Scripture as well as they? how then could the Scripture end this Controversy which did arise about the sense of Scripture? This Objection was never so much as thought of in those days. What thinks He of Tertullian's Prescription, against Heretics quoting Scriptures, from Church-authority declaring Apostolical Tradition concerning the sense of such Scriptures? c. 15.— Scripturas (saith he) obtendunt & hac suâ audacià statim quosdam movent: in ipso verò congressu firmos quidem fatigant, infirmos capiunt, medios cum scrupulo dimittunt. And— Quid promovebis exercitatissime Scripturarum, cùm si quid defenderis negetur ex diverso, si quid negaveris defendatur?— Hunc igitur potissimum gradum obstruimus, non admittendi eos ad ullam de Scripturis disputationem: i.e. by transferring the Controversy to be tried by the consentient Doctrine and Tradition of the Church Catholic. Or, what thinks he of the words of Athanasius in the same Oration that is here quoted; advising those he writ to thus, — Zelum Domino zelate, & retentâ Patrum fide, quam Fatres qui Nicaeae convenerant scripto professi sunt, Ne sustinueritis eos, qui contra eam novis rebus student, etiamsi dictiones ex sacris literis scribant?  
Ib. l. 9 They did not in the least desert the proofs of Scripture, because their adversaries made use of it too No: why should they, the true sense of which was on their side, and this also evident enough to some men's reason? But, to those not by this way convinced, they pressed also the universal Tradition of the Church and the Definitions of its General Councils, as infallible, and to be submitted to by all private judgements. For which to view (this Author, he speaks of,) Athanasius: See the beginning of his Epistle to Epictetus' Bishop of Corinth— Ego arbitrabar (saith he) omnium, quotquot unquam fucre, haereticorum inanem garrulitatem Nicaeno Concilio sedatam esse. Nam Fides, quae inibi a Patribus secundum sacras Scripturas tradita, & confessionibus confirmata est, sat is mihi idonea efficaxque videbatur ad omnem impictatem evertendam etc. And therefore he saith, the Bishops thereof afterward— divesis Conciliis istos lucifugas, quae Arii sunt sapientes, communi calculo unius spiritus incitatu anaethemate percusserunt— Quâ igitur audaciâ fit, ut post tanti Concilii authoritatem, disceptationes aut quaestiones instituantur?— And— Quae ita manifestò prava perv●rsaque sunt, ea euriosiùs tractare non oportet, ne contentiosis hominibus ambigua videantur; sed tantummodò ad ea respondendum est quod ipsum per se sufficit, ea orthodoxae Ecclesiae non esse, neque majores nostros ita senfisse. And— Si vultis filii Patrum esse, non debetis sentire diversa ab iis quae Patres ipsi conscritserunt. Again, in the beginning of his Epistle to the African Bishops— Sufficiunt ea, quae Niceae confessa fuere satisque per se virium habent quemadmodum superiùs diximus, tum ad subversionem impii dogmatis, tum ad tutelam utilitatemque Ecclesiasticae doctrinae. And— Neque Deum metuerunt ita dicentem; Ne transmoveas terminos aeternos quos posuerunt Patres tui● & Q●●accusat Patrem aut Matrem morte moriatur: neque patres nostros quicquam reveriti sunt denunciantes anathema, si quis contraria suae ipsorum confessioni sentiret.— Plusquam decem Synodos jam instituerant etc.— Verbum autem illud Domini per Occumenicam Niceae Synodum in aeternum manet. And in the close of that Epstile after citing the Apostle 1 Cor. 11.2.— Laudo vos quod, quemadmodum tradidi vobis traditiones, ita eas servatis, he goes on— Ipsa enim Nicaena Synodus reverâ trophaeum columnaque est, ubi omnes haereses inscriptae ostentui sunt (alluding to Col. 2. 15.): then declaring how this Council established the Faith, he saith— Quam Patres statuissent de fide in Filium, id statim adjectum voluere, Credimus & in Spiritum Sanctum. And in his Epistle de Synodis he saith of these Fathers, showing their just authority in matters of faith, that— In negotio Paschatis placuit ut adderetur, Visum est, ut omnes obtemperarent. De fide verò non scripserunt Visum est; sed, Ad istum modum credit Catholica Ecclesia; & statim confessio ipsa credendi adjuncta est, ut ostenderent eam non novam esse sententiam sed Apostolicam, & quae ipsi scripsissent non esse sua inventa●, sed Apostolorum documenta.  
Pag 223. l. (11). So Athanasius saw no necessity at all of calling in the assistance of any infallible Guides, to give the certain sense of Scripture in these doubtful places. Of any infallible Guides, or of any Guides at all, he may say; for here are none mentioned, fallible, or infallible. No necessity then, of the Council of Nice, in Athanasius' judgement? Review the places but now mentioned and see more in Note on p. 245. l. 1. This Author hath need of very credulous Readers.  
Pag. 230. l. 15. Yet he no where saith, that, without the help of that Tradition, it had been impossible to have known the certain sense of Scripture. Nor do Catholics say so. They say only, that the Church Governors, met in a General Council, are infallible in their decisions of necessary faith by reason of an evident Tradition of such an Apostolical Doctrine or sense of Scripture descending to them: Or by some necessary Deduction of theirs, made from such traditive doctrine in the same necessaries. In the Declaration of both which they are always preserved from error by the super-intending of the Divine Providence, and the assistance of the Holy Spirit. And that, supposing the sense of Scripture, without recurrence to such Tradition, be clear enough to some, yet that it is not so to all; who therefore, in their faith of such necessaries must depend on the authority, direction, infallibility, of their Guides. Unless our Author will say, the Condition of all Christians is well capable of using all means possible.  
Pag. 232. l. 5. The same course is taken by Epiphanius, etc. S. Hilary, and S. Epiphanius, it seems, do endeavour to confute Heretics out of the Seriptures What then?  
Ib. l. 18. After the Guides of the Church had in the Council of Nice declared what was the Catholic faith; yet still the controversy was managed about the sense of Scripture and no other ways made use of for finding it, than such as we plead for at this day. Was not the Decree of this Council, after it held, perpetually by the Catholics urged against them? And, if not submitted to by them, the more to blame the Heretics of those days [as now also the Pro●estans after the 2d. Nicene, Laterane, Florentine, and Trent, Councils] who did not acquiesce in such a just authority, as that of Nice; and (though I think Mr Chillingworth would not, yet) will not Dr St. as to the Nicene Council say the same with me? These then, though denying submission to Councils, yet not to Holy Scriptures, the Fathers did in those days, as Catholic Doctors do now, out of Principles coneeded by them, and common to both, endeavour to convince them.  
Ib. l. (4). That none of the Catholic Bishops should once suggest this admirable expedient of Infallibility. Did not these Bishops continually press to them the consentient Tradition of the Churches and the Definition of the Council of Nice? To what end this, if it acknowledged by them fallible? Might an Authority not infallible put their definitions in the Creed? and so it remains to this day in the Dr's Creed upon that account. Can it exact belief, and anathematise all Dissenters, and not profess itself Infallible?  
Pag. 233. l. 7. When they so frequently in Councils contradicted each other. See this great Friend of Councils. Before, 
‖ p. 149.  the charge was; Ancient Church and Councils contradicting those of latter times: but now it is grown higher, to the Ancient contradicting Ancient, without any qualification of Councils held by Hercticks contradicting Councils Catholic; for, then, the sense had been lost. But, I hope, our Adversary is not yet gone so far, as to affirm any Council, equal in authority with that of Nice, contradicting it: but, if unequal, that of Nice only will stand in force.  
Ib. l. 13. If the sense of Scripture were in this time to be taken from the Guides of the Church, what security could any man have against Arianism? since the Councils which favoured it were more numerous than those which opposed and condemned it. i.e.; If the sense of the Scripture concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were to be taken from the Guides of the Church met in the Council of Nice, what security, from thence, could we have against Arianisme? since the Arian Councils were more numerous than that of Nice, and therefore more obligatory than it? Doth not our Author here a little too sar unmask himself? Doth he hold, then, Christians to owe no obedience to the Definition of the Council of Nice against Arianisme? Time was when he said 
‖ Rat. Account, p. 375. — We profess to be guided by the sense of Scripture as interpreted by the unanimotes consent of the Fathers, and the four first General Councils, [will he say here, If these Councils interpret the Scriptures in the right sense; i.e. in his?] And— That the Church of England looks on it as her duty to keep to the Decrees of the four General Councils; [and so of Nice, the first of them]. Then either the Arian Councils must not be more numerous, as here he affirms, they were: or the more numerous, I mean as to the persons present in it, not always the more valid; which is true. But, if we are now to defend the authority of the Council of Nice against the Dr. we mu●t know: that, if he there speaks of the plurality of the Arian Councils; they many, and that of Nice only one: this number is no prejudice to any one Council, that is of greater authority: if he speaks of the plurality of Bishops in some one Arian Council, then, though there were present in the Nicene Council not above four or five Bishops from all the West, Yet that the whole West and all its Bishops accepted it, which they never did any of the Arian Councils. Therefore Athanasius, 
‖ Epist. ad Episcop. African.  after those Arian Councils held, speaks thus of that of Nice.— Huic certè concilio universus orbis assensum praebuit. And— Verbum illud Domini per Occumenicam Niceae Synodum in aeternum manet. Sive enim quis numerum cum numero comparet, tanto major est Nicena Synodus particularibus Concili●s, quantum totum sui aliqua parte. And 2ly. That, had the Arian Bishops throughout the whole world at some time outnumbered the Catholic, yet these after once pronounced Heretical by the lawful General Council of Nice, were invalidated hereby, (whilst such), from having any lawful Vote in a future Council: the Catholic Clergy and Bishops remaining a distinct Body from them; to whom, and not to them, the Christian world owed its obedience.  
Ib. l. (9). S. Gregory Nazianzen 
‖ Epist. 55.  declares he had not seen a good issue of any one of them, etc. He spoke this, of the many Arian Councils of his time, full of faction and ambition, the chief leaders being great Favourites to Constantius an Heretical Emperor: Or perhaps, of some Council also held at Constantinople, wherein he, by such contention amongst the Bishops there, suffered much: but this he said, exclusively, doubtless, both to the first General Council, that of Nice: Of which he saith 
‖ Orat. in laud. Hiero.  that— Pa●res nostri, pinsque ille hominum mundus qui Nicaeam perrexerunt, certis finibus ac verbis Divinitatis doctrinam circumscripserunt. And— 
† Orat. in laud. Athanas.  Sanctum Concilium Niceae habitum at que illum lectissimorum virorum numerum Spiritum Sanctum in unum coegisse: and exclusively again to the 2d General Council that of Constantinople, which he was a member of, and subscribed. What need I now trouble myself or the Reader with vindicating Bellarmine on this matter? Meanwhile would not the Dr here have his Reader believe, that this Father had a mean esteem of the first and second General Councils?  
Pag. 234. l. (7) S. Augustine 
‖ Cont. Maximin. l. 3. c. 14.  in dealing with Maximin as the Arian expressly sets aside all authority of the Guides of the Church as to the sense of Scripture in the places controverted between th●● 〈…〉 Story in brief is this. Maximinus an Arian in the beginning of their dispute hath these words— Si quid de divinis Scripturis protuleris, quod commune est cum omnibus, necesse est ut audiamus. Hae verò voces quae extra Scripturam sunt, [homoousion] nullo casu a nobis suscipiuntur. [alluding to the definition of homoousion by the Nicene Council]. S. Augustine takes his challenge; and, as he waved the Council of Nice, so did S. Augustine that of Ariminum. Upon which here (lib. 3. c. 14.), after he had said— Hoc est illud Homoousion, quoth in Concilio Nicaeno adversus Haereticos Arrianos a Catholicis Patribus veritatis [i. e, of the Scriptures] authoritate, & authoritatis [i.e. by the just authority of a lawful free General Counci] veritate, firmatum est: quod postea in Concilio Ariminensi, etc. multis paucorum fraude deceptis Haeretica impietas labef●ctare tentavit. He condescends thus; I say, after this uttered in Justification of Nice,— Sed, nunc, nec ego Nicaenum, nec tu debes Ariminense, tanquam praejudicaturus, proffer Concilium. Nec ego hujus authoritate, nec tu illius detineris [he saith not tu non teneris, but nunc non detineris]: Scripturarum authoritatibus, non quorumque propriis [as the two Councils were] said utrisque communibus testibus, res cum re, causa cum caus●, ratio cum ratione concenset. [That is, this our conference or dispute shall only be, as you desire, from Authorities of Scripture]. Of the sense of which Scripture it is willingly granted, that in many things many persons may be sufficiently certain without the directions of a Guide; but not therefore all persons, in all points necessary. See before Note on p. 230. l. 15. Mean while none more than. S. Austin pleads or vindicates the Authority of the Council of Nice: needless to be further proved, one would think, to Dr St.  
Pag. 236. l. 1. This is in terms asserted by him 
‖ De Doctrine. Christian. l. 2. c. 9  as a fuundamental principle, that in those things which are plainly set down in Scripture all things are to be found which concern our faith and rule of life. S. Austin doth not mean, that all things containing our faith or manners are so plainly set down in Scripture as to all capacities, that many do not need the direction of an infallible Church-authority for settling a certainty of their faith in them; (a thing affirmed by the Dr). To which infallible Authority, that this Father refers such persons for learning the true Faith, see that excellent Treatise of his, De Vtilitate Credendi, i.e. of believing Church-authority. Where he saith— Cûm res tanta sit, ut Dens tibi ratione cognoscendus sit, omnes ne putas idoneos? etc. And— Tu in eos libros qui Sancti, divinarumque rerum pleni, etc. sine duce irruis? And— Omnesne putas idoneos esse percipiendis rationibus quibus, ad divinam intelligentiam, mens ducitur humana? an plures, an pnucos? paucos, ais, existimo. Quid? caeteris ergò hominibus, qui ingenio tam screno praediti non sunt, negandum Religionem putas? Whom therefore he refers to this security of believing Church authority. For— In religione quid iniquius fieri potest (saith he 
‖ Ibid ) quàm ut Dei Antistites nebis non fictum animum pollicentibus credant, nos eis praecipientibus nolimus credere? And c. 16. that for such persons— non esse desperandum, ab eodem ipso Deo authoritatem aliquam, constitutam, quâ, velut gradu certo, innitetes a●●ollamur in Deum. Hanc autem authoritatem seposu â rationc (quam sinceram intelligere, ut, diximus, difficillimum stultis est) dupliciter nos movere, par●●● miraculis, partim sequentium multitudine. And 
‖ Ib. c. 17. — Quid est aliud ingratum esse opi atque auxilio divino quàm tanto labour [nost] praedictae authoritati velle resistere? And De Baptismo l. 3. c. 14.— Fieri potest, ut integra teneat verba Symboli [I may say, or of Scripture], & tamen non rectè credat sive de ipsâ Trinitate, sive de Resurrectione, vel aliquid aliud. Neque enim parva res in ipsâ intus Catholicâ tenere integram fidem, ita ut omnino (non de aliquà creaturâ, sed) de ipso Deo nihil aliud credat, quàm veritas h●b●t. And in this book de Doctrinâ Christianâ l. 3. c. 2. he joins these two, the clearer places of Scripture and the authority of the Church, for our learning the Rule of Faith— Cùm adhibita imentio (saith he) incertum esse providerit, quom●do distinguendum aut pronunci●ndum sit, consulat Regulam fiaci, quam ¹ de Scripturarum planioribus locis, 2 & Ecclesiae authoritate, percepit. More of this needs not. Many excellent Rules this Father gives by which to understand the Scriptures, i.e. for the more prudent and learned; but not this exclusively to those person's submitting their Judgements to the Church's authority who have no leisure, or parts, by these Rules to study the Scriptures; or else to other's repairing to it, where any thing in the Scriptures, after their study, still seems to them obscure.  
Pag. 238. l. 12. 
‖ S. Austin de Doctrine. Christian. l. 3. c. 16.  Which words 
‖ Jo. 6.53.  seeming to command something evil must be figuratively understood of communicating in the Passion of Christ, and calling to mind that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. And not imagining, as the words strictly taken sound, that our Lord's Body and Blood, in a carnal or natural and sensible manner, as other flesh, is to be eaten and drunk by us; as some of our Lords Auditors grossly misunderstood him and so forsook him; in which sense [Dominus] flagitium videtur jubere, saith S. Austin: Not imagining thus, I say; but yet believing that his flesh and blood is there really exhibited to us, and fed on by us. This Real, so as also ineffable, Presence of Christ's Body and Blood though not to the Symbols, yet in the Eucharist, and so a real participation thereof, the Church of England and her learnedst Writers have much spoken of, and contended for heretofore, as well as Catholics, before that the Rubric or Declaration about kneeling in receiving the Communion, was by the importunity of some later Sects, admitted a second time into the Common-Prayer Book, A.D. 1660. Which Rubric, (contrary to the Real Presence in that it denies that Christ's substance can be both in Heaven [where certainly it is] and on earth at the same time), was first contrived and published in the 5th year of the Reign of King Edward 6. in the new-moulding and correcting of the former Common Prayer Book published in the first year, upon the Exceptions and complaints of some foreign Reformed Divines made against it, and was then backed also with the 28th. Article of Religion under the same King in these words— The Body of Christ cannot be present at one time in many and divers places etc. and, because it was taken up into heaven etc. a faithful man ought not to believe the Real and Bodily presence, as they term it, of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament of the Lords supper: But, not long after in the beginning of Qu. Elizabeth's Reign, was thought fit by her Divines, reviewing this 2d Book, to be ejected thence again, as being prejudicial to the foresaid Real Presence, (and so also was the foresaid clause cast out of the 28th Article) of which Real Presence Queen Elizabeth was a great Patroness; And, such a Presence being confessed by Queen Elizabeth and her Clergy, I hope this Author here will not make to be denied by S. Austin.]  
Pag 239. l. (8.) Whatever consequences are charged upon me for making that a fundamental Principle must reflect as much upon S. Austin, as me. See the contrary, Note on p. 236. l. 1.  
Pag. 240. l. 4. Who [Vincentius Lerinensis] seems to attribute more to the Guides of the Church than S. Aust●n doth, yet far enough short of Infallibility. Now we must follow our Author to Vincentius Lerinensis. As for this Father, first, he held in all ages the existence and being of a Catholic Church, distinct from others, if any Heretical, how numerous soever they might be: in which Catholic Church was preserved entire the Catholic Doctrine, especially in all Necessaries; and, if so, therefore a Church in whatever age always consentient with Antiquity: So that Vniversalitas, as to the consent of the Catholics of any age, and Antiquitas can never be severed. 2ly. He held the Decrees of the Councils of this Catholic Church in whatever times convened to be true and never to swerve from the Apostolical doctrine, i.e. to be infallible, and that all were to receive and obey them; and all dissenters from them to be Heretics. To this purpose he saith. c. 33. on that text 2. Jo. 10. Si quis venit ad vos & hanc doctrinam non affert nolite recipere cuns in domum, nec Ave ei dixeritis. Quam doctrinam? saith he, nisi Catholicam & universalem & unam eandemque per singulas aetatum successiones incorruptâ veritatis traditione manentem, & usque in saecula sine fine mansuram? And, c. 24. Prophanas vocum novitates devita, quas recipere atque sectari, nunquam Catholicorum, semper verò Haereticorum, fuit. And c. 32. he describes the Catholic Church thus, i.e. the Ecclesiastical Governors and Prelates thereof— Christi verò Ecclesia, sedula & cauta depositorum apud se dogmatum custos, nihil in iis unquam permutat, nihil minuit, nihil addit— Hoc unum studet, ut, quae jam expressa & enucleata, cons●lidet, firmet; siqua jam confirmata & definita, custodiat. Denique quid unquam aliud Concilisrum decretis enisa est, nisi ut, quid antea simpliciter credebatur, hoc idem postea diligentiùs crederetur?— quod prius a majoribus solâ traditione susceperat, hoc deinde posteris etiam per Scripturae chirographum consignaret. He saith c. 35. that the Heretics, ancient, modern, urged the testimony of Scripture— Propè nullam omitti paginam, quae non novi aut veteris Testamenti sententiis fucata & colorata sit. And c. 2.— Multum necesse esse, propter tantos tam varii erroris anfractus, ut Propheticae & Apostolicae interpretationis linea secundum Ecclesiastici & Catholici sensus normam dirigatur. [Where I ask; did the Father think this fallible?]. And c. 41. he saith— Duo quaedam vehementer studioseque observanda:— Primùm si quid esset antiquitùs ab omnibus Ecclesiae Catholicae sacerdotibus Vniversalis Concilii auctoritate decretum: Deinde siqua nova exurgeret quaestio, ubi id minimè reperiretur, recurrendum ad Sanctorum Patrum sententias— Et quicquid uno sensu atque consensu tenuisse invenirentur, id Ecclesiae verum & Catholicum absque ullo scrupulo judicaretur. c. 40. Descanting on 1. Cor. 12.28. He saith of the Church-governors— Hos ergo in Ecclesiâ Dei divinitùs per tempora & loca dispensatos quisquis in sensu Catholici dogmatis unum aliquid in Christo sentientes contempserit, non hominem contemnit, sed D●um: a quorum veridicâ unitate nequid discrepet, impensiùs obtestatur idem Apostolus, d●cens: Obsc●ro autem vos fratres ut idipsum dicatis omnes, & non sint in vobis schismata: sitis autem perfecti in eodem sensu, & in eadem senten●iâ [i.e. of these Church-Guides unum aliquid in Christ's sentientium] Quod si quis ab eorum sententiae communione desciverit audict illud ejusdem Apostoli: Non est Deus dissensionis, sed Pacis. And c. 4●. after he had made an instance in the 3d General Council, (but a little before this writing this Commonitorium), its settling the faith in the points then controverted, he joins to it in the last place the Authority of the See Apostolical— Nequid, saith he, deesse tantae plenitudini videretur, ad postremum adjecimus geminam Apostolicae Sedis auctoritatem: unam scilicet Sancti Papae Xysti qui nunc Romanam Ecclesiam venerandus illustrat: alteram praedecessoris sui beatae memoriae Papae Caelestini, quam hic quoque interponere necessariam judicavimus. Let the Reader by this judge now, whether Lerinensis hath said nothing for Church-Infallibility.  
Pag. 241. l. 3. Universality in any one age of the Church being taken without the consent of Antiquity, is no sufficient rule to interpret Scripture by. It is true, Universality departing from, or contrary to, Antiquity, is no sufficient Rule to interpret Scripture by. But Vincentius, as I have showed, holas the Universality of the Catholic Church in any age never to do so, especially in any Necessaries. And, if Arians in any time out-numbred Catholics (which they never did, taking in both East and West) yet still the whole Body of them was extra-Catholick, being formerly condemned of Heresy by a General Council: & 
‖ cap. 6. — Tunc quisquis verus Christi amator & cultor extitit, antiquam fidem novellae perfidiae praeferendo, nulla contagie istius pestis macul●tus est. Here then was in all Arian times a Catholic Body (suppose lesser) consentient with Antiquity, and safely to be relied on in its Decrees. But here, whenever this comes in question; Whether the present Universality dissents from Antiquity, whose judgement should be sooner taken, than its own; rather than that of those few who oppose it; for, both are Parties? and, if its own; when can we think, it will witness its departure from the former Faith?  
Ib. l. 15. In some cases the universal consent of the present Church is to be relied upon, etc. as in that of the Dona its Universal consent of present Churches in any age, so this be limited to Churches Catholic, contradistinct to Heretics or those condemned by former Councils, can never falsify former Church-Tradition. Quod ab omnibus, I mean in any one age understood of the Catholic Church, and in matters of faith, is always, quod semper too. All Heretics also at first are only a small number, and their innovation easily discerned. Therefore the universality of the present age was pleaded by S. Austin in his age against the Donatists, from Scriptures that prove the same as much in any age whatever: Nor is this present Church's consent with Antiquity mentioned in S. Augustine's arguing as if it were not to be credited without this consent also of Antiquity first proved by it; for, the one, as is said, in matter of faith always involves the other.  
Pag 242. l. 1. That the Church in any one or more ages since the Apostles times may be deceived. The Church, means he the universality of the Catholic Church? may be deceived, means he in points of necessary faith, or in the Tradition of them? This is denied.  
Ib. l. 1.5. But since the great divisions of the Christian world, it is both a very hard matter to know the consent, &c 1. The name of Catholic Church now is not (as he saith) that of one great faction; but contains in it now, as always, all Christian Churches that are united in obedience to all their lawful and Canonical Ecclesiastical Superiors, Persons, or Councils; i.e. all that are not Heretical or Schismatical. 2. The Notion also of Vuiversaluy is not (as he saith) now debauched and corrupted; but taken now, as anciently in the first 4. General Councils, for the much major part, to whom the rest ought to conform— Turpis omnis pars non consentiens toti. And, as it is also taken in Vincentius, whether applied to the present, or ancient, times; see c. 38.— Si quando unius vel paucorum errantium dissensio contra omnium vel certe multo plurium Catholicorum consensionem rebellaverit etc. And c. 4.— Quod si in ipsâ vetustate duorum vel trium hominum, vel certè Civitatis unius aut etiam Provinciae error deprehendatur, etc. For, there must be no Heretics; if, no dissenters. The universal consent of Christendom (Universality thus qualified) is easily known concerning most of the modern Controversies: suppose, Transubstantiation, Invocation of Saints, Veneration of Images, Prayer for the Dead, etc. And to them only the knowledge of this seems difficult, whom, it favours not.  
Ib. l. (2). There are some things wherein we may be certain of such a consent [viz. of Antiquity], and that was in the Rule of Faith. Vincentius restrains not that application of his Rule only to the Symbol or Rule of Faith formerly delivered in Baptism. So it would not extend to the Decrees of the Ephesine Council, which he instanceth in to have followed this Rule; and little use would there be of this Rule against Heretics, if extended no further: But enlargeth it to all the Faith wherein General Councils have or shall make any Decrees. And the evidence of Tradition may be equal in matters as of an unequal, so all of some, consequence.  
Pag. 243. l. 11. For saith he, this consent of Antiquity is not to be sought for in all questions. It may be sought for wherever it can be found: but in many Quaestinoul●e, as he calls them, it is not to be found.  
Pag. 244. l. 12. Let the Pope's Supremacy, the Roman [he should say, Catholic] Church's Infallibility, the doctrines of Transubstantiation, Purgatory, etc. be proved by as universal consent of Antiquity, as the Articles of the Creed are, and then let them charge us with Heresy if we reject them. 1st. The former Councils that have defined these points can also prove them by Antiquity, Universality, Consent, taken in such a latitude, as is necessary and sufficient. Consent, &c either in the Tradition of the thing defined, or of the Principles from which it is deduced. But here, it is not necessary that the same extent or latitude of Consent, &c should be showed for all points of faith: Not necessary, that there be no more Bishops found dissenting in the Council of Chalcedon, establishing Two Natures of our Lord, than were in the Council of Nice, establishing his Divinity. And, of the Ancient Creeds some points have had a more universal consent, than some others. 2. And next, this Query, when there is a sufficient universality of such Consent or such Tradition, I know not whose judgement the most of Christians, who are unlearned, can better trust and rely on, than that of the Supreme Guides of the present Church so informing them. 3ly That these Councils should first prove or evidence such an universal Attestation to every one before they can require a submission of their judgement to their definitions, as it is an unreasonable demand, so it is rejected by several learned Protestant Divines (when obedience hath been offered, by other Sects to the Canons and Articles of the Church of England upon these terms of proving them to them first) who think it enough if such submission be then released, when private men demonstrate the contrary. 4. Lastly, What judgement can illiterate persons make of what is thus proved, or not proved to them? And, if Obedience must pass only upon such proof to their subjects, these also judging when this rightly made, what confusion and licentiousness of Opinions and Practice must this introduce necessarily in such Churches as maintain it?  
Ib. l. 18. We say, the measure of Heresy in the ancient Church was the rejecting the Rule of faith universally received. And such it is still: all persons learning from General Councils, not only from the definitions of the ancient, but latter, Councils, what is this Rule universally received. And the same Plea our Author can make against any latter definitions of Councils in matters of faith, upon their not being expressed in the former Creeds, Arius, Nestorius, or Eutyches, might make as justly against those of the 4. first Councils not expressed in the former Creed or Rule of faith delivered at Baptism. Which first Rule only Vincentius therefore did not relate to, since he contends, this Rule is extended to the Deerees also of these Councils.  
Pag. 245. l. 14. And yet he [Petavius] confesseth, that most of the writers of the ancient Church did differ in their explication of the Doctrine of the Trinity from that which was only allowed by the Council of Nice, and he grants that Arius did follow the Opinion of many of the Ancients in the main of his Doctrine Petavius, after the words cited by this Author mulium a nobis diversa scripserunt, expounds this diversa to be only in modo loquendi. And the next words in him are— Paucissimi illi sunt [speaking of the ancient Writets before Nice] qui in re dissentiunt a communi fide: 
Dogm. Theel. l. 2.  & si sinceros purosque Catholicos quaerimus, omnino nulli. There, among those, qui in omnibus re consentientes, loquendi duntaxat modo dissident, he numbers Irenaeus, Clemens Arexandrinus, Gregory Neocaesariensis, Methodius, and others: and, of the other, qui substaatiam Dogmatis [of the Trinity] tenentes, in consectarius quibusdam non nihil a Regulâ deflectunt, he numbers only three, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, and Theophylus Antiochenus Praefat. c. 3. he saith also— Longè plures extiterunt, quibus aut scripto comprehensa, aut sine scripto praedicata, fidei verit as permanavit ad post●ros. All is represented here contrary: what trust may his Reader repose upon this Author's Citations? Or what great regard seems he to have of the Credit of the Fathers, or of the security of Tradition, (on which the Ancient Writers, cited before, lay so great weight for conviction of Heretics), even in the Delivering the Doctrine of the Trinity? Whilst he writes here on this manner to weaken both.— The usefulness of Tradition, I am told, is for explaining the sense of Scripture: But there gins a great Controversy in the Church about the explication of the Doctrine of the Trinity; I desire to know whether Vincentius his Rules will help us here? It is pleaded by S. Hierome and others, That the Writers of the Church might err in this matter, or speak unwarily in it before the matter came to be throughly discussed: if so, how comes the Testimony of erroneous or unwary Writers to be the certain means of giving the sense of Scripture? And in most of the Controversies of the Church this way hath been used to take off the testimony of persons, who writ before the Controversy began, and spoke differently of the matter in debate. I do not deny the truth of the allegation in behalf of those persons; but to my understanding it plainly shows the incompetency of Tradition for giving a certain sense of Scripture, when that Tradition is to be taken from the Writers of the foregoing Ages: and if this had been the only way of confuting Arius, it is a great Question how he could ever have been condemned, if Petavius or S. Hierom say true. Thus this Dr.  
Ib. l. (2.) It is pleaded by S. Hierome and others, that the Writers of the Church might err in this matter, or speak unwarily etc.  
The Writers: Our Author deals much in indefinite [i.e. doubtfu] terms. S. Jerome speaks only of those few Ancients quoted by Ruffinus: Of which Ancients too, Origen is cited by S. Athanasius 
† De Synod. Nicaen. Decret is.  for the orthodox opinion: and apologized for, that— Quae disputandi certandique gratiâ scripsit, ea non quasi ipsius sint verba, aut quasi ipse ita sentiat, sed corum, qui cum eo contentiosiùs disputarunt, accipienda sunt. And also, the most considerable of them, Dionysius Alexandrinus, is amply vindicated by him, writing a Treatise of it. And some of the rest possibly may be defended on the same account as Dionysius: who, then opposing Sabellianisme a contrary Heresy to Arianism, had occasion to speak in vindication of our Lord's Humanity; and might have their sense mistaken. But, however, the error of some may well consist with the Notion of Universality as taken by Vincentius; and, whilst some ancient Writers happen to be either unwary in their expression; or also faulty in their opinion, the certain sense of the Scriptures may be learned from others, more numerous; and not only from the Writers, which in the three first Ages were but few, but from the general Doctrine of the other Church-Prelates. And so it was learned by the Council of Nice; which pleaded the constant Tradition of the former times for the doctrine they defined. See Athanasius in his Epistle to the Africans for the very expressions used by the Council— Neque (saith he) hâc in parte sibi ista vocabula finxerunt, sed a Patribus, qui ante fuerunt, ea didicerunt, quemadmodum diximus; and a little before mentions Eusebius Nicomediensis the ringleader of the Arians confessing it. Again Ibid— Sufficit Nicaena, quae cum veteribus Episcopis consentit. And— Simo, post tot documenta, postque testimonia veterum Episcoporum etc. Again in his Tract. de Synod. Nic. Decretis— Est ibi (saith he), ut Patres tradiderunt, verae disciplinae & magisteri● urgumentum, ubi eadem confitentur, nec a se invicem, nec a majoribus dissentiunt.— Qui (saith he showing the constancy of Tradition) tametsi diversis temporibus vixerint, aequè tamen simul eodem tendunt, ut unius Dei prophetae, & ejusdem sermonis interprete. Quae enim Moses docuit, eadem ab Abrahamo observata sunt, quae porrò Abraham observavit eadem No & Enoch agnoverunt; urging Gal. 1.8. Si quis vobis evangelizaverit praeter hoc, quod accopistis, anathema sit. And afterward contends— Patres, qui Nic●ae convenerunt, non a se haec vocabula finxisse, sed ab aliis olim accepisse, quoting there several of the Ancients, and among the rest Origen and Dionysius Alexandrinus; concluding thus— Ecce nos demonstramus istiusmodi sententiam a Patribus ad Patres quasi per manus traditam esse. But lastly; in a Tradition any way less evident as to the universality thereof in former Writers, yet we are secure of these Supreme Church-Gover nours assembled their not defining an error in Faith necessary, both from the light they may have from Scriptures, always principally consulted by them as the chief of Traditions; and, where their learning and practice therein may discern that clear, which is obscure to others; and from our Lords promised assistance of them with his Holy Spirit; of which we have a most clear and evident Tradition. Meanwhile, is not Vincentius his Rule by this Author's discourse here made unserviceable in one of the chief points, wherein Vincentius against the Heretics relied on the evidence of former Tradition? i.e. in the Divinity of our Lord? And is not the Dr, for strengthening the Protestant cause, in some manner become an Advocate for the Arian? Let the Reader review it.  
Pag, 246. l. 17. And, if this [The Tradition of foregoing ages] had been the only way of confuting Arius, it is a great question how he could ever have been condemned, if Petavius or S. Hierome say true. I think the Reader hath seen what little countenance our Author hath had from these two; whilst he would here insinuate to his Reader, that the former written Church Tradition was either on Arius his side, or not against him. What stone will not a contrary interest turn, to unfix or dishonour our Holy Mother the Church?  
Pag. 247. l. 5. And in this regard we acknowledge a great reverence due to the decrees of such General Councils as that was. Acknowledge a great Reverence due, But Quaere, Whether yield assent and Submission of Judgement to all, that all such lawful General Councils do, or shall, define? And, if so, upon what account can this be, save on the evidence that Scripture and Tradition yields of their perpetual assistance from our Lord in necessaries not to mistake either the sense of Scripture or truth of Tradition so, as to convey a wrong one to posterity. If we do not reverence them on this manner, and that our obedience be yielded only to what they shall first prove to us, the Arian, where he thinks nothing proved to him (for, of this he is to judge), is as innocent in dissenting, as we in assenting.  
Ib. l. (9) Vincentius Lerinensis his words— What either all the Fathers or many of them manifestly frequently and constantly, as it were by a Council of them, have confirmed by their receiving, holding, and delivering of it, that aught to be held for undoubted, certain and firm. Undoubted, c●rtain and firm: Upon what account? Surely, on the Infallibility of something, whatever it is 〈◊〉 and this not of Scripture, the sense of which is here contested.  
Pag. 248. l. (7). He saith, we have no way to deal with them but either only by Scripture, or else by plain Decrees of General Councils. By these decrees than Vincentius, at last, hath left us to discern Heresies: I would this Author would do so too.  
Pag. 249. l. 7. And very far from the least supposition of Infallibility. Not so surely; if our Author remember Vincentius his former words affirming such Infallibility to be in General Councils, as that what is delivered by them aught to be held for undoubted, certain, and firm. And we require no more.  
Ib. l. (2). If ancient General Councils have determined it, which had greater opportunities of knowing the sense of the Apostolical Church than we, it is reasonable, we should yield to the Which had greater opportunities of knowing the sense, etc. But, what if latter General Councils of latter ages have determined any thing, should we not yield to them also? for, these times also are nearer to the Apostles than the present? And if eight hundred or a thousand years be thought by him too great a distance for deciding such matters, why may not an Eutychian think so of four hundred It is reasonable we should yield to them. He saith not, what; Means he, yield our Assent? No more is desired, but that this be yielded to all lawful General Councils in what age soever; which Councils may be in any age necessary, and in any age are of an equal authority, and equally Judges of the sense of Scripture and former Tradition. The Council of Nice was submitted to by the Christians of that age, though a Council held in their own times. He goes on.  
Pag. 250. l. 3. But if there have been none such, than the unanimous consent of Fathers is to be taken. Page 197. the enquiry was about the means used by the Ancients of attaining the certain sense of Scripture in doubtful places without the supposition of an Infallible Guide; the resolution here is; that where, after examining and comparing places of Scripture, the dispute still remains concerning the certain sense thereof, that we are to acquiesce in the Decree, of a lawful General Council, if any such have been concerning it; or, if not, in the unanimous Consent of Fathers. I ask; and are not those recommended by these Ancients as Certain and Infallible in such matter that is Decreed or Consented in: suppose in the matter of our Lord's Divinity, wherein the sense of Scripture was disputed by the Arians and Anti-Arians? But then, concerning this unanimous Consent of the Fathers, since the illiterate cannot examine this, whom are they to rely on, but on the Consent of the present Church?  
Ib. l. 13. If all these means were sufficient then the●● is no necessity of infallibility in the Guides of the Church. One Exception is here to be put in, Viz. Unless. N. O. will call the Testimony of General Councils delivering a certain sense of Scripture, or the unanimous Consent of Catholic Churches (which the Ancient Authors, this Author hath quoted, do maintain to be firm, certain, and free from doubt) an Infallibility in the Guides of the Church; as he doth. So that it seems to follow just contrary to our Author. If these Means are prescribed by the Fathers, than there is a necessity of an Infallibility in the Church-Guides. Annotations on §. 14. S. Augustine's Testimony examined.   

Annotations on §. 14. S. Augustine's Testimony examined.  
PAg. 250. l. (11). Infallibility in delivering the sense of Scripture in obscure places. Add, In points necessary.  
Pag. 251. l. (12. S. Austin doth not suppose that man cannot attain to any certainty of the sense of Scripture in this matter [concerning Rebaptization] without the Church's Infallibility; for he saith in the Chapter preceding, that in this matter we follow the most certain Authority of Canonical Scriptures. But S. Austin 
‖ Cont. Crescon. l. 1. c. 32.  declares his meaning in the next words to be only this. Viz.— Quia hoc per universam Catholicam observari placuit, quod tenemus: which N. 1 he proceeds to explain further in the words following, cited by N. O.— Quam vis hujus rei [i.e. concerning Non-Rebaptization] certè de Scriptures Canonicis non proferatur exemplum, earundem tamen Scripturarum etiam in hâc re à nobis tenetur veritas, cùm hoc facimus quod universae jam placuit Ecclesiae, quam ipsarum Scripturarum commendat authorit as: ut quoniam Sancta Scriptura fallere non potest quisquis falli metuit hujus obscuritate quaestionis [not cleared in Scriptures] eandem Ecclesiam de illâ consulat. And, what the Father saith here of our retaining the verity and authority of Scriptures in our obeying the Decrees and Resolutions of the Church, to which Church we are referred by them; the same saith he elsewhere 
‖ De Vnita. Eccles. c. 22.  concerning our obeying the authority and verity of Christ, when Christ also refers us to the guidance of his Church; in these words— Dicat mihi nunc haereticus: Quomodo n●e●suscipis? Citè respondeo: sicut suscipit Ecclesia, cui Christus perhibet testimonium. Nunquid tu meliùs potes nosse quomodo suscipiendus sis, quàm Salvator noster medicus vulneris tui? Hic fortè dicis: Lege ergo mihi, quem●d ●odum Christus suscipi jusserit eos, qui ab haereticis transire ad Ecclesiam vo●unt. Hoc apertè atque evidenter, nec ego lego, nec tu [i.e. in the Scriptures]. [Here, we see, is neither example, nor any other plain direction in the Scripture, or from our Lord himself concerning this matter. He goes on].— Nunc verò cùm in Scriptures non inveni amus aliquos ad ecclesiam transisso ab haereticis, & sicut ego dico, aut sicut tu dicis, esse susceptos, puto si aliquis sapiens extitisset, cui Dominus Jesus Christus testimonium perhibet, & de hâc quaestione consuleretur à nobis, nullo modo dubitare deberemus id facere quod ille dixisset; ne non tam ipsi, qùam Domino Jesus Christo, cujus testimonio commend ibatur, repugnare judicaremur. Perhibet autem testimonium Christus Ecclesia suae.— Quomodo ergo suscipit ista Ecclesia peromnes gentes incipientibus ab Jerusalem, remotis omnibus ambagibus & tergiversationibus, sic suscipiendus es. Quod si non vis, non mihi, aut cuiquam hominum, qui vult ita suscipere, sed ipsi Salvatori contra salutem tuam perniciosissimè reluctaris; cui te sic suscipiendum esse non vic credere, quemadmodum suscipit illa Ecclesia, quam testimonio suo commendat ille, cui fateris nefarium esse non eredere. Here this Father plainly saith, in believing and doing as the Church commands and directs us, we believe and do that which our Lord and the Scriptures command us; which Lord and Scriptures have commended and given a Testimony to us of his Church.  
N. 2 Which recommendation and Testimony let it be meant as the Dr will have it, namely of the showing and pointing ou●, which, of several pretending to be it, is this Catholic Church: for, indeed this thing only needed a proof to the Donatists, who allowed the same Infallibility in this Catholic Church as S. Austin, and so an Infallibility in themselves, conceiving themselves only to be this Catholic Church, and that which our Lord and the Scriptures so recommended. Yet this Church, thus demonstrated which it is, it is manifest S. Austin in the former passages affirms that in all things we are to follow, and believe to be truth, that which it tells us is so, as if Christ, or the Scriptures, that recommended this Church to us, had told us so. Otherwise if this Church, so demonstrated by our Lord and Scripture, be fallible, after its Resolution we may still be deceived in our Question about Rebaptisation, [whereas the Father saith— Quisquis falli metuit etc. Ecclesiam consulat: and,— Scripturarum a nobis tenetur veritas, cùm hoc facimus quod universaeplacuit Ecclesiae], And so, after such Resolution, we may disbelieve the Church, without disbelieving our Lord. Nor can S Austin justly say, as he doth, to a Donatist refusing to receive Heretics so as the Church doth without Rebaptization— Nunquid Tu meliùs potes nosse quomodo suscipiendus sis, qùàm Saltor noster? And here it would be a great mistake to rely on the Church for that which it delivers to us as a truth upon our Lord's recommending it, which Church our Lord recommends not for this, but some other thing consistent with that, which it delivers, its being an error.  
N. 3 But, to put this further out of doubt. If S. Austin did n●t suppose our Lord and the Scriptures to recommend this Church in such doubtful cases, as, in its Resolutions of them, Infallible, how comes this Father to require Assent and belief of what this Church defines, and doing of what she commands? How makes he all Heretics, that dissent from her Definitions? even those Donatists to be Heretics, after the Church's Decree, for holding Rebaptisation, who were not so, before it? Now, Haeresis, quae in vitio est, as he saith, 
‖ De Haeresibus.  sine errore aliquo Haeresis esse non potest. But, if General Councils might err in such points, something thus might be Heresy in opposing them, that were no error. If he held not Non- rebaptisation defined by the Church as a most certain truth, how came it to be put in the Creed? May something be a part of the Christian Faith, that is not truth? S. Austin every where expresseth his belief touching the not erring of General Councils otherwise. See concerning Non-rebaptization De Baptismo 2. l. 4. c. where he questions not S. Cyprian's yielding to the consenting authority of the universal Church on this account— Si jam illo tempore quaestionis hujus veritas eliquatae & declarata per plenarium Concilium solidaretur; Therefore S. Austin held it was so consolidated afterward. So he saith of him Ib. c. 8.— , quod postea plenario Concilio visum est id verum esse perspiceret & doceret. But how this his discerning it and teaching it for truth, if this Council might err in their definition of it? He might indeed have expected S. Cyprian's conserving the Church's peace, but not conforming to its opinion. He calls the Council's Decree verum & liquidum: eliquatum & sincerum. And 2. l. 1. c. he calls it after defined regula veritatis, quam tota ecclesia tenuit. L. 1. c. 18. he saith— Restat ut hoc credamus, quod universa ecclesia custodit. And— Quod in hâc re sentiendum est, plenioris Concilii sententiâ totius Ecclesiae consensio confirmat. Lib. de Haeresibus he saith of the Donatists— Audent etiam rebaptizare Catholicos; ubi se ampliùs Haereticos esse firmarunt, cum ecclesiae Catholicae universae placuerit nec in ipsis Haereticis Baptisma communc rescindere. And Ibid. he saith that— Sufficit Ecclesiam contra aliquid sentire, ut illud non recipiamus in fidem: Why so, if something in matters of Faith, contrary to what the Church believes, may be Truth? And, if the Father saith thus of this Church, cui testimonium perhibet Christus & Scriptura, it's not erring in Quaestione obscurissimâ as he calls it, and having no clear evidence of Scripture; what would he do, in its defining any other points wherein the Scriptures afford the same Church more light?  
N. 4 To this Church, he applies that Text 1. Tim. 3.15, 16.—  scias quomodo oporteat te in domo Dei conversari, quae est Ecclesia Dei vivi, columna & firmamentum veritatis. 
‖ De Vnit. Eccles. c. 2.  And Magnum est pietatis sacramentum— praedicatum est in gentibus, creditum est in mundo. And 
† De Verbis▪ Apostoli, Serm. 14.  speaking against the Pelagians concerning another point already defined by the Church— Ecclesiae sanctae (saith he), pro remissione peccati Orginalis parvulorum quotidiè laboranti, non contradicant. Fundata ista res est [i.e. the benefit of Baptism to Infants]. Ferendus est disputator errans in alt is quaestionibus, non diligenter digestis, nondum plenâ Ecclesiae authoritate firmatis; ibi ferendus est error: non tantum progredi debet, ut etiam fundamentum ipsum Ecclesiae quatere moliatur. So saith he Contra Parmenian. l. 2. c. 13.— De iis, qui ab Ecclesiae unitate separati sunt nulla jam quaestio est, quin & habeant [verum Baptismum] & dare possint. Hoc enim in ipso totius orbis unitate discussum, consideratum, perfectum atque firmatum est. And to this might be added all those Testimonies out of him, wherein he saith, that there can never be any just cause of separating from the Communion of the Catholic Church; from which I conceive it follows, that she can never commit such an error in her Decrees, that, to avoid the subscription thereof exacted by her, any shall be justly necessitated to leave her external Communion.  
N. 5 Concerning the same Church's Authority he saith in his Book De Vtilitate Credendi c. 16.— Homini non valenti verum intueri— Authoritas ab ipso Deo constituta praesto est— quo velut gradu certo innitentes attollamur ad Deum. And c. 17.— Quid est aliud ingratum esse opi auxilicque Divino quam praedictae authoritati velle resistere? In respect of which Authority he saith that— In Catholica Ecclesia there is sincerissima sapientia, which also he defines adhaesio veri●ati. And— Turbam non intelligendi vivacitas, sed credendi simplicitas tutissimam facit. Ibid. he saith, he believes the Gospel from this Authority of the Catholic Church— Quâ [authoritate Catholicorum] infirmatâ, 
Contra Epist. Manich. c. 4.  jam nec Evangelio credere potero quia per eos illi credideram. Of which see more in his 11. l. Cont. Faustum, c. 2. etc.  
N. 6 And the Motives, he saith, that induced him to credit and follow such Authority, are such as these (urged by N. O. 
‖ p. 87. ) Ibid. Besides the Wisdom he observed in the Church— Tenet me (saith he) consensio populorum atque gentium; tenet authoritas miraculis incho●ta, spe nutrita, charitate aucta, vetustate firmata: tenet ab ipsà Sede Petri Apostoli, cui pascendas oves suas post Resurrectionem D●minus commendavit, usque ad praesentem Episcopatum successio Sacerdo●um etc. [Where we may observe him, as also Irenaus, Ter●ullian, and Cyprian, giving a special Principality, amongst other Churches, to that of Rome; for which likewise he citys that Text Jo. 21.15. of our Lord's giving a special charge to S. Peter of feeding his Sheep (which special Commission of our Lord to Peter also S. Paul seems to relate-to Gal. 2.8. where he saith the Apostleship of the Circumcision was given [not to all the Apostles,] but to Peter): and so this Father, in his 162. Epistle against the Donatists, naming this See amongst others with whom Caecilianus was joined in communion, he saith— In quâ [Ecclesiâ Romanâ] semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit Principatus]. Again in his Book De Vtilit. Credendi speaking of the same Church Authority— Hâc autem (saith he) sepositâ ratione dupliciter nos movet partim miraculis, partim sequentium multitudine. And— Hoc ergo credidi famae celebritate, 
c. 14.  consensione vetustate roboratae. And— Quae ab ipso Christo per Apostolos ad nos usque manavit, & abhinc ad posteros manatura est. 
c. 17.  And yet more fully— Dubitamus nos ejus ecclesiae condere gremio, quae, usque ad confessionem generis humani, ab Apostolica Sede per successiones Episcoporum, frustra haereticis circumlatrantibus, & partim plebis ipsius judicio, partim Conciliorum gravitate, partim etiam miraculorum majestate [i. e by Miracles done in this Church after the Apostles times; of several of which S. Austin himself was an eye-witness, and also of some an Instrume] damnatis, culmen authoritatis obtinuit. Whereas he observes of the Donatists 
‖ Epist. 48.  That in their discovery of which is the true Church they declined Universality, and appealed, as Protestants do, to the Marks of its true observance of the Divine Precepts, and right administration of the Sacraments; marks, according to their different persuasions, some men find in one Church, some in another— Vos estis saith he, qui non ex tetius orbis communione, sed ex observatione praeceptorum omnium divinorum, atque omnium Sacramentorum, tenetis Catholicam fidem. And— Acutum aliquid videris dicere, dum Catholicae nomen non ex totius orbis communione interpretaris, sed ex observatione praeceptorum omnium divinorum etc. And I have thus copiously cited him, the more fully to satisfy the candid Reader in this matter of the greatest consequence; and that the places in him, that seem more clear, may prevent the mistaking glosses that may be made on some other. This of S. Augustine's being no stranger to the Church's Sovereign Authority, and Infallibility in her Definitions, and that the obeying Her was the obeying the command of our Lord, and conforming to the verity of Scripture; and the knowing of her easy by the forementioned marks.  
Pag. 252. l. 14. S. Austin was willing to bring it to that issue, that what the Catholic Church, after so much discussing the point, had agreed upon should be received as the truth. As a Truth; So may that, which indeed is an error. But S. Austin every where contends, as was but now showed, that it must be a most certain truth which a General Conncil of the Catholic Church agreed in, and determined so; and in this had the Donatists no way contradicting him. So Cont. Crescon. l. 1. c. 28. He saith to the Donatist— Vnam fidem esse— Vnam incorruptam [i.e. not errin] & Catholicam ecclesiam, Haec inter nos conveniunt. And De Vnit. Eccl. c. 24.— Doce, huic Communioni tuae— apertum aliquod & manifestum testimonium a Scriptures Canonicis perhiberi; & fateor ad te esse transeundum; nec aliter esse suscipiendos Haereticos quàm sicut suscipit Ecclesia in quâ es, quia tali testimonio [Scripturarum] declarata est: [i.e. to be the true Church; and consequently, that Truth to be maintained in it, which all are to follow. This then, whether the Catholic Church always defines a certain Truth, was no Question between them; but, Whether theirs, or his were this Church Catholic; (which Catholic Church these Churches being divided in Communion, was but one of them). This therefore the Father endeavoured to prove to the Donatist. And, if it be not a certain truth that such Councils determine, for any thing I know, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also (for, Scriptures concerning it are still eagerly disputed on both sides; and this point of Non rebaptisation found in the Creed as well as it), may be brought in time only to be received as a truth, but not certainly concluded a Truth. And all this for avoiding Church-Infallibility, and maintaining an ill-grounded Principle. Which Church- Infallibility once cashiered, what would become of the Christian Faith, in so many Sects daily rising up, and after a new mode still interpreting the Scriptures?  
Ibid. l. (9 S. Austin doth not hereby intent to make the Church's Authority to resolve all doubts concerning Scriptures.  
No: but to resolve all doubts in matters necessary.  
Pag. 253. l. 11. For neither (saith S. Austin 
‖ De Vnita. Eccles. c. 11. ) are we to yield to Catholic Bishops themselves, if they be at any time so much deceived as to hold what is contrary to Canonical Scriptures. This is most certain. Certain, I say, though understood of a General Council of these Catholic Bishops, upon the supposition that these should hold what is contrary to Canonical Scriptures; but S. Austin is far from supposing (here, or in any other place) that these may hold so; especially— In manifestissimâ Voce Pastoris, & in voce ejus clarâ & apertâ; in a matter wherein the Scriptures are very clear of which he there speaks. Or, if these General Councils should interpret any such Scriptures in a contrary sense to S. Austin, he is far from calling his sense, vox aperta against them; or, from not believing theirs, and not his, to be the true sense of this Voice of the Pastor; Concerning whom united in such a Body he saith 
‖ lib. de Haeres. — Sufficit Ecclesiam contra aliquid sentire, ut illud non recipiamus in fidem. But the Father evidently speaks of some Catholic Bishops, holding something contrary to Scripture, but also to the other Bishops, as appears by the words following— Sed qui custodito Vnitatis & Charitatis Vinculo [i.e. with the rest from whom they differ in opinion] in hoc incidunt, etc. Nor have we any so sure Judge when some Catholic Bishops do so, as this whole Body of them dissenting. He proceeds.  
Ib. l. 14. By which it is evident that he supposed no Infallibility in the Guides of the Church. i.e. single, or a few, contradicted by the more, and superior.  
Ib. l. 16. And in terms he asserts 
‖ De Vnita. Eccles. c. 19 , that the Church is to be proved by nothing but plain Scriptures, neither by the authority of Optatus, or S. Ambrose, or innumcrable Bishops, nor Councils, nor Miracles. Intermes he asserts? No. These are not S. Augustine's words truly translated or quoted. After S. Austin Ib. c. 18. had thus spoken to the Donatist— Remotis omnibus talibus, Ecclesiam suam demonstrent, si possunt; non in sermonibus & rum●ribus Afrorum, non in Conciliis Episcoporum suorum, non in literis quorumlibet disputatorum, non in signis & prodigiis fallacibus, etc. sed in praescripto Legis etc. And again ‖ Ecclesiam in Scriptures Canonicis debemus agnoscere, non in vanis hominum rumoribus & opinionibus, & factis & dictis & visis inquirere [things the Donatists pleaded against him] I say, After this he proceeds in these words which are translated by the Dr— Sed utrum ipsi Ecclesiam teneant, non nisi de divinarum Scripturarum canonicis libris ostendant: quia nec nos propterea dicimus nobis credi oportere, quòd in Ecclesiâ Christi sumus; quia ipsam, quam tenemus, commendavit Milevitanus Optatus, vel Mediolanensis Ambrose, vel alii innumerabiles nostrae communionis Episcopi, aut quia nostrorum collegarum Conciliis ipsa praedicata est, aut quia per totum in locis sanctis, quae frequentat nostra communio, tanta mirabilia vel exauditionum vel sanitatum fiunt etc. Where S. Austin saith not, that the Church can be proved by nothing, but plain Scripture: Or denies, that General Councils, or true Miracles, or Universal Tradition are no sufficient proof thereof; Of which General Councils he speaks nothing here, but of those of the two Parties, Concilia Episcoporum suorum on one side, and Concilia nostrorum Cellegarum on the other: And we may see in the quotations before Note on p. 251. l. (12. S. Austin knowing the Scriptures from the Church; and the Church from other marks; amongst which true Miracles surely are the highest proof of any Truth, and so were of the Apostles their being Gods true Church and Ministers: But the Father, to the Donatists allowing with him the Scriptures, urgeth the Church as demonstrable by their clear testimony; not as the only testimony, but the chief, and such as more than this needed not: and exacts of them, that he waving these other proofs on his side, wherein he had much the advantage of them by his innumerabiles Episcopi (which surely ought to carry it against theirs) and vera Miracula; so they would the urging of their Councils far inferior, and their Miracles, fallacious, on their side; and bring, in their defence, Anti-Scriptures to his Scriptures. In these things I refer myself to the candid Examiner of the place.  
Ib. l. (6.) He endeavours to bring them to a resolution in the other point [the Church] for the clearing of this [non-Rebaptization]. But, how doth proving such a Society as defines Non-rebaptization to be the true Church clear Non-rebaptization to be the right practice (which S. Austin infers from it) if this Church, proved, yet may err in defining it so?  
Pag. 255. l. (10). 
‖ S. Austin de Baptisn● l. 2. c. 3.  And of these General Councils the former are often an●●nded by the latter. As this place is often urged by Protestants; so it is answered to by Catholics; that, taking the Father's words plenaria Concilia or General Councils as relating to the words immediately preceding quae fiunt ex universo orbe Christiano (which is not necessary), N. 1 such General Councils may correct and amend one another, the latter the former, as to several things; though, never, as to Dogmata Fidei. For, as Cardinal Bellarmine 
‖ De Concil. l. 2. c. 12. — In Conciliis maxima pars actorum ad fidem non pertinet— sed tantùm ipsa nuda decreta; & ea non omnia, sed tantùm quae proponuntur tanquam de fide. Interdum enim Concilia aliquid definiunt non ut certum, sed ut probabile. He grants Ibid. that— Concilia in judiciis particularibus, i.e. ubi non affirmatur aliquid generale & toti ecclesiae common, errare possunt. So he grants (2. l. 7. c.)— Quad aliqua praecepta morum, Concilia plenaria priora emendari per posteriora, upon S. Austin's reason, quando experimento aliquo aperitur quod clausum erat etc. If S. Augustine's words mean this, so Catholics grant it.  
N. 2 But 2ly. If S. Augustine's words must be understood of such plenary and absolutely General Councils, without any remitting of the highest sense of the word, (whenas indeed these words Vniversale, Generale, Plenarium, were applied to Councils of a smaller Collection of Bishops, when this from several partsses and, a little after this quotation, the Father saith concerning Rebapization, that— Diutiùs, per orbis terrarum regiones, multis hinc atque hinc disputationibuus & collationibus Episcoporum, pertractata est. And several Synods were for it held in the East, as well as in Africa 
‖ See Euseb. l. 7. c. 4. ); thus what the Father saith here will make nothing for him as to his present Controversy with the Donatist about Rebaptisation: Nay, more against him. For, there were no two such Councils, that were both General whereof the latter had amended the former concerning Rebaptisation at all: and, had there, the same uncertainty of truth would have been in the decree of the latter, as of the former: and in this case the Donatist would not have failed to have taken the advantage of the Former General Councils.  
N. 3 But 3ly. applying S. Augustine's words [Ipsa plenaria sapè priora posterioribus emendari] as in reason we ought, to the times preceding his; as also considering those other words he adds, sine ullo typho sacrilegae superbiae, etc. he seems to speak 
‖ See contra Maximinum, l. 3. c. 14.  of the plenary but illegal Arian Councils, that were not plenary in the largest comprehension, amended by the 2d General Council of Constantinople and that at Sardica; For, as is said, if we understand saepè here of legal plenary Councils, we find none at all before his times, either as to Rebaptisation, or any other points of faith, amending one another. These things, then, being left to the Reader's consideration; which may best fit the place: I add,  
N. 4 4. last; That, whatever the sense be, this place can never be understood of Lawful General Councils amending one another, as to any matters of necessary faith; that such Councils, when defining any thing to be by all Christians believed and assented to, when declaring Heretics all that descent, and perhaps inserting such their Definitions into the Creed, yet may be amended after this by latter. For, this would overthrow the old foundations of the Nicene and Athanasian Creed; and whatever could be shown of one such Council thus erring, Heretics at their pleasure would apply to any other. This also would overthrow particularly S. Austin's— Veritas eliquaata & declarata: And— plenarium Concilium confirmavit & consolidavit for Non-rebaptization (the chief, if not the only, argument he useth for convincing the Donatists); whilst they might here plead, this was still latens and clausum, till more experience in a latter Council should open and disclose it: and so must all before cited out of S. Austin be also reversed; and all the former Heresies revive again, which, pretending Scriptures for their Tenants, have been quelled by the judgement of such Councils.  
Pag. 256. l. 4. Would he assert, that all Councils how General soever may be amended by following Councils, and yet bind men to believe that the decrees of the former Councils do contain the unalterable will of God? i.e. Supposing S. Austin here to speak of absolutely General and Legal Conncils, would he assert, that in some things, as in matters of fact, a Council may possibly err and so may be amended by others following, which Council in some other things, its Definitions of faith, delivers the unalterable will of God, & cannot be amended? Yes. This may well be. But I conceive this Father not to speak here of absolutely General and legal Councils, their being amended by others. The Council of Nice preceded the Arian Councils which pretended to amend it, Did not S. Austin bind men to believe the Decree of Nice, which Decree he saith 
‖ Contra Maximin. l. 3. c. 13. — In Concilio Nicaeno adversus Haereticos Arianos a Catholicis Patribus veritatis authoritate & authoritatis veritate firmatum est. How is that so confirmed, that is still liable to amendment? Or, if all decrees are not, how know we when they are so? Or are those Decrees, that are so liable, universally to be believed, Dissenters anathematised, the Creeds enlarged with them, till such time as they be amended?  
Ib. l. 11. Which words of his cannot be understood of unlawful Councils, of matters of fact or practice, but do refer to the great Question then in debate about rebaptising Heretics. If S. Augustine's words touching former General Councils erring and being amended by latter do reser, as our Author here saith, to the point of Rebaptisation, the Father hath destroyed his great Argument of the Donatists their certainly erring in it, because a General Council had defined the contrary to it; the Decree of which Council might err and be repealed by another. And this, after that his former words, namely that Provincial Councils are to yield without dispute to those which are General, (if he had stopped there), had clearly confuted them. 2ly. S. Augustine's words also, as applied to this point, would be false: for never was any former General Council concerning this point of Rebaptisation corrected by a latter; the first decreeing for it, the latter against it.  
Ib. l. (11) He [S. Austin] grants, that the arguments drawn from the Church's authority are but humane. Humane authority (saith Archbishop Lawd 
‖ p. 124. ) may be infallible enough, and an argument drawn from it, convincing: Especially from that of General Councils, which are divinely assisted not to err in necessaries. But this Authority meanwhile is no hindrance that S. Austin may not also urge with, and rather than, it (but he never doth as contrary to it) the Divine Authority in Scriptures, where he thinks them to all Rational men clear and manifest.  
Pag. 257. l. 6. And elsewhere he appeals not to the judgement of men, but to the Lords balance. None of these instances imply any comparison or opposition made by S. Austin between the Scriptures and the judgement of a General Council, as if these Scriptures might be clear, where the Judgement of the Council contrary; but imply, that these Scriptures, where clear, may be disceded from by some private, though learned, men's judgements; and, in any such case, are doubtless to be preferred before them. But whither tend these quotations? To the liberty of private men to judge of the definitions of General Councils? That is, of Donatists to judge of that of Nice made against them in Rebaptization? This destroys S. Augustine's whole design which was to have them to acquiesce in the Decree of a General Council.  
Ib. l. (12). The utmost by a careful consideration of his mind in this matter that I can find, is; that in a question of so doubtful and obscure a nature as that was, which had been so long bandied in the Churches of Africa, and from thence spread over all the Churches of the Christian world, it was a reasonable thing to presume that what the whole Christian world did consent in was the truth, not upon the account of an infallibility, but the reasonable supposition, that all the Churches of the Christian world would not consent in a thing repugnant to any Apostolical doctrine or tradition. Here our Author saith, that in a Question of so doubtful & obscure a nature, and that had been first so much discussed, it is a reasonable thing to presume, & a reasonable supposition [not than a certain Position], that all the Churches in the world will not consent in a thing repugnant to any Apostolical Doctrine, or Tradition: & so Non-rebaptization [put in the Creed] may be a presumed Truth; and the Donatist's a presumed Heresy: Where, I think he will not say, we do presume things that we are certain of. Is then S. Austin's— In hac re tenetur à nobis veritas Scripturarum— and— Christus perhibet testimonium Ecclesiae suae &— Columna & firmamentum veritatis, And— veritas eliquata & consolidata— come to this? a reasonable supposition, and a fair presumption of Truth? But yet, will He stand to this? that whatever the Church in her General Councils shall consent to, it is a reasonable supposition, that she consents to nothing repugnant to any Apostolical Doctrine or Tradition? and that such may be presumed a Truth? If so: will not this infer a duty of Assent also to all her Decrees at least as presumed truths? And, if in a Question of so doubtful and obscure a nature as Rebaptization is, our Author allows this presumption on the Church's side, ought he not much more in a clearer?  
Pag. 258. l. ult S. Augustine's words.— The custom of the Church having been confirmed by a General Council, etc. It may now 〈…〉 now said, that we follow, what Truth hath declared. Doth not S. Austin here, from Non-Rebaptization being confirmed by a General Council, which examined Custom and Scriptures, declare himself secure of this truth not to be amended by latter Councils?  
Pag. 259. l. 13. That in a matter of so doubtful and obscure a nature, etc. we are to believe that to be the truth which the Church of Christ agreed in, etc. And afterward he faith— In such a case as this [and so he saith before, 
‖ p. 257.  in a question so doubtful] he agrees to what S. Austin saith; and thinks a man very much relieved by following so evident a consent of the Universal Church, [but the not so relieved S. Austin declares Heretics] not by virtue of any Infallibility, but the unreasonableness of believing, that so many so wise so disinteressed persons should be deceived. That in a matter of so doubtful and obscure a Nature. What means this limitation? Are we to believe that to be truth which Councils determine in matters obscure (I suppose he means, generally obscure); but not so in matters more clear? One would think the contrary rather. But, who is to judge, when the Question or matter is obscure; since on this depends our assent to the Council? The Donatist, for example, in this matter of Rebaptisation? But, he will say, This matter is clear enough on his side. And so this Author promising as to present Controversies the same submission, in case of obscurity, to a General Council, this case, here, of obscurity will not be found; because these points, they say, are clear on their side; and they offer demonstration of them. But, if Protestants will affirm, that we are to believe that to be the truth which General Councils resolve, without limiting it to certain cases; because it is, as he saith, unreasonable to believe, so many so wise so disinteressed persons should be deceived, and then grant, that consequently in necessaries these Councils must not err; (for, so we should be obliged to believe in necessaries something wrong and false), this would be as much as we desire.  
Ib. l. (3). Let the same evidences be produced for the consent of the Universal Church from the Apostolical times in the matters in dispute between our Church and that of Rome; and the controversy of Infallibility may be laid aside. What was the Consent of the universal Church from the Apostolical times, was the Question between S. Austin and the Donatists. For, the Donatists also pleaded a contrary Tradition against the Catholics. See Firmilian Ep. 75. ●pud Cyprian— Caeterùm nos veritati & consuetudinem jungimus, etc. as also the same Consent is controverted now concerning Now, for a sufficient and certain decision of the truth in this Question, viz. what the former Tradition was, or what was our Lords will in this matter, S. Austin urgeth the consent of the present Church met in a General Council and there discussing the matter. Where S. Austin doth not require the Donatists' submission to the Consent of the universal Church from the Apostolical times first proved to them (i.e. they confessing it so; for, this, if proved to them, Donatists did not, nor could not decline (as now neither doth the Dr.— Let the Pope's Supremacy &c be proved by an universal consent of Antiquity etc. p. 244. and here— Let the same evidence be produced for the consent of the universal Church from the Apostolical times etc. that is, as I understand him, Let such a consent be evidenced to us): But S. Austin requires their submission and belief to the latter General Council (of Nice or Arles, or both, it matters not), declaring what was the former Apostolical Tradition. Which, if the Infallibility of this Council needs not be stood on as to the Donatist's obedience, yet it is, in the Council's determination of any necessaries, as to Christians believing in such necessaries a Truth (of which necessaries also this Council, not their Subjects, is to judge): And the Father's words would have weighed little with these Africans, persuading them to obey the Councils Sentence, though an error, Therefore he fortifies the Councils Decree with the former expressions— Christus perhibet testimonium; And In hâc re tenetur Scripturarum veritas.  
Pag. 260. l. 9 Let them never think to fob us off with the consent of some latter ages for a tradition from Apostolical times. But He ought to admit and submit to any universal consent of the Apostolical Churches of any latter age concerning what is the Tradition from Apostolical times; as S. Austin admitted it; and declared the Donatists' Heretics for not admitting it. He goes on.  
Ib. l. 10. Nor of a packed company of Bishops for a truly General Council. He hath reason. But surely there will need no packing of Bishops for their voting such a matter in Council, which all the Bishops of the Christian world, (or, if it be but the much major part of them) have abetted, and maintained, taught and practised, before such Council. And so it was in the Councils held before Luther's appearance, and also afterward in that of Trent, that for the greatest part of the Western Bishops, who could only be convened in it, (but the same may be said as truly of the Eastern too), were, in most of the controversies there decided against the Protestants, so persuaded in their judgement before their meeting in that Council, as they, or others afterward, voted in it.   

Annotations on his §. 15. Of Church-Authority, said not to be destroyed by the Dr's Principles.  
PAg. 260. l. 15. The last thing to be considered is, whether the same arguments which overthrow Infallibility, do likewise destroy all Church-Authority? N.O. showeth, some reasonings in the Dr's Principles, with which he endeavoured to destroy Church. Infallibility, to ruin also as much or more Church-Authority; viz. as to their office of Teaching Christ's flock and expounding to them the Scriptures. These particular reasonings of the Dr questioned for this, N.O. expected, should in an Answer to him, have been resumed by the Dr, and justified. But, in the first of these quotations, that follow, out of N.O. p. 50. he finds our Author mentioning N O's Consequence indeed, but omitting the Argument immediately preceding, from which he inferred it; viz. First Observe, that whatever Divine assistance is advanced here [viz. in the Dr's 19 Principle] against the assurance that can be received from Church-Infallibility the same is more advanced against any assurance that may be had from Church-Authority; And so Church-Authority as to this matter is thrown off by him as well as Church-Infallibility. To this Observation the Dr saith nothing. In the 2d Quotation out of p. 70. he finds him mentioning the Charge N.O. lays upon him of justly incurring the displeasure of his Ecclesiastical Saperiours (as indeed all Chillingworths followers seem to do, corrupting something which formerly remained good in the Church of England; and, which being good, all good men have reason to wish well to, and that it may be preserved there; for, that which is good, still preparing the way to something better, may end at last in an happy reunion of the divided Church: hes and this may serve to answer this Author's Ironical descant here p. 261.262.); but finds him omitting here to take any notice of N. O's Reason for it immediately preceding viz.— Here [i.e. in his 29th Principle] first observe: That what not Christian is obliged to believe under any pretence of Church-Infallibility, he is much rather not obliged to believe under any pretence of Church-Authority: and that the Dr's freeing the Church's subjects here [i.e. as to their believing what these Governors teach them] from the former, doth so from the latter. Thus N.O. Neither replies he any thing to this. The 3d Quotation out of p. 84. is applied to one particular Consequence of the Dr's, 
‖ Conseq. 1.  In which he saith— There is no necessity at all or use of an Infallible Society of men to assure men of the truth of those things of which they may be certain without, and cannot have any greater assurance, supposing such Infallibility to be in them. Which Consequence of his, N.O. saith,— concludes the uselessness as well of any Ecclesiastical Authority to teach men, as of an Infallible, to assure men of, the truth of those things, which, by using only their own sincere endeavour (according to the Dr's pretence, Principle 13.) they may know without them. To this likewise the Dr answers nothing. And here also, Whereas N.O. speaks in particular. This Consequence concludes, &c. he puts instead thereof, that N.O. saith, his Principles against Infallibility conclude, etc. In the 4th quoted out of p. 98. where N.O. after the words cited by the Dr, [viz.: That the Principles laid down by him do not afford any effectual way or means in this Church of suppressing or convicting any Schism, Sect, or Heresy, or reducing them either to submission of judgement or silence:] proceeds to give the reason of this— F●r, where both sides contend Scripture clear from then selves, the clearness of such Scripture, how great soever it be on one side, can be made no instrument of conviction to the other: the Dr mentions not this Reason, nor speaks he to it. In the 5th Quotation out of p. 99 where, after the words quoted by the Dr, [that the Authority of the Church of England is much debilitated, &c, by this new way taken up of its defence] N.O. thus gives the Reason of them in what follows: viz. where he thinks himself its best Advocate and defender of its cause, who doth most endeavour to set forth the defects and faili●gs of all such Ecclesiastical Societies; Prelates, and Councils, and best proves no Scripture-Promises made to them: Neither from this doth he clear himself, or others; But, instead of taking notice of these particulars urged against him, he extracts from the foresaid Assertions in N. O, stripped of the particular Reasons and Arguments annexed, this Universal Proposition, that N.O. maintains, that the same Arguments (i.e. all the same arguments; for, I suppose he would here have his indefinite term understood universally by his Reader) which overthrow Infallibility, do likewise destroy all Church-Authority: all Church-authority saith he; i.e. all parts of it, not that only of their Office, as they are the Preachers and Expounders of Christ's Gospel to the People, of which only N.O. speaks; and then, on this, he frames a new Discourse, first divided into Heads. But, any such proposition N.O. disclaims; Yet, this He affirms, that some of the Dr's arguings in his Principles, which he brings for destroying Church-Infallibility, do also destroy Church-Authority as to one part of it; and also names those arguings of his: and wisheth, that this Author, in pretending an Answer, had cleared them from this charge.  
Pag. 262. l. 8. If they thought they could not sow mischief, &c A rent, already too wide, is by our Author's new Principles still made wider, and so less hopes of quite closing it. And this is justly resented by N.O. as contrary to his chiefest Interest.  
Ib. l. 10. It is a pretty plot, etc. True designs of defending may possibly undermine; and those may be the truest Friends, who are taken for professed Enemies. This the Future Judgement will show.  
Ib. l. 15. (3.) Vndermine all Church-Authority; and authority wholly useless: All and wholly are none of N. O's expressions; his words must be added-to, that they may be refuted.  
Pag. 263. l. 1. Such malignant influence must be from one of these things. Either because I deny infallibility in the Guides of the Church, You deny Infallibility as to necessaries; whereby none can securely yield assent to any thing that the Church defines.  
Ib. l. 2. Or because I say, that the Scriptures are plain in things necessary to salvation. You say Plain to all so far, as that none, using his own endeavour (i.e. according to his condition), can mistake in them; which makes men, being confident of the plainness of Scripture and of their own diligence and judgement, neglect repairing ro the Church's direction and guidance in matters that most concern them. And hence grow such an infinite number of Sects, (after the direction of their Spiritual Guides cast off,) Independants. Quakers, Presbyterians, Anabaptists, Antinomians, Solifidians, Socinians, and I know not what. But note here, that N.O. no where saith, which our Author here seems to impose, that One, to make use of another's guidance or direction, must have him infallible: But saith only this, which no way infers the other, that, where all things necessary are affirmed plain to a man only using his own endeavour to understand them, One, wherein he thinks he useth his own just endeavour, may justly think also therein, another's guidance (whether this fallible, or infallible) to be unnecessary. Unless the Dr will here relieve himself by one of these two ways: Either that, though a sufficient self-endeavour sufficeth, yet none can know certainly when he hath used it. Or that, in mentioning a man's using his endeavour, this Author involves principally the repairing to his Guides for their instruction. But then, this latter argues the Scriptures, wherein he consults them, not plain, but obscure rather, as hath been often said; and so defeats what he would chief maintain.  
Ibid. l. 4. Or, Because I deny the Authority of the Church of Rome. You deny not only the authority of the Church of Rome, as contradistinct to other Catholic Churches, but the Authority of the Church Catholic as to its justly requiring submission of private men's judgements to its Definitions in matters of Necessary Faith.  
Ib. l. 6. Or, because I am not for such an effectual way of suppressing Sects and Heresies, as is in use in the Roman Church. No: But because you are not for any effectual way at all.  
Ib. l. (10). But I pray, Sir, are Authority and Infallibility all one in your account? No. N.O. his affirming some of this Author's Principles to take away the Church's Authority, as to some part of it, as well as its Infallibility, makes not these two one. And therefore the pains here to prove these different, and that one takes not away the other, is lost.  
Ib. l. (8). We suppose that Magistrates and Parents and Masters have all of them an unquestionable authority, but I never heard yet of any man that said they were infallible. Some part of the Church's authority is greater than that of Civil Magistrases, Masters, or Parents; viz. the deciding of Truth and Error lawful and unlawful, in Divine matters; or the defining of points Controverted in God's Word, and in matters of necessary faith; and, the power of obliging Subjects to belief and assent thereto: and this part of their authority must also be joined with Infallibility as to Necessaries, that their Subjects therein may not err. For, other our Superiors, Civil magistrates, Parents, Masters &c, as they have no Infallibility, so they are deficient in one branch of Authority: whose proposals we only admit, when we believe them to be truth; and practise their commands, when we believe them first to be lawful; lawful, I mean, by the Divinc law; but, where there is any doubt herein, we repair to the Ecclesiastical Count for the resolution of them, and so proceed to obey, or disobey, the other's commands: and for this reason, see before, in Note on p. 116. l. 11. Mr Chillingworth candidly granting infallibility necessary to an Ecclesiastical Judge, though not so to a Civil; but, still to save his phanomena, denying such an Ecclesiastical Judge necessary. Lastly, I ask; will this Author yield no more submission at all to the Authority of the Church defining Controversies in Religion, than to his Prince, or Parents, defining them?  
Ib. l. (3). Why may we not allow any Authority belonging to the Governors of the Church, and yet think it possible for them to be deceived? Some Authority which they, I mean General Councils, have claimed, we cannot allow, if they may be deceived; viz: not that of enjoining a certain Assent to their definitions in matters of necessary Faith. For, a Church fallible in necessaries can, in nothing at all which she proposeth, justly oblige her subjects to any absolute and certain belief.  
Pag. 264. l. 7. These are strange ways of arguing etc. Strange, indeed; but not these, or any like ways of arguing to be showed in N.O.  
Ib. l. (6). But it may be said etc. But no such thing is said by N.O.  
Pag. 266. l. 6. The meaning of all this is etc. I willingly grant to our Author, without the demonstration of his many instances, that if one using a Guide afterward by experience finds he hath guided him wrong, (as he may find this, when he misseth of his end), he hath reason for the future to desert him. And thus, upon this supposition, may any reject N. O's Guide, a lawful General Council. But, I hope, this Author is a man of more modesty than to say, * that such Councils, or universal consent of the Church any other way known, do misguide men in the Principles of Religion, or common precepts, which are so plain, that every Christian may know their misguiding; and meanwhile the Councils themselves either not know it, or, knowing, yet impose such falsities; and that in the profession of their own faith, as well as others: Or, say * that they command them, to believe against their eyesight; in any thing, but what themselves also do believe upon the Divine Revelation, more infallible than sense: or, to break the plain Commands of God etc. Or, if he will say they do so; I know, N.O. will say the contrary.  
Ib. l. (2). And this is not to destroy all authority etc. That a Church-Authority fallible may be of great use for its direction, as it is said here by Dr St, so it is granted by N.O. who also requires submission of judgement to it, though fallible, especially from the illiterate, for many good reasons; 
‖ See the former Dif●●● course, §. 37 &c,  but will He allow as much?  
Pag. 267. l. 1. For they may be of great use for the direction of unskilful persons in matters that are doubtful. But he will not say here, in any necessaries doubtful: since he contends that these are plain also to the unskilful.  
Ib●l. 12. I shall now show what real authority is still left in the Governors of the Church, though Infallibility be taken away. That a real authority is still left in the Governors of the Church, though Infallibility be taken away, is granted to him without his proof: but this is also maintained as well consistent with it; that these Governors, united in Council, have an Infallibility in all their Definitions concerning Necessaries; and this given them from our Lord; and that this by any other Authority, he can show given them, is not taken away.  
Ibl. (12). An authority left in the Church-governors of receiving into, and excluding out of, the Communion of the Church.  
I add; and an Authority the Church hath of excluding, amongst other things, for Heresy, against the infallible definitions of the Church.  
Ib. l. (7). Which authority [viz. of inflicting Censures upon offenders, and of receiving into, and excluding out of the Communion of the Church] belongs too the Governors of the Church; and however the Church in some respects be incorporated with the Commonwealth in a Christian State, yet its fundamental rights remain distinct from it. ¹ Here means he, that the Church (as this being a fundamental right of it) may inflict such Censures and exclude from its communion such persons as justly incur them, (to which I may add its declarative power of what is God's will or truth in particular doctrines of faith, mentioned by him below p. 269.) without or against the consent of the Civil State, or the Supreme Governor thereof: viz. when he prohibits the Exercise of such Censures, or Declaration of such a particular Doctrine, to his Subjects? Which Power if our Lord hath given his Church, and then hath given also to the Civil Magistrate, if Christian, another power of prohibiting to the Church the Exercise of this Power, will not this be, to use the Dr's expression 
‖ Irenicum. Disc. of Excommunication §. 9 p. 423. , to give it a power with one hand, and take it away with the other? And, since the Church exercised this power given by our Lord before it was incorporated into the Civil State, and then when the Civil State also prohibited exercise of such a power, it seems most reasonable, as the Dr saith elsewhere 
† p. 446.  that no accession to the Church [of the Civil State] can invalidate its former Title, or Right. But then, how will all this consist with the Oath of Supremacy, which Supremacy is therein given to the Civil Magistrate without any exception of these, the Church's fundamental Rights? unless the Dr with Bishop Bramhal holds the sense of this Oath to maintain only an external coactive power, in such spiritual matters, belonging to the Civil Magistrate: which I suppose no Catholic will deny to him: Or, unless he will say, that the Oath excludes a foreign Church-Supremacy distinct from that of the State, but not so a domestic one as to some fundamental Church-Rights. But then, how can the Ecclesiastical Supremacy of a General Council, though foreign, be excluded, where the Supremacy of an inferior and subordinate Church-authority is admitted? ² Or 2ly. means he, that the Church hath such fundamental Rights given her by our Lord; but so, that she may not actually exercise them in these things, whenever the Civil Power, if Christian, doth oppose and prohibit them? But then, what if such Civil Power should happen to be (as possibly it may) Heretical? Here may the Church in such a State neither declare still such Truths, nor inflict any Censures; I mean of Excommunication on such as are real Delinquents? And, to use the Dr's words 
‖ Irenicum. p. 422. — Can we imagine our Blessed Saviour should institute a Society, and leave it destitute of means to uphold itself, unless it be sustained by the Civil Power?— Whenas (saith he before) the Church flourished in its greatest purity, not only when not upheld, but when most violently opposed, by the Civil Power.  
Ib. l. ult. Of which Rights this is one of the chief to receive into and exclude out of the Church such persons, which, according to the laws of a Christian Society, are fit to be taken in, or shut out. Then, I hope, that this Society may also keep Assemblies as a fundamental Right, though these prohibited by the Commonwealth: and that the highest Courts thereof may exercise the foresaid Jurisdiction over its members, into whatever Commonwealth, (though opposing this Church,) these members be incorporated.  
Pag. 268. l. 12. And in establishing those ancient Rites, of the Christian Church, which are in themselves of an indifferent nature.  
But, what if this Authority, being fallible, judge something indifferent that is not? May any be forced to obedience and the practice thereof (which he calls below overruling the practice), and consequently, first to assenting to the lawfulness of a thing, wherein this Authority is fallible? And, if such Authority execute its Censures on such persons disobeying it, is not this Tyranny? Or, if not, why is that of the Roman Church so?  
Ib. l. (5). The Church hath an authority of proposing matters of faith and directing men in Religion. But so may any one, more learned than others, propose and direct them. But what thinks he of the Church s defining, or imposing, any such matter of faith to be believed? Surely either the Church hath by Right such an Authority, or the first four General Councils usurped it. And doth not such an Authority, if justifiable, infer an Infallibility? But then, this directing and proposing is, as to Necessaries, needless, where all is clear, and plainly proposed in Scripture for every ones capacity without repairing to this Authority. But, if he means so plain in Scripture, that men following these their Guides cannot mistake in it, the plainness lies not in the Text, but in their Exposition.  
Pag. 269. l. 15. Authority to declare what the mind and will of God is contained in Scripture. etc. And are the people to receive what they declare as such? Or have they authority to declare, what they think the mind of God is, and their Auditors to judge whether it be contained in Scripture, every one for themselves? But, this latter must multiply Sects; and the former includes Infallibility in Necessaries.  
Ib. l. (6). Especially having all the ancient rights of a Patriarchal Church. I suppose He here by the word Patriarchal claims no other rights or privileges for the Church of England than those of a Primatical Church; such as those of the Churches of France, Spain, or Africa; and that the Primate of Canterbury is no higher elevated by him than the Primate of Carthage or Toledo; and that, notwithstanding any such Primateship, the Church of England and the Prelates thereof are subject, as also those of Spain France or afric, to any Reformation of errors made by Superior Councils, whether Patriarchal of the West, or General of the whole Church Catholic: both which Councils also are acknowledged Superior to National, or Provincial, by learned Protestants.  
Ib. l. ult. To do as much as in them lies to reform them, viz. by requiring a consent to such Propositions as are agreed upon for that end, of those who are to enjoy the public offices of teaching and instructing others. N. 1 Here he allows a just authority in Anglican National Synods to agree upon, declare and publish, any propositions for reforming or correcting of errors in the Doctrine of Religion; i.e. as I understand him, only, or chief, in matters of faith, (though he doth not name it); the care of the preservation of which faith in their several precincts is committed to the Bishops of the Church; To publish and declare, he saith, what those errors are, and to reform them; & it is said also in the 20th Article of the Church of England, that the Church hath authority in Controversies of faith: but not so, as to ordain any thing contrary to God's written Word: i.e. as I imagine, hath authority in deciding of such Controversies. For, what authority else can be showed in matters of Controversy? since teaching must follow the deciding what is to be taught: and the Article requiring that they do not ordain or decree any thing contrary to Gods written word, or enforce the same to be believed for necessity of salvation seems to imply; they may decree, what they think is his Word. This Author also saith; such Synod may require consent to, (which, I suppose, is the same as assent or belief of the truth of), such propositions as such Synod hath agreed on from those who are to enjoy the public offices of teaching and instructing others: i.e. from all the Clergy. Now to this I have these things to reply.  
N. 2 1st. In this his stating of the Church's Authority to do as much as in them lies to reform errors in Religion, or Faith, here is no restraint of any who live in its Communion, save only of the Clergy, from erring their former errors: No consent to its Decrees required of the rest, but that they may be Arian, Socinian, Nestorian, and what not, yet enjoy her Communion: may be partly compounded of Orthodox, partly Heretics, as to the Laics; in whom all opinions are tolerated. This, I say, follows; according to his stating this Authority here (for, the Canons of this Church seem contrary, and to require assent from all); and according to what this Dr hath said also elsewhere, Ration. Account. p. 133. where he describes the Church— a Society of such persons, who all firmly believe that doctrine infallible which Christ delivered; but yet judge themselves all fallible, and dare not usurp that royal prerogative of heaven in prescribing infallibly in matters questioned; but leave all [men] to judge according to the Pandects of the Divine Laws, because each member of this Society is bound to take care of his soul, and of all things, that tend thereto. A very true and just representative, saith he, of that society of men, which our Blessed Saviour instituted as a Church in the world. Now, there, the Clergy also as well as Laity seem left to their liberty; so that (to reconcile him to himself) perhaps the consent here required of the Clergy is only conditional: this consent not meddling with their faith, wherein they are left to their Christian liberty to hold what they think best; but only in order to such an employment; that, if they do not testify their Tenants in Religion to be such as suit with the Synod's Decrees, they must not be admitted to bear such an Office. For his following words are— Not to the end that all those Propositions [to which a consent is required of the Clergy] should be believed as Artlcles of Faith: But because no Reformation can be effected, if persons may be allowed to preach and officiate in the Church in a way contrary to the Design of such a Reformation. Thus Herald But then, in the same way, why may not this Church exact assent of all persons whatever, i.e. a conditional one, if they desire to live in her reformed communion; yet not forcing their conscience therein, but leaving them the liberty to stay out of it. And, since the design or effects of the Reformation may be hindered also by learned Laics their spreading abroad such errors, why not, in order to this, such assent required of them, as he saith is required, in Order to this, of the Clergy?  
N. 3 2ly. Such Church not being the Supreme Ecclesiastical Judge, & granted by our Author fallible, this Authority given to it, I mean of requiring assent of all its Clergy to all its doctrines or Articles of Religion seems very unjust, & servs equally as for the reformation of a former error, so for the corruption of a former truth. For thus, supposing this Church Arian or Socinian (as it may be) here all its Clergy, receiving Holy Orders for the teaching of God's word, are engaged to believe, and preach, a most impious Heresy; or to be dis-clergied, than which what can be a greater tyranny? Neither is there any remedy left in such a Church for rectifying such corruption or error; since none are admitted into the Clergy, who do not assent to such error; and are removed out of it, so soon as they recant it. And this is it the Presbyterian Ministers have so much complained of, that they might not be admitted to subscribe the 39 Articles with such a clause added [so far forth as the same Articles are agreeable to God's word]. And indeed the forbidding a ttuth in this Church to be taught to the Laity is, in effect, the forbidding it to be assented-to also, by them.  
N. 4 3ly. What authority he allows, in this kind, to one Primatical Church, he must to another; and therefore as he professeth such an Authority rightly exercised in the Church of England as to requiring assent from all the Clergy to her 39 A ticles; so must he, that the same authority is so, in the Church of Rome. And thus, Pope Pius' Creed, so far as its requiring assent from all the Roman Clergy, by which this Clergy may only preach those errors (as he accounts them), and cannot declare the contrary Truths, is justified by himself; and the Roman Church maintained herein to exercise a lawful power.  
N 5 4. But 4ly; If the Church of England hath such a lawful authority in the reformation of errors over its subjects, the same have superior Councils (suppose, a General, or a Patriarchal in the West,) over it, and all other Primaticael Churches: viz. of requiring assent from all the Clergy, whether Archbishops, Bishops, or inferiors, to all their Decrees; and, not to teach any thing contrary to them; and that, if not for imposing them as Articles of Faith, yet for the reason given by the Dr. viz.— because no Reformation can be effected by these Councils, if persons may be allowed to preach and officiate in these Churches in a way contrary to the design of such a Reformation made by the Council. And then, supposing here, under that pretended reformation of an error by such Council or Synod, a corruption of a Truth; and, that of moment, (a thing this Author allows possible); How can there be a reforming afterward of such a Corruption, unless done by Laics? Or, may the Council lawfully require an assent to such corruption from all its subjects that are admitted into sacred Orders; and those that are so admitted, afterward when they discern truth, as lawfully renounce and reverse such their former assent? These seem to be the consequences of the Dr's stating such an authority in his Church; consequences contrary to what he alloweth; and these arguings seem of force, especially against one that both accuseth the Roman Church, because fallible, for requiring assent to her Decrees; and refuseth assent to the Decrees of Superior Councils, because these fallible.  
N. 6 But, notwithstanding this, I am far from affirming 1. That the Church Catholic in her Supreme Councils (whether fallible, or infallible) may not require assent of her subjects to her Definitions and Decrees, as she thinks fit, in matters that are not capable of a strict Demonstration against her judgement, as I suppose Divine matters are not: neither do I know any wiser or securer course (though, abstracting from the Church's Infallibility) that any Christian can take, as to attaining all necessary divine truth, than by his firm adhering to her judgement in all things, that is set over him by God himself to guide him in the way of salvation, of which much hath been said elsewhere. And 2ly. far also from affirming, that the Church of England, or any other National or Provincial Synod may not require Assent not only from her Clergy, but all her subjects to her Doctrines of Religion or matters of Faith, and that upon Anathema to all Dissenters: but than it must be for such doctrines wherein such Church or Synod doth not oppose, but agree with, the whole Body of the present Catholic Church, and so also with that of former times, according to the judgement of these times made by this present Church. Taking here this whole Body I speak of as contradistinct to Heretical and Schismatical Churches, or Societies; and taking the consent of this whole in such an universality, as is necessary for concluding the whole, according to the proceed we have seen in the first General Councils. Now, in these matters wherein a Provincial Council agrees with the whole as it demands assent to them from its subjects, so is it infallible in them, if the whole be so. It follows.  
Pag. 270. l. 3. Not to the end, that all those propositions should be believed as articles of faith. Not that all; but doth the Church of England then require, that some of her propositions in the 39 Articles should be believed and assented to by them as Articles of her Faith? His saying not all seems to imply as much; and see Art. 8. which saith— the three Creeds ought thoroughly to be received and believed. This [and believed] being added by Queen Elizabeth's Divines to the former Article as it was penned in King Edward's days; And several of the other Articles are required to be assented to as things contained in Scripture, and so as infallible; and these things such, as the Church of Rome's error in them is called erring in matter of faith; See Art. 19 and, since the principal reformation of errors, that belongs to Church-authority, is of those that are contrary to the doctrine of faith (the preservation of which faith is chief entrusted to the Church's care), surely it would seem a piece of strange subtlety to tie her Clergy to assent to that, which is matter of faith, (in which faith also the Roman Church hath erred), and yet not to oblige them to assent to it, as a matter of faith. If then she doth require Assent to some of her Articles at least, as of faith, upon what ground may a fallible Authority do this? and why may not other Churches do this as inculpably, as that of England? Or, if she doth not require an assent to any of her Articles as of faith, of which Bishop Bramhall 
‖ Reply to Chalcedon, p. 350.  speaks thus diminutively— We do use to subscribe to them [the 39 Articles] indeed, not as Articles of faith, but as Theological Verities for the preservation of unity among ourselves; then the Clergy of England, as to faith, receiving the words of the Creeds, are, as for all other things, permitted to believe what, or how little, they please.  
Ib. l. 17. We cannot help the weakness of those men's understanding who cannot apprehend that any such thing as authority should be left in a Church, if we deny Infallibility; other diseases may be cured, but natural incapacity cannot. Non prudentes apud vosmetipsos, Rom. 12.16. See Note on p. 263. l. (10). and on p. ●60. l. 15.  
Ib. l. (4) As that it were the foundation of all the Heresies and Sects in the world. See before Note on p. 263. l. 2.— and on p. 271. l. (2) n. 2.  
Ib. l. (3). This Principle, he saith, makes all Ecclesiastical Authority useless. All Ecclesiastical Authority? N. O. saith not this; frequently imposed upon him by the Dr (See before p. 262. 267.) thereby to shape a thing like an answer to him, in showing the Church's Authority useful or necessary as to several other things. And the words following here, that are truly cited out of N. O. do limit this uselessness of Ecclesiastical Authority to the Office of Teaching, and that in matter necessary, according to Dr St's. limitation, in his Principle, of the Scriptures being as to these necessaries clear: & the words [are clear to all persons] have a limitation also in N. O. which he is pleased to leave out, and conceal from his Reader; viz. this: I mean exclusively to their repairing to these Pastors for the learning of the meaning of such Scriptures.  
N. 1 
Sesse Fanaticism fanatically imputed, p. 99  Pag. 271. l. (2.) For since that Train of my Principles hath been laid, nothing like the old Church of England hath been seen.  
Mr. S. C. professeth himself to think more honourably of the Church of England, than to follow or maintain these Principles of the Dr; and that the regard Its Governors have both to the King's and kingdom's safety, and their own Character, will not permit them to yield to an Anarchy first in the Church, and presently after in the Kingdom. He saith not, that, since the Dr's laying his train etc. nothing like the old Church of England hath been seen: but that, upon his ground, if received and practised in this Church, all would be reduced into mere Fanaticisme: for, saith he, §. 91.— To make every Christian soberly enquiring into Scripture to be his own Teacher in all necessary points of faith (and it is no matter what becomes of unnecessary points) and to be a competent Judge of the true sense of Scripture in them: all this without any regard to all External Authority infallible, or fallible either, (for, an infallible one being unnecessary, what necessity can there be of a fallible authority, which none is, or can be, bound to believe?) can be nothing but Fanaticisme in the height of its Notion: Thus he.  
N. 2 And indeed 1st; For matter of fact it is manifest, that several Sects of late have much more multiplied in the Church of England, than in former times. 2ly. Manifest also, that, since Chillingworth's taking this way of answering Church-Authority when much pressed on him, these Principles have been more in vogue, and more openly maintained; viz.— 1. That, For points necessary (and, for others, no matter if controversy still remains) Scriptures are clear to all capacities using a due diligence therein: without any expressing or explaining of themselves in this manner; that they mean, using a due diligence to be instructed by their Spiritual Pastor in the right sense thereof; which limitation, should it be added, would seem to make more for Church-Infallibility, than against it. Again;— 2. That every Christian is bound to reject whatever is offered to be imposed upon his faith, which hath no foundation in Scripture; or is contrary thereto, (as Dr St. in his 29th Principle:) i.e. (if we make any sense of it), which he, & such persons, do think hath no foundation in Scripture, etc. for, if he means here, which the Church judgeth to have no foundation in, or to be contrary to, Scripture; so say Catholics: but, when will the Church judge thus, and impose the contrary? Again; That in the Church all men are left to judge according to the Pandects of the Divine Laws, because each member of this Society is bound to take care of his soul, and of all things that tend thereto 
‖ Rat. Account. p. 133. .— That men are to try the Doctrines of their Guides, for that many false ones are gone out into the world, etc. See before the Texts urged to this purpose by the Dr p. 144. etc. Manifest, I say, that, more of late, such propositions and Principles as these have been much divulged and propagated. But, whether such Principles, or some other things, have actually caused such a licentiousness in opinions, as hath been of late, I cannot determine, only this I may affirm, and do appeal to the candid Reader's judgement therein, that such Principles do much invite and encourage such a Self-guidance in Spiritual matters, and diffidence in, and independence on, our Lord's Clergy: whilst Chillingworth freely acknowledgeth; 
‖ c. 2. §. 17.  if no infallible, than no Ecclesiastical, Judge.  
Pag. 273. l. 3. I no where in the least exclude the use of all means and due helps of Guides and others for the understanding the sense of Scripture. Yes: for the understanding the sense of Scripture in all necessary Faith. For you both in your Principles and in this Book ground the sober Enquirer's not erring in necessaries upon the plainness of the delivery of (not some, or many; for, this will be granted to you, at least for persons of a good capacity, but) all such points in Scripture; which plainness in Scripture, where it is, renders an Expositor of such Scripture needless, upon such diligence used. Or, if you mean a plainness by using the help of the Clergy, the plainness now is had not in the Text, but from the Clergy, the mentioning therefore of which by you would have prejudiced such plainness in the Text.  
Ib. l. 14. To what purpose in an account of the Principles of Faith should I mention those things which we do not build our faith upon, I mean the Authority of our Guides? I hope; in your Principles, or Foundations of Faith, that you intended to set down all things necessary to a Christian's having a true Faith; as in your 13th Principle that you intended to set down all things that were necessary, that a sober requirer might not err in necessary Faith, without leaving any of them out Now, a most exact and perfect Rule of our Faith, if it be not also clear to us, requires something besides for our belief of its true sense, namely an Expositor, where this Rule is obscure: and then, that we may not err in this our belief, an Infallible One. For, the Scripture or Principle here, when obscure, abstracted from this Expositor, is of itself indifferent between the sense which we receive, and which we reject. In obscure Scripture we resolve our faith into God's Word indeed; but, as this is related or expounded to us by the Church. And this Church therefore is necessary to be mentioned, where we speak of the Resolution of any such part of our Faith.  
Pag. 274. l. (2). Doth this make the whole Profession of Physic useless? No. But, If Hypocrates his Aphorisms are set down so plainly, as that every one, that will take the pains to read and compare them, may understand them, I may safely say, an Expositor of these is useless to so many, as will take this pains. The same is said of Expositors as to plain Scriptures. What follows here in him is very true, but nothing to our business.  
Pag. 276. l. 11. How comes it now to pass etc. Mr. S. C. pitcheth here, that, as to the knowledge of all necessary faith, the guidance of Church-governors is by Dr St. rendered useless. For other matters, how great soever Dr St. may make or prove the authority of these Church-governors to be, he troubles not himself.  
Pag. 277. l. 7. S. Austin in his books of Christian Doctrine already mentioned. See before Note on p. 236. l. 1.  
Ib. l. 9 And S. Chrysostom in as plain words as may be, etc. 
‖ Hom. 3. in 2 Thess.  S. Chrysostome's words in that place reprehending the people's neglect in the hearing the Scriptures read, if there were no Sermon, (a great fault, which the present times are still subjectto) are these— Cur, inquit ingredior, si non audio aliquem verba facientem? [saith he that stays from Church] Hoc [saith the Father] omnia perdidit, & corrupit. Quid enim opus est aliquo qui verba faciat & sermonem habeat? Ex nostrâ socordiâ hoc usu venit. Quid enim opus est sermone? Omnia sunt dilucida & recta quae sunt in divinis Scriptures: manifesta sunt, quaecunque sunt necessaria. Sed quoniam estis auditores delectationis, propterea haec etiam quaeritis. [i.e. Sermons]. Which words, taken in a rigid sense, prove more than Dr St. doth pretend to make good out of them; making such a plainness in the Scriptures, as that there is no need of any Sermons. But the Either seems here, as Sixtus Senensis on this place hath observed, not to speak so much of Dogmata fidei, (wherein it were strange, if, in all the things that are controverted, and Scriptures urged on both sides, nothing should be a necessary, or that any simple person needed therein no teacher) as of praecepta Morum, & historiae sacrae formandis moribus utiles (his Sermons chief aiming at the forming of Manners, not stating points of Faith). And so in another place, where the Father speaks much what the same things, he seems to explain himself, in Concio 3. de Lazaro Luc. 16.— Cui enim (saith he there) non sunt manifesta, quaecunque in Evangelio scripta sunt? Quis autem audiens beatos esse mites, beatos misericordes, beatos mundicordes, caeteraque hujusmodi, desiderabit praeceptorem, ut aliquid eorum discat, quae dicuntur? Quinetiam signa, miracula, historiae, nun cuivis nota manifestaque sunt? Praetextus iste est & causatio, pigritiaeque velamentum. Yet there he supposeth they may meet with difficulties, such wherein it is necessary they should be instructed also; and so adviseth them to repair to a Doctor— Quod si non peteris (saith he) assiduitato lecti●nis invenire quod dicitur, accede ad sapientiorem; vade ad doctor●●, co●●unica cum his ea quae scripta sunt: giving them the example of the Ethiopian Eunuch. Nay, in this very place cited by the Dr the Father seems to explain himself chief of the clearness of Scripture-Stories, from whence they might learn instruction of manners, in the words following; where, replying to those who pretended obscurity in the Scriptures read to them.— Quaenam ea obscu●itus? saith he. Dic, quaeso, anon sunt historiae? Nostine [i.e. have you already sufficiently learned those things] quae sunt clara & dilucida [i.e. that you cannot deny to be so]; ut de iis, quae sunt obscura, perconteris [i.e. afterward]? Historiae innumerabiles sunt in Scriptures [i.e. very plain]. Dic mihi unam ex illis. etc.  
Ib. l. ult. And, for the finding out the sense of Scripture without the help of Infallibility, I have produced more out of Antiquity in this Discourse. He might also as truly say; or without the help of Church-Authority, He proceeds.  
Pag. 278. l. 2. Than he, or his whole party will be able to answer. Of this let the Reader judge. Mean while let us remember the Apostle's advice Phil. 2.3. Nihil per inanem gloriam.  
Pag. 279. l. 10. I dare appeal to any person, whether the Bishops deriving their authority from Christ or from the Pope, be the better way of defending their power. These two do well consist; as also doth an English Bishop's deriving his authority from Christ, and from the Metropolitan, and his Synod.  
Pag. 280. l. 1. If there be any other Power beside the Pope's in the Church, the denying the Pope's Authority cannot in the least diminish the just authority of Bishops. To this, (nothing to N. O's Considerations) I say: Let him perform his duty to Superior Councils, and to the Pope so far, as he is obliged by the Church-Canons; and, concerning any Controversy of other usurped Authority, let him acquiesce, as a regular Son of the Church, in the Council's Decisions, those as well of any of its latter Councils, (so lawful), as of the former; and all is well.  
Ib. l. 14. N. O's words. Which more Comprehensive Body in any dissent and division of the Clergy according to the Church Canons ought to be obeyed. It follows in N. O. and which hath hitherto in her supremest and most generally accepted Councils in all ages from the beginning required such submission under penalty of Anathema. Which words, expressing more plainly what N. O. means by the more comprehensive or universal Body of the Church's Hierarchy, the Dr omits here; And it seems was willing to mistake his meaning by what he saith below, p. 283.— That by the more universal Church N. O. fairly understands no more, but the Church of Rome.  
Ib. l. (8). I answer, that the Church of England in reforming herself did not oppose any just authority then extant in the world.  
Yes. The Church of England then reform and changed several matters of Doctrine against the Definitions of many former Superior Councils, which were accepted and unanimously obeyed by the whole Body of the other Churches, viz. by all those, that were free from the Mahometan yoke, and, among those, by the Church of England also till Luther's appearance; to which Definition, and unanimous consent of these Churches in them, she stood obliged, as a part to the judgement of the Whole: But many of which Doctrines also reform by her were and are still to this day believed and practised by the Eastern Churches also under the Mahometan servitude, which he, who is curious to inform himself, may see sufficiently cleared in the 3d Discourse Concerning the Guide in Controversies, ch. 8.  
This then, the departing, in their doctrine, of the two Metropolitan Churches of England from the greater Body of these many Co-Metropolitan Churches, all accepting and submittingto, the Decisions and Determinations of many former superior Councils, even all those from the 2d Nicene, called the 7th General Council, to that of Trent, to which Councils the Church of England was, and still is, obliged, as well as the rest, and did also submit till the times of Luther, is the Discession from the more Comprehensive and universal Authority, and from the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, (if any then extant), which Catholics charge upon them. And perhaps it is the consciousness of the truth of this discession, that makes this Author, in several places before, maintain 
‖ p. 242. — That the Church [he means Catholic] in any one or more ages since the Apostles times may be deceived: and 
† p. 241. — that, Universality in any one age of the Church, being taken without the consent of Antiquity, is no sufficient Rule to interpret Scripture by: and that, when he speaks of standing to the judgement of the Church, he declines that of the present Catholic Church, unless joined with the judgement of the Catholic Church of all ages passed till that of the Apostles; to the constant doctrine of all which, first proved to him, he is content to yield. See for this what he saith by and by 
‖ p. 282. — But the Church thought otherwise of them. What Church, I pray? The Primitive and Apostolical? that we have always appealed to, and offered to be tried by. The truly Catholic Church of all ages? that we utterly deny to have agreed in any one thing against the Church of England. And before p. 244. Let (saith he) the Pope's Supremacy, &c be proved by as universal consent of Antiquity as the Articles of the Creed are, and then let them charge us with Heresy, if we reject them. And p. 259. Let the same evidences be produced for the consent of the Vniversul Church from the Apostolicat times in the matters in dispute between our Church and that of Rome, and that controversy of Infallibility may be laid aside. Where, still, a proof not of the decision of the Catholic Church in some latter age, but of the Consent of the Universal Church from the Apostolical times is demanded for his yielding a submission to it. Nor will the Judgement of the present Church be current with him for deciding what was the Consent of the former: the judgement of this he reserves to himself.  
Pag. 281. l. 1. The dispute was then concerning the Pope's Supremacy over our Church. The reforming Articles of the Church of England not only opposed this, but many other Definitions of the former Church. But neither could they justly reject this Supremacy, so far as it was by the Canons of former superior Councils established. That only could be ejected that was unjustly usurped.  
Ib. l. 11. Which is sufficiently known to have been the beginning of the breach between the two Churches. The breach of the Church of England in the Reformation was not only from the Communion of the Roman concerning the Pope's supremacy, but of the Gallican, Spanish, and all the other Occidental or Oriental Churches in matters wherein they were united in the Resolutions and Decrees of several former Councils. Where, or at what point, the Breach began matters not so much, as where it ended; Or, the full charge, that the whole breach contains.  
Ib. l. 15. What should hinder our Church from proceeding in the best way it could for the Reformation of itself? The Canons and Definitions of former Superior Councils should hinder the Church from reforming any thing contrary to them; as this Church did. It follows.  
Ib. l. 17. For the Pope's Supremacy being cast out as an usurpation, our Church was thereby declared to be a free Church. The Pope's Supremacy, established by the Canons of the Church in Superior Councils, cast off? by whom? It can by none lawfully, unless by Church-Councils of equal authority to those that allowed it. The Church of England was thereby declared to be free. Free: what, from the authority of superior Councils, and the Bishop of the Prime Apostolic See presiding in them? By whom so freed? ¹ By Itself, or by the Governors of this particular Church; i.e. by one member, declaring against the whole? or, 2 by the Secular Magistrate abrogating Church-Canons and Constitutions, and Decisions made in Ecclesiastical and spiritual affairs? Neither valid.  
Ib. l. (6). Authority, to publish Rules and Articles. But, not contrary to the Rules and Articles of Superior Councils.  
Pag. 282. l. 3. His unjust power was cast off, and that first by Bishops, who in other things adhered to the Roman Church. Their adhering in other things justifyes not the Catholic Bishops for their breach in this. This Author well knows, the first casting off the Pope's power began not at the Bishops; and he hath heard I suppose of their great Reluctance and Cromwel's negociations with them, terrified upon the charge of having generally incurred a Praemunire; and of their clause, to have saved themselves— Quartum per legem Christi licet.  
Ib. l. 17. We reject nothing but innovations, and reform nothing but abuses. By Innovations he means innovations established by the consent of the Universal Church; from which he raifed his objection. And the same appears, by these his words following. But the Church [i.e. the Universal Church then extant at the Reformation] thought otherwise of them; those called Innovations: for if they did not; why did the Reformers depart from the former Communion? To which he answers thus— What Church I pray? The Primitive and Apostolical? that we have always appealed to and offered to be aried by. The truly Catholic Church of all ages? That we utterly deny to have agreed in any one thing against the Church of England, Here then, we see, his Appeal and retreat is from the present Church Universal or its Councils, to the Primitive and Apostolical; and to the truly Catholic Church of all ages. Well. If we ask now the Question, Who shall judge, Whether the points which the Church of England reform were Innovatitions and Abuses, as these Reformers say; or Tradition Apostolical and of the Primitive times, as the present Universal Church saith; must not the present Universal Church judge of it? As, who should judge between S. Austin and the Donatists, whether Rebaptisation or Non-rebaptization was Tradition Apostolical (for, Tradition Apostolical both willingly admitted) but the than present Universal Church? and that to be held for liquidum & eliquatum, which it concurred in; and It held to have just authority to conclude all its members; and those to be Heretical, that dissented from it? Might the Donatist say still after this Council, as he here? What Church thought otherwise? or thought Rebaptitization unnecessary? The Primitive and Apostolical, & c? That we deny to have agreed against us in Non-Rebaptization. Meanwhile this Author must either say the Church of England, in her Reformation opposing the then present Universal Church, opposed a just authority then extant; contrary to what he said but now 
‖ p. 232. : or; that the Authority of this present universal Church over England is not just.  
Ib. l. (6). The plain English of all is, the Church of Rome was against the Church of England. If the Doctrine of the Church of England in the Reformation was only opposed by the Roman Church; and between these two is all the quarrel; why declines He, as the Reader may see he doth, 
‖ See Note on p. 280. l. (8).  the then present universal Church, viz.: the other Metropolitan Churches (not only Western, but Eastern), distinct from the Roman? Namely the Metropolitan Churches of France, Spain, Germany, &c and those of Italy also, that are under other States than the Pope's all these as well as the Roman being against the Tenants of the Reformation; and so the English Church too, till the time? If a much major part of such Metropolitan Churches consenting in some doctrines cannot conclude herein one or two dissenting from them, How could the Donatist-Churches in afric be concluded by the rest? Or, Dioscorus the Patriarch of Alexandria and the Egyptian Churches by the Council of Chalcedon? Had not the Donatists as fair a pretence to call all those that opposed them the Roman Church, as this Author hath? For, all these that agreed against them were united under the Presidency of the Bishop of Rome; and with Stephen Bishop of Rome, at first, was their main contest.  
Pag. 283. l. 5. But doth he undertake to make this good, etc. See Note on p. 280. l. (8). to avoid so frequent Repetitions.  
Ib. l. 12. By the more universal Church he fairly understands no more but the Church of Rome. This he will say, Whereas the words, he leaves out in his quotation of N.O. name expressly the Church's most supreme and most generally accepted Councils; and the Church of Rome is not there mentioned at all.  
Ib. l. (4). For the first, [the Pope and the Councils of the Roman Church] we own no obedience to them. See Note on p. 281. l. 17. and l. (6). I hope, if the Church of England owes no obedience to a Council of the Roman Church, yet it doth to a Patriarchal Council of the Occidental Churches.  
Ib. l. (3). For the second [a General Council], there was no such thing then in the world [at the coming of Luther] and therefore could not be opposed. No more was that of Nice, or the other Three first Councils then extant in the world; and yet I hope the Church of England then owed obedience to them. But, their Definitions were then extant contrary to the Doctrine of the Reformation: But, the unanimous consent of all the other Churches conforming in their belief and practice to the decisions of former Councils was then extant. Which Consent of other Western Churches was also testified in those very times in the Council of Trent without the least pretended force used upon those Churches, as to the most of the Protestant Tenants condemned there; as may appear to any one in Soave's History of that Council: for, indeed, these Bishops voted in it what things were their common practice before it: and the Definitions thereof as to these points are Generally accepted and held in these Churches.  
Pag. 284. l. 2. No Church hath been more guilty of a violation of them, than the Church of Rome. Were it so, How doth this excuse you, that another is faulty besides you?  
Ib. l. 6. We are no enemies to the ancient Patriarchal Government of the Christian Church. No enemies, is not enough, where we ought to be Subjects.  
Ib. l. 12. And all Christendom would consent to a truly free and General Council. If such Council were called, will you submit your judgement to its definitions? I trow not. Let your obedience be showed to former lawful Superior Councils, and it may be hoped, to the future. He goes on.  
Ib. l. 14. Which we look on as the best expedient on earth, for composing the differences of the Christian world, if it might be had.  
You look upon it as the best expedient &c. but, take care to clog it with such unpracticable conditions to be a right and current General one, as you will be sure never to meet with any such expedient to compose your differences, or to have your approbation for such. And from the complaints you make (such as these which follow here) concerning those Councils that have been held, we may expect, for these hereafter, defects abundant in those that are not for your turn: Titular Patriarches, or Pope's Pensioners, or at the least Combinations of interested Parties [i. e. of an interest, in Controversies of Religion, contrary to yours; as these judging, when met in Council, what they believed and practised before them]. And would not one think that the first four Councils do hardly pass through your Sieve, when you speak thus to your Adversary, Rational Account. p. 253. Have Pastors and Doctors met in Ecumenical Councils in all ages? I would you could prove a truly Ecumenical Council in any age? He proceeds.  
Ib. l. 17. But we cannot endure to be abused by mere names of Titular Prtriarches with Combinations of interested Parties instead of General Councils. You do well in this. But, not so, if you charge any such things on those former Councils, whereof the more universal judgement of other Metropolitan Churches cleareth them, in their accepting them for lawful and obliging; and conforming in their belief and practice to their Decrees which general acknowledgement of them supplies also any defect, that might have been in the management of them.  
Ib. l. (3). If we then oppose so general a consent of the Christian Church let them charge us with not submitting to all the Authority extant of the world. And what then; when you are so charged? Then you will say, as you have said 
‖ p. 241, 242 — That the Church in any one or more ages since the Apostles times may be deceived. And— That universality in any one age without the Consent of Antiquity [which Consent you, not It, shall judge of] is no sufficient Rule to interpret Scripture by, nor consequently to decide the Controversies arising therein.  
Pag. 285. l. 6. And every free Church etc. See Note on p. 281. l. 1. It follows.  
Ib. l. 9 Hath a sufficient power to reform all abuses within itself when a more general consent cannot be obtained. But, not to reform any thing contrary to such doctrines &c, to which a more general consent hath already been obtained in several Councils, that, before the Church was divided, were generally received. A Metropolitan Church may have a sufficient power to reform something without, but nothing contrary to, the Decisions or Canons of a Superior Authority.  
Ib. l. 14. How very pitiful an advantage can from hence be made by the dissenting parties among us? For the advantages dissenting parties make hence, see before Note on p. 180. l. 9 p. 263. l. 2. p. 271. l. (2). It follows.  
Ib. l. (12). Who decry that Patriarchal, and ancient Government as Antichristian which we allow as prudent and Christian.  
But doth this Author allow it as of Divine Institution, and necessary? I mean, the Government of the Church by Bishops.  
Ib. l. (9). N. O. saith, my Principles afford no effectual way or means in this Church of suppressing or convicting any Schism, Sect, or Heresy, or reducing them either to submission of judgement or silence: Therefore my Principles are destructive to all Church-Authority. Destructive to all authority: N. O. makes not such Consequence. But the immediate words following those cited by our Author are these. 
‖ Princip. Consid. p. 98.  For, where both sides contend Scripture clear for themselves, the clearness of such Scripture, how great soever on one side, can be made no instrument of conviction to the other. Here therefore things must be prosecuted further than Scripture, to a Dic Ecclesiae. And then, for the convicting and suppressing such Heresies and Schisms this Church, appealed and complained to, must have authority and infallibility, at least as to necessaries, to decide truly such contests about the sense of Scripture, (which may happen to be in them); and justly to punish with her censures, as the useth to do, those that are Heretics, i. e. dissenters from her definitions; and so preserve the Church in the unity of the true Faith; things denied to it by the Dr.  
Ib. l. (2). The design of my Principles was to lay down the Foundations of faith, and not the means of suppressing heresies.  
But his Principles, laying down the foundations of Faith, if good, must be such as consist with the foundations of Peace also, and with the means of suppressing Heresies. And, to his Instances I say, Aristotle may be justly blamed for his Logic; or Hypocrates for his Aphorisms; if the one be found to contain any thing contrary to Civil Government; or the other to the College of Physicians.  
Pag. 286. l. (2). We are sure the mere authority of their Church hath been no more effectual mean [of suppressing sects] than that of ours hath been. N. 1 I think He hath yielded the contrary before p. 136. where, being pressed, that the subjects of the Roman Church, however their other private opinions may differ, do all submit their judgements to the determinations of her Councils, which takes away all Divisions in her as to such matters, this being not so in the Church of England, he hath these words— I do not say, that the Church of Rome hath no advantage at all in point of Unity; but, that all the advantage it hath comes from force and fraud [viz. such force as the Council of Niee used to its subjects viz. Anathemas to Dissenters]. And— We do not envy them the effects of tyranny and deceit. It is the Union of Christians we contend for, & not of Slaves or Fools. And— I freely yield that they have a juster pretence to Unity without Truth, than we. Where, this effect, a greater Unity, is granted by him; but, that this is without Truth; is denied by us. But, N. 2 setting this aside, we contend; that, where it is affirmed, 1. That Scriptures are so clear in all necessaries, that none, of what condition soever, using their right endeavour to understand them, can mistake: 2. And again; that there is no other Infallible Judge to determine certainly any sense of Scripture in such necessaries where it is controverted; nor, which may require submission of judgement from their subjects to their sentence; and so, the people left to their own judgement; one man, upon using, as he thinks, a just endeavour, being confident of one sense of Scripture plain to him, another of the contrary, which judgement of particulars the Church, fallible, hath no power to sway or correct; Nor, on the other hand the Scripture doth decide to them at all, on which side it is clear; Here, we say, is left no effectual way (which yet always the Church must have; one, or other for clearing and purging itself of Heresies and Schisms), by which the opinion of either of these, and so of any Sect of them erring in some necessary points, or by which any Heresy, may be suppressed, or the persons so persuaded severed from the Church's Communion; and so the Principles must be unsound, that infer such Consequences.  
N. 3 But, there is such an effectual way in the Church; which is maintained to have power (as it is by Catholics) to determine, in all Controversies about necessaries (and in this, amongst others, concerning the Apostolicalness of a former Tradition, or the legitimacy of a former Council,) what doctrine is true and Apostolical; and to Anathematise all Dissenters; whereby she either reduceth Sectarists, if submitting to her judgement, or separateth them from the Church, if opposing it. And such way accords very well with our Lords— Sit tibi sicut Ethnicus &. Publicanus: 
Mat. 18.17 2 Cor. 10.6. Tit. 3.10.  and with S. Paul's— In promptu habens ulcisci omnem inobedientiam; &— Haereticum hominem devita, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self-condemned. [i.e. as Dr Hammond on the place, his very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. being a spontaneous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 excision from, and disobedience to, 
1 Tim. 1.23. 2 Tim. 2.17. Jo. 2.10, 11. 1 Co. 5.13, 6 Tit. 1.11.  the Church]. And— Tradidi Satanae, ut discant non blasphemare— quorum sermo, saith he serpit ut cancer. And with his— Auferte malum ex vobis ipsis, Because Modicum fermentum totam massam corrumpit. And— Quos [inobedientes & seductores] oportet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because else universas domos subvertunt. [And indeed, where liberty is unrestrained, it is a folly to think any will hold, that will not also speak of, an opinion]. And again accords well with S. John's— Non Ave ei dixeritis: And—  non communicetis operibus ejus malignis. The like to which we find in the law of Moses; Deut. 17.12. etc.— Qui autem superbierit, nolens obedire sacerdotis imperio etc. ex decreto judicis morietur homo ille. And— Cunctus populus audiens timebit, ut nullus deinceps intumescat superbiâ [in his own opinion and judgement.] By such means it is, that both the Unity of the Church's Faith is always preserved; and no Sects or Heresies permitted within her to disturb her Peace, or further infect her Children. See before, Note on p. 263. l. 2.  
Pag. 287. l. 2. There is another means they use which is far more effectual, viz. the Inquisition. An effectual (however justifiable) means Catholics have besides, and without, the Inquisition, confessed, I think, by this Author's former words quoted before 
‖ Note on p. 286. l. (2.) . And this means of the Inquisition, however effective, the most of the Catholic Churches do not, or have never used. But here the Reader may observe, How this Author in stead of refuting, or mentioning here N. O's effectual means so often inculcated in his Considerations on his Principles, and but now repeated, hooks in the Inquisition, as a more plausible subject wherewith to entertain and amuse his Protestant Reader.  
Ib. l. 5. God keep us from so barbarous and diabolical a means of suppressing Schisms. Barbarous, and diabolical? If this Author's judgement should happen not to be right here, let him consider what an account he is to give for these words and his following Raillery so liberally inveighing against Church Authority. There will always many be offended (because many faulty, and all, lovers of liberty) with a strict Government, and such as executes the laws, in Church or State. And so did the High-Commission-Court here displease especially the Sectarists. It concerns not N.O. to abett the Inquisition; yet, barring here particular personal Acts, all which no Religion undertakes to justify, in its subjects, I see no great cause why this Author should be so incensed against it, so long as the delegated power to these extraordinary Officers in proceeding against Heretics doth not transcend that, which by the Canons and Constitutions of the Church belongeth to the ordinary Judges thereof: and, if what these act according to these Canons be not just, the Canons, not they, are therein culpable. Of the Equity of which Canons surely the Councils that made them are more proper and abler Judges, than this Author, or myself. All the severity of this extraordinary Office lies in putting these Canons in execution when the ordinary Curators thereof neglect it; and that in such a Church or State where an endeavour is used rather to prevent Heresy thereby (which, as the Apostle saith, serpit ut cancer, and, corrumpit ut fermentum) when a few only as yet are infected therewith, and may happen to suffer; than to pluck it up, where it hath taken any deep and long root, and is grown very numerous. As for the fire and faggots our Author brings in by and by; what temporal punishments are inflicted on such offenders, are so by the order and authority of the Prince, to whom in such place belongs the temporal sword. And, for the Justice that may be showed in such punishments (if it may not be called Mercy rather to Christianity in General; especially, where the Heresy is discovered pernicious to Godliness, or also blasphemous against the Deity, and when by it greater mischief is thought done to men's Souls, than by Thiefs or robbers to their estates or lives), the example herein of Protestant Princes also may be produced to warrant it: and several such Heretics here in England have been put to death; and more condemned to be so, both in King Edward's, Queen Elizabeth's, and King James his days.  
Pag. 288. l. (4). It is truly said of Pope Paul 4. etc. men's Words are not to be put upon the rack. If Paul 4. said this, we see the contrary: viz. the Authority of the Roman See maintained where is no Inquisition. It is true that Paul the 4th, as also Philip the 2d King of Spain relied much on the diligence of these extraordinary Officers as an effective way of suppressing Heresy; but it must be in a Church not much infected herewith; and where the delinquents are as yet not numerous.  
Pag. 289. l. (2). Which made one of the Inquisitours in Italy complain, etc. This Busdragus his letter to I know not what Cardinal of Pisa my small skill in books knows not where to find. But the Inquisition in Italy being only in the Pope's Dominions, never noted to have abounded much with Lutherans, and that only executed on Natives, who having been sometimes Catholics are revolted, the matter which our Author hath taken out of it, viz. that in forty years, there, an hundred thousand persons had been destroyed for Heresy, i.e. 2500 per annum, which is a number more suitable to the justice of a Battle, than of a Court of Inquisition, (whereas in that small state, the execution of the tenth part thereof for what crimes soever will hardly pass for a truth); and, again, that since this depopulation (if I may so call it) Heresy, there, is extremely strengthened and increased, are things so notoriously incredible, as, though some person might have the imprudence to write it (which I will not question, because the Dr saith it) yet He might have chosen some currenter matter elsewhere, than quoted it.  
Pag. 290. l. 10. But we recommend, as much as they can do, to the people the virtues of Humility, Obedience, due submission to their spiritual Pastors and Governors. N. 1 That which N.O. complains to be neglected, by Protestants, and which is necessary for curing sects and schisms, is more than this Author here mentions or will allow, viz; (to give you it in N. O's own words)— That it is necessary to recommend (especially to the illiterate and less intelligent common sort of people) Humility, 
Princip. Consid. p. 99  Obedience, and submission of Judgement to their spiritual Pastors and Governors, whom our Lord hath ordained by due succession to continue to the end of the world on purpose to expound the Scriptures, and out of these to teach them all Necessaries for their salvation, and to keep them stable and fixed from being tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine, that capricious fancies may imagine there, or malicious pretend; Necessary, to inform them that are to learn of these Pastors the true sense of God's Word, according to former Church-Tradition; and that they are to rest in their judgement [as Dr Field hath] and follow their faith (as the Apostle 
‖ Heb. 13.7. ); that they may not usurp their Office, etc. Lastly, that, supposing these Guides also should err, yet it is better for them still that all err one error, which is the error of their Guides; because there will be at least some unity and peace in that, and some excuse for the error of Inferiors; yea also in probability, more verisimilitude; than that every one should err a several, and his own error, to the utter ruin of Peace, and a greater deviation from Truth. But that which our Author hath changed here, and in stead of submission of judgement put only in general terms due obedience and submission, and this due to be stated, as I apprehend, not by these Governors, but those that own it, leaves all Sects still to enjoy their own tenants, how absurd or impious soever, and with these also to enjoy the Communion of the Church, notwithstanding a due submission called for by it. So that its subjects are still left to be tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine that blows, though, the Apostle saith, God hath appointed Governors to prevent it; nor are tied to follow the Faith of their Guides, as the Apostle requires; nor to learn the sense of Scripture, where this is disputed, from those whom our Lord hath appointed to teach it them. So that, notwithstanding this latter defence made here by this Author, I see no reason but that I may conclude these Notes on his Reply, as N.O. doth his Considerations on his Principles.  
That, since it is the Church's Authority that must rectify such diversity of Opinions, for the attaining unity and peace in the points controverted, this Authority is necessary in the first place to be established, in stead of leaving every fancy to perspicuity of Scripture. And that the prudent may consider, whether the authority of a Church must not necessarily be much debilitated and brought into contempt, and daily like to wane more and more, where such a new way is taken up of its Defence, that he thinks himself its best Advocate and Pleader of its cause, who doth most endeavour to set forth the defects and failings of all Ecclesiastical Societies, Prelates, and Councils, [in which office I appeal to the candid and equal Reader whether this Author hath not in this Discourse vigorously employed his Pen]; and who best proves no Scripture-Promises made to them: Nay, where, to the end to evacuate the Infallibility of any Society or Church in Necessaries, is set up a Counter-Lay-Infallibility of private men, if only sincere endeavourers, for understanding Holy Writ, in all the same Necessaries. Where therefore such new Maxims are still spread abroad and received with applause (which were first made more current and common by Mr Chillingworth, forced to it as the last refuge left to shelter him from Obedience to a just Church-Authority) it is no great wonder if the broachers of new Sects. and extravagant fancies in Religion, the Contemners of Church-Authority, and of the Clergy, (who first contemned and vilified themselves) do daily in such parts so exceedingly multiply and increase. Sed Tu, Pastor Bone,, adduc istas oves perditas in Ovile tuum; ut vocem tuaem audiant: & fiat unum Ovile, & unus Pastor. Amen.  
Pag. 290 l. ult; Dr St's Conclusion. I have thus far considered the main Foundations, upon which N.O. proceeds in opposition to my Principles, there is now very little remaining which deserves any notice: and that which seems to do it, as about Negative Articles of Faith, and the Marks of the true Church, I shall have occasion to handle them at large in the following Discourse. I have perused his following Discourse in Vindication of the Protestants Grounds of faith and find nothing answered to what N.O. hath objected p. 76. concerning the Protestants Negative Articles of Faith; or hath urged p. 86. concerning the Marks or evidences by which among many pretenders, that Church may be known; from which known we are to learn Truth. But I wonder not at it, since in this Discourse pretending to answer N. O's Considerations; no reply is returned to a greater part of them: Nor the arguings in his Principles justified, where they are by N.O. questioned. Which perhaps may be the reason, why he saith here only, that he hath thus far considered the main Foundations upon which N.O. proceeds: the Structure itself remains yet unconsidered: and, as for his digging here at the Foundation, it hath been but lost labour; If the Church be a sure Foundation, N. O's must stand.    
FINIS.