Diftinguifh'd? 1. By comparing different Texts, How Binin which the fame thing is fpoken of. 2. By miles to be Comparing Scripture, and Apoftolical Tra- Diingha dition. The Promife of Eftablishing David's Temporal Throne for ever, was only Conditional, as we find by comparing 2 Sam. 7. ver. 16. with 1 Kings 8. ver. 25. So the Promife of Continuing the Prieft-hood in the Family of Heli, is declared Conditional, 1 Sam. 2. ver. 30. The Threats of deftroying Ninive are fhew'd Conditional, Jonah 3. ver. 10. So were thofe related by Jeremy, cap. 18. ver. 7, 8, Cri tho' he fays nothing of Plucking up Churches Mr. L's Comment, pag. 29. But to Conclude from hence, that all Scripture-Promifes are Conditional, is to Over-throw Religion, and to Dethrone Christ. The reft of Mr. L's Objections, will be Confider'd in the next Chapter. In the Clofe of this, the Reader may be pleas'd to Obferve, that The Church's Ufflality, I have Treated only of the Church of Chrift. before Whether the Church of the Patriarchs, or the cbrift, may Jewish Synagogue had any fuch Promise of beingte superalways Visible, till the Meffiah came; is a Que- fede di ftion, in which the Church of Chrift is not concert'd. And therefore I fhall leave it to be Difcufs'd by thofe Men of Leifure, who have Time to throw away upon Un-neceffary Difputes. If they had no fuch Abfolute Promife; Chrift, even in this Respect, is the Mediator of a better Covenant, which was Establish'd upon better Prownifes, Heb. 8. ver. 6. If they had; Christians, me-thinks, fhould be Afham'd of Denying it to his Church. CHAP whether CHAP. III. The Visible Church of Christ, is an Un-erring The State of the Question. S in the laft Chapter; fo in this, I fpeak not of the Church of the Patriarchs; nor of the Jewish Synagogue, before the Coming of the Meffiab but of his Church only.... THE Question, I intend to Difcufs, is not as Mr. L. States it, p. 35, (and in his Treatife of It is not Private Fudgment, pag. 188.) whether it be in-conGod is Db. fistent with the Goodness of God, not to give Men a liged to Living Infallible fudge, (this, whether True or give us an Falfe,being more than is necessary to be examin'd, Infallible. for the Ending of Difputes, between the Church Guide. and the Reformation) but whether God has not mercifully given us fuch a Guide: or, whether Christ has not promis'd to Direct his visible Church in fucha manner,that,notwithstanding the Paffions and Prejudices of Men, She fhall never Propofe any thing to her Children to be Believ'd with Chriftian Faith, but what is really Reveal'd. Not by Forceing, or Tying her Will: or by any inward Nonienfical Quality of Infallibility: but by fuch an Outward Direction, and Affistance of God's Holy Spirit; as Effectually hinders the Great Body of his Church, from Agreeing in any Doctrine, as a Reveal'd Truth of Chri ftian Religion, which is not really fo. As Proteftants commonly grant, the Church, in Refpect of fome Chriftian Society or other, is Infallible in Fundamentals: not by any stiff Quality Enslaving their Wills; but by the merciful Direction of his Un-erring Providence. ther we 3. AGAIN, this Queftion of the Church's Infallibility in matters of Faith, is not, as Mr. L. fuppofes it (in his Treatife of Private Judgment, pag. 185, c, and in his Preface) whether we muft lay afide the Ufe of our Reafon; and fub- Nor whemit Blindfold to any Decifion of the Church, how maftlay eFalfe and Unreasonable foever. For this is fuch fide the je an Extravagant Submission,as I cannot think any of our Bea Man, out of Bedlam, was ever Capable of. fon. Christ was Proclaim'd by his Father to be Infallible But were the Apostles therefore, and the first Chriftians, commanded to bid Adieu to Reafon; and to believe rafhly whatever they were told, Reafonable or Un-reasonable, True or Falfe? Or rather, can he that is Infallible; in matters wherein he is fo (as Chrift was in all things) lead us into Error? All, that have not a Tincture of the Deifts, hold Scripture Infallible in every Part. Muft they then Diveft themfelves of Reafon; or Submit to whatever they Read, be it True or Falfe, Reasonable or Unreasonable? And as Books may be Infallible, fo Men may be fo too (and the Apostles were) as far as God is pleas'd to make them fo. He may tell us this; and convince us of it: but he neither will, nor can Oblige us to do any thing Unreasonably. 4. It is in vain, (fays Mr. L. in the Preface now. mention'd) to offer to fhew a Man any thing, till firft you have Perfwaded him to open his Eyes Right. But muft we fhut our Eyes to Read the 5. AND fince Redfon (fays he, Ibid.) must be our Inftructor, why should we deny it to be our Guide? I know not. But, are we Afraid of too much Light? Of too many Helps, in Order to SalBeafon, vation? Is Reafon Loft; because we have both not our only it, and a furer Leader? But, what if they Guide. Contradict each other? 'Tis Impoffible. Truth, cannot be Oppofite to Truth. If Reason, tho' of it felf Fallible, was an Inftructor to the Apoftles, and the First Chriftians (who were fo happy, as both to hear and fee the Son of God) why should we deny it to have been their Guide ? But had they not, befides It, another Guide, that was more Infallible? As Chrift then was their Infallible Guide; and as the Scripture, then Extant, was to them; and is fill to us; why may not the Church (as far as the Direction and Promife of Chrift Extends) without giving Reafon a Discharge, be to us the Pillar and Ground of Truth, and an Infallible Guide? But Authority is Frightful. Why then was it granted to the Apostles, both in 'their Doctrine and Writings? Why do even thofe, that cry loudest againft It, follow it in Practice? And, if Authority may be Trufted; that of the Catholick Church is the best Establisht under Heaven, and therefore the fittest to be our Guide. 6. As the Difpute, concerning the Ceremo nies of the Law, Decided by an Affembly of the Apoftles, who faid, Act. 15. ver. 28, It feem'd good to the Holy Ghoft and to us, fhews both the Ne Neceffity and the Authority of Councils So when the Faithful humbly acquiefce in the Judgment of the Church, they do no more, than follow the Example of St. Paul and Silas, who Publifh'd this firft Sentence of the Apoftles to the Chriftians, A&t. 16. ver. 4, and taught them to obferve it, as an Oracle of the Holy Ghoft. 7. If the Catholick Church be Infallibly Directed, in propofing to her Children the Reveal'd Truths of Chriftian Religion: it follows, that Councils, Receiv'd by the Church, are Infal-How lible Guides in matters of Faith: For, when Councils thus Receiv'd; Her Paftors agree, that fuch Infallible. and fuch Doctrines are Reveal'd Truths. 8. AND, fince all our Controverfies with Hereticks, are decided by Councils thus receiv'd; 'Tis clear, that these are Un-necessary Questions as to our Difputes. First, Whether a Council be Infallible or not, before it has the Approbation of the Chief Bishop? Secondly, Before it be Receiv'd by the much Greater Part of Bishops in the Church? Thirdly, Whether fuch or fuch a Council (as that at Conftantinople of 150 Bishops anno, 381. against Macedonius, Denying the Divinity of the Holy Ghoft: or the Council at Trent against Luther, in which, anno 1 563, all the Decrees were Read, and Approved by 196 Bishops and other Prelates) receiv'd by the Church, were properly General Councils, or not? The Council at Trent was fo. But, fince in all its Canons and Decrees of Faith, it has the Church's Approbation: it would, in those Decrees, be an Infallible Guide to us, altho' it were not properly a General, or Oecumenical Council. |