some of them enemies to the Christian Religion and divided into so many Communions that it is not visible to the eye of man how they should be regularly assembled I say here he adds ‖ Schisme guarded p. 352. That because it is not credible that the Turk will send his Subjects that is four of the Proto-Patriarchs with their Clergy to a General Council or allow them to meet openly with the rest of Christendom in a General Council it being a thing so much against his own Interest that therefore if these Patriarchs do deliver the Sense and Suffrages of their Churches by Letters or by Messengers this is enough to make a Council General And That as there have been General Oriental Councils Without the personal presence of a Western Bishop so there may be an Occidental Council I add General without the Personal Presence of one Eastern Bishop by the sole communication of their Sense and their Faith And for the calling also of this General Council §. 35. n. 2. he saith ‖ Ib. p. 356. That if the Pope have any right either to convocate General Councils himself or to represent to Christian Soveraigns the fit Seasons for Convocation of them either in respect of his beginning of unity or of his Proto-Patriarchate he doth not envy it him since there may be a good use of it in respect of the division of the Empire so good caution be observed And before p. 91. he saith That at present he will not dispute whether the Bishop of Rome by his reputed Primacy of Order or beginning of Vnity may lawfully call an Oecumenical or Occidental Council by power purely spiritual which consists rather in advice than in mandates properly so called or in mandates of courtesie not coactive in the exterior Court of the Church that considering the division and subdivision of the ancient Empire and the present distraction of Christendom it seemeth not altogether inconvenient That the Primitive Fathers did assemble Synods and make Canons before there were any Christian Emperors but that was by authority meerly spiritual they had no coactive power to compel any man against his will and the uttermost they could do was to separate him I suppose he meaneth who contemned their summons or their Canons from their communion and to leave him to the coming or judgment of Christ Ib. p. 120. He seems to allow the Church-Governours a right to summon Councils where there are no Christian Soveraigns to do it i. e. that will do it and to make Canons such as the Primitive Bishops made before there were Christian Emperors Only I hope he will consequently allow further what was done also by these Church-Governours in the Primitive times that if Ecclesiastical Governors have authority as need requires to summon such a Meeting they may appoint some place for it which place will always be in some Princes temporal Dominions and that if they may make Canons they may divulge and send abroad their Laws and Canons to the Church's Subjects upon spirituâ—l censures inflicted on the disobedient which must be also amongst some temporal Prince his Subjects for so did the Governors of the first Council ‖ Act. 15. appoint the place of their Meeting Hierusalem and sent abroad their Canons amongst the Emperors Subjects both contrary to the then secular Powers and this without entrenching on any ones Politick Rights The Bishop having condescended to thus much concerning General Councils §. 35. n. 3. he yields further ‖ Reply to Chalced presat That until such Council the most general that is procurable he submits himself to the Church of England wherein he was baptized or to a National English Syxod But here he makes too great a leap though perhaps he had some reason for it in removing his Submission immediately from a General to a National Synod of his own Church for between these lies a Patriarchal or Occidental Synod to which he ought to submit the just authority also of which above a National Synod he elsewhere both freely maintaineth ‖ Vindic. of the Church of England p. 258. and though not here yet elsewhere he also refers his trial to it There is nothing saith he Schism Guarded p. 136. that we long after more than a General Council rightly called rightly proceeding or in defect of that a free Occidental Council as General as may be But then we would have the Bishop to renounce that Oath to the Pope that hath been obtruded upon them Lastly Concerning the quality of Obedience due to such Councils even in non-fundamentals he saith ‖ Vindic. of the Church of Engl. p. 27. That as to Questions non fundamental when these are once defined by a lawful General Council all Christians though they cannot assent in their judgment are obliged to passive Obedience to possess their souls in patience And they who shall oppose the Authority and disturb the Peace of the Church deserve to be punished as Hereticks where also he makes this the fourth way of rendring ones self guilty of Heretical pravity I suppose because though the Councils Determination in his opinion makes no point Heresie yet at least it equals the crime of the Opposer to that of an Heretick I have been somewhat copious in giving you the condescensions of this Bishop §. 36. n. 1. not to make advantage of what a single Author indulgeth Reply Where Conc. what Judgment of the Church sufficiently obligeth but because they seem no greater than reason requireth and what all Protestants allowing a Church-Government ought to stand to and therefore I desire your leave before I proceed to some other quotations to reflect a little on this submission of the Bishop's and to see how far it truly performed will rationally carry him or others towards a present settlement in many of the points controverted 1st Then This I presume here ought to be granted me that in the Bishop's or others professing a submission to the General or Vnanimous accord of the Church Catholick in any Doctrine or Practise this accord ought not to be taken so strictly either for what is defined by Councils or accepted by the Church diffusive as that if any particular Person Church or Party perhaps his own that is held Catholick dissent in any thing from all the rest being a much major part in respect thereof and joined also with the supreme Pastor of the Catholick Church and Primate of the Patriarchs he shall account himself discharged from Obedience or deny such a Consent to be sufficiently General and Unanimous to oblige him Concerning which see more Disc 2. § 25. and before § 31. 2. This premised Come we now to the Bishops submissions §. 36. n. 2. which are promised 1 st To the present Church Catholick viz. To all things universally believed or practised by it 2 ly To Free General 3 ly Or also free Occidental Councils Which to review in their Order In respect of the Church
as I conceive satisfactory For 1st Had I an obligatior of submission of judgement to lawful General Councils you cannot prove this such a one and those the decrees thereof which are now extant with such a certainty as is necessary to build thereon an Article of my faith For to prove this you must satisfie me in all those things questioned concerning General Councils * by Mr. Chillingworth p. 94. * By Dr. Pierce in his answer to Mr. Cressy p. 18. c. * By Mr. Whitby from p. 428. to p. 433. where he concludes 1st That we never had a General Council 2ly That a General Council is a thing impossible * By Mr. Stillingfleet p. 508. c. 495. 119-123 c. Who also against the being of such a General Council as is the representative of the whole Church Catholick thus disputes †p. 515. 516. The representation of a Church saith he by a General Council is a thing not so evident from whence it should come for if such representative of the whole Church there be it must either be so by some formal act of the Church or by a tacite consent It could not be by any formal act of the Church for then there must be some such act of the universal Church preceding the being of any General Council by which they receive their Commission to appear in behalf of the universal Church Now that the universal Church did ever agree in any such act is utterly impossible to be demonstrated either that it could be or that it was But if it be said that such a formal act is not necessary but the tacite consent of the whole Church is sufficient for it then such a consent of the Church must be made evident by which they did devolve over the power of the whole Church to such a Representative And all those must consent in that act whose power the Council pretends to have of which no footsteps appear The utmost then saith he that can be supposed in this case is that the parts of the Church may voluntarily consent to accept of the decrees of such a Council and by that voluntary act or by the supreme authority enjoyning it such decrees may become obligatory Thus he But I suppose its decrees obligatory then only to those parts of the Church that voluntarily consent to accept of them which the Arrians did not to receive the Decrees of Nice 2ly Though it be shewed a lawful General Council representing the whole Church as it ought if such yet what obligation can there lye upon me of consenting to it since it may err even in Fundamentals if it be not universally accepted as indeed this Council was not for several Bishops there were that were dissenters in the Council and many more afterward †See before § 13. 3ly Were it universally accepted yet unless you can shew me by some means that this point wherein I differ from its judgment is a fundamental or necessary point to salvation both it and the Catholick Church also that accepts it may err therein 4ly The judgement of this Council seems justly declinable also on this account That whereas the Guides of the Church many years before this Council were divided in their opinion Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria and Hosius a Favourite of the Emperors heading one party and Arrius and the Bishops adhering to him whom I mentioned formerly †§. 13. heading another and whereas afterward in the prosecution of this difference both the foresaid Alexander in one Provincial Council held in Egypt and Hosius sent thither by the Emperor in another had there condemned Arrius and his Confederates yet so it was ordered that in this General Council assembled for an equal hearing and decision of this Controversie of these two professed Enemies to the other party the one Hosius was appointed to sit as President of this Council and the other Alexander held in it the next place to him and poor Arrius excluded and the Bishops who favoured him in the Council though at first freely declaring their dissent yet at last over-awed to a subscription as also was Arrius himself chiefly by the Emperor Constantine's overbearing authority who before somewhat indifferent in the contest yet upon Arrius his undutiful and too peremptory letters had some years before taken great offence at him and also as he was very eloquent publickly written against him †See Baronius A. D. 318 319. Which over-awing hence appears in that the same Bishops that were adherents to Arrius when this Emperor being deceased Constantius his son countenanced their cause returned I say not to their former opinion only but to their publick profession of it By which we may guess that if the Controversie had at that time been committed to equal and disingaged Judges and such as had not formerly shewed themselves a party or if the Oriental Bishops without any fear of the Prince upon them might have given free votes and the Arrian cause then had a Constantius instead of a Constantine things wherein Protestants well understand me because on the same grounds they have rejected the Council of Trent we may presume then the issue would have been under Constantine the same that it was under his Successor I say before Judges equal and indifferent and not such as were before a party though this party should be compounded of the chief superior Prelates of the Church For as Mr. Stillingfleet urgeth †p. 478. We must either absolutely and roundly assert that it is impossible that the superiors in the Church may be guilty of any error or corruption or that if they be they must never be called to an account for it or else that it may be just in some cases to except against them as parties And if in some cases then the question comes to this whether the present he speaks of Idolatry I of Consubstantiality be some of these cases or no And here if we make those superiors Judges again what you grant before comes to nothing Prot. I perceive Mr. Chillingworth's observation is right †p. 60. That in controversies in Religion it is in a manner impossible to be avoided but the Judge must be a party I add also that in matters of Religion where every man is concerned and in great Controversies especially where is any division of Communion all both Laity and Clergy speedily own and range themselves on one side or other Clergy interessing themselves for the necessary direction of their Subjects Laity in obedience to their Superiors neither can such a Judge be nominated that is not to one side suspected So that in controversies of Religion we must deny any Judge as he did †Ib. §. 17. or this plea that the ordinary Judge that is assigned us 〈◊〉 is a party must not be easily hearkened to § 19 Soc. But I have not yet said all For 5ly Were there none of the forenamed defects in it †Whitby p. 15 Stillingf
THE GUIDE IN CONTROVERSIES Or A Rational Account Of the Doctrine of ROMAN-CATHOLICKS Concerning the Ecclesiastical Guide in Controversies of Religion Reflecting on the later Writings of Protestants particularly of Archbishop Lawd and Mr. Stillingfleet on this Subject By R. H. 1. Pet. 3.15 Parati semper ad satisfactionem omni poscenti vos rationem 2. Cor. 6.8 Per Infamiam bonam Famam ut Seductores Veraces Printed in the Year MDCLXVII The Preface to the Reader AFter the sad effects of discord and quarrels in Religion so long experienced and End of such Controversies cannot but be by all pious Christians most passionately desired And an end of them if it may be by an Infallible or unerring decision of those necessary That a Writing also if clear and free from any ambiguity in its sence may decide these is confessed by all For if words written cannot neither can words spoken since nothing can be said but what may be recorded and granted also that such Writing doth decide them infallibly if it be the Holy Scripture But it appears that the sence of Holy Scripture is not in all Controversies that are thought necessary to be determined so clear but that it is called in question and disputed by considerable Parties For the ending of which therefore that God hath left another living Guide his Church or the Ecclesiastical Governors thereof which is in all Ages in the exposition of Holy Scripture and the decision of these Controversies as to Necessaries Infallible from other Sects easily discerned in its sentence easily Vnderstood is in these Discourses pretended to be proved And learned Protestants also shewed to maintain those Principles from which it seems rationally consequent Any such living Infallible Guide Protestants strongly deny and oppose And hereby if indeed there be such a Guide 1st incurr great peril as to their Salvation By denying a due obedience and Submission of Judgment to its Authority and Definitions And by deserting its Communion as not to be enjoyed on other termes And 2ly become unsettled and of a various judgment in several points of Religion of great concernment and daily subdividing into more Sects Their many objections therefore and difficulties urged against the Being of any such Guid are here considered and replyed to Especially those occurring in the writings of their later Divines Arch Bp. Lawd Bp. Bramhall Dr. Hammond Dr Ferne Mr. Chillingworth Mr. Stillingfleet and others Whose Art and diligence hath been so great in fighting against their own Happiness if I may so say and in hindring Themselves and others with all imaginable arguments from returning into the Unity of the Catholick Church and Faith that there seemes nothing left out or neglected by them that can hereafter be said new in their in their Defence Of which objections whether any of moment and pertinent to the matter in hand are here concealed or of those mentioned any not fully satisfied is left to the equal Reader 's Judgment The Author though conscious of his weaknes yet confident of the Cause and presuming so necessary a Truth to have so much advantage over Error as that it needeth not the very sharpest wit and exactest Judgment to vindicate and maintain it hath taken in hand this task in the long silence of many other more able Workmen that he might give satisfaction to some persons who seem with great indifferency to desire it and that the Adversary in having the last Word might not also to some weaker judgments seem to have the best Cause And to this end He hath also wholly applyed himself herein to the language and expressions of Protestants used in this Controversie and indeavored to follow their Motion to the smalest Particulars and last Retraits and hath built a good part of his discourse on their own Concessions as more prevalent with such Readers and those materials which their own writings afford advantagious to Truth and the present design Recommending this most important affair to the Protestant Readers most serious consideration As which if what is promised here be made good will possess Him of a much more true and solid Satisfaction and Tranquility of minde than his former Principles could possibly afford Him 1 * Whilst now he discernes himself contrary to what he before imagined guarded in his way to heaven with a double Guide unfailable The Holy Scriptures as what points they are clear And next the Holy Church in what they seem obscure into whose judgment and sentence he safely resolves all his former Scruples and anxieties concerning such Texts wherein a mistake is any way dangerous * Whilst now by a new and holier way of mortifying his own judgment instead of confuting another's and especially that of Superiors and of subduing his passions †St. August De Serm. Dom. in Monte 1. l. 3 c. On Beati pauoeres spiritu Oportet animam se mitem praebere pietate ne id quod imperitis videtur absurdum vituperare audeat pervicacibus concertationibus effiâ—iatur indocilis instead of enriching his intellect and seeking the possession of Truth by humility and obedience instead of Science and Argument he becomes fixed and setled in most of those Controversies as already stated by this Guide which still entangle and perplex others The light of his own Reason first serving him so far as to the discovery of that Guide a discovery wherein the divine providence hath left so clear and evident that a sincere and unbiased quest cannot miscarry to whom once found out he is afterward for all other things I mean that are prescribed by this Guide to subject and resigne it * Whilst now he renders himself one of those Babes to whom God by these Spiritual Fathers in all simplicity believed by him reveales what things are hid from the self-wise and prudent who are still standing upon their Guard with Pythagoras his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Jewe's Quomodo Jo. 6.52 in their mouths missing of Truth where Authority and Tradition teach it out of too much wariness to be deceived * Whilst now as Mary at our Lord's so he meekly sits at his Church's feet and heareth her words when as those others whom he hath left full of learned cares from their youth like St. Austine when a Manichee how and where to finde Truth taught to believe no side to search and rifle all are stating all their life long every Controversie a new to themselves one on this manner another on that examining all pretended Foundations whether solidly laid For where say they may not an Humane Testimony deceive them even from the more principal The essential Vnity of the Trinity The Divinity and Eternity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost the Vhiquity of Gods essence and his Absolute Praescience the number and right use of the Sacraments The Commission of the Churches Hierarchy and Bishops their just authority and from whom they hold it for in all these they finde acute Divines calling on their impartiall
Interests he is well enough content that the prime Patriarch summon it and then upon this conceded I think I may add as evident from what is said before § 35. n. 2. that the same Patriarch may both appoint some place of meeting and also such Council met divulge and upon spiritual Censures require to be observed its Decrees concerning matters meerly spiritual whether mean-while the secular Powers favour or frown I say appoint some place which place since it must be within the Dominions and under the Power of some particular Prince and farther distant from some particular Churches than others it cannot be expected that it shall ever be so fitly chosen as equally to serve all Interests or remedy all Inconveniences and therefore supposing free access free proposal and voting for all Prelates that come the post-acceptation must make amends for the necessity of many Prelat's or also Church's absence Things thus far conceded by him concerning General Councils §. 36. n. 4. that which I have chiefly to except against is this 1st In his reckoning up the Clergy of the Roman Graecian Armenian Abyssine Russian Protestant Churches as constituting the entire body of such a general Council and affirming that the rest of them are a body three times greater than the Roman including the Western Churches joined with it ‖ See before § 35. he seems much to miscount For 1st Several of the Protestant Churches viz. so many as have deposed Bishops and constituted a Presbyterial Government for any thing I can see are very clearly concluded by Dr. Hammond and Dr. Ferne to be Schismaticks and that from and against their Spiritual Superiours ‖ See Disc 2. and that from and against their Spiritual Superiours § 24. n. 2. which Schisme excludes them from being true Members of the Church Catholick or having place in her General Councils especially since their Clergy also are no Bishops See Bishop Bramhall Vindic. of the Church of England p. 9. opposing Catholick and Schismatical as he doth elsewhere Catholick and Heretical But then as for the Bishops of other Protestant Churches neither can they escape the same imputation of Schisme by the same Dr. Hammonds Concession if those Councils mentioned below § 50. n. 2. whose Authority and Decrees they have rejected be truly their Superiours nor yet Heresie in the Catholick account or perhaps in Bishop Bramhall's considering what he saith Vindic. of the Church of England p. 27. quoted before § 36. and Schism Guarded p. 352. if any of these Councils be Legally General 2. Next As for several of those Eastern and Southern Churches that are brought in by the Bishop to enlarge the Church Catholick in comparison of the Roman Catholick §. 36. n. 5. they are a Mass of many several Sects of which see what is said more at large in Disc 3. § 1.76 c. such as after the Council of Chalcedon some sooner some later deserting their former Patriarch have since ranged themselves under several Patriarchs of their own residing in several Cities of the East the different Sects having set up in later times without any Conciliar Authority acting in it no less than seven or eight Independent Patriarchs They stand divided both from the Latine and Greek Church and also from one another in several Tenents concerning our Lord's Person Natures and Wills many of those dispersed in the more Eastern parts Assyria Mesopotamia c. suspected as Dr. Field ‖ Of the Church p. 62. acknowledgeth of Nestorianisme somwhat qualified many of the Southern as the Egyprians or Cophtites Ethiopians or Abyssines as to their Religion dependent on the former suspected as the same Dr. Field relateth ‖ Ib. p. 64 66 of Eutychianisme or rather of Dioscorism who was Patriarch of Alexandria and condemned in the Council of Chalcedon divers of them also amongst other extravagant Rites retaining Circumcision If this then be true which this Doctor relates though they be not perfect Eutychians and Nestorians in their Opinions yet such they are as do transgress against the Faith and Definitions of the third and fourth General Council the later of which Councils the greatest body of them expresly rejects See Dr. Field p. 70 71. No reason then can Bp. Bramhall have to admit these to a Suffrage in a Catholick General Council And if it be said ‖ See Dr. Field l. 3. c. 5. that most of them in such illiterate Regions are only through invincible ignorance material not formal Hereticks and therefore are not so unmercifully to be cut off from the Catholick Church it is to be remembred that we speak not here of cutting off either them or also Protestants so many as are invincibly ignorant from being internally still members of the Church and of the Body of Christ and possibly capable of salvation but of their having externally no right being involved in such Tenents to officiate in the Government of the Church or vote in its Councils from which Councils in expelling Hereticks the Church can only look to the external profession thereof and to which suppose a Material Heretick admitted his ignorance would be as to voting as much the bane of Truth there as the formal Hereticks pertinacy But 3 ly were they never so good Catholicks §. 36. n. 6. yet their Body and bulk taking in the Greek Church also as for those residing in the Turks dominions is far from being so considerably great as it is made Where especially for the former Prelacy the oppression is so great these Dignities so set to sale and their means and revenue so alienated and most of the Metropolies in Asia so ruin'd as that the bare title only now descending of many of the Ancient Sees is neglected and the succession in them ceased And though the territory is much vaster yet it may reasonably be presumed that abstracting those which in these parts are adherents to the Roman Communion as the Marointes a long time have been there are more Canonical Prelates and perhaps Christians in some small part of Europe than there are throughout all Turky where also the chief Supporters of the Christian-Religion are mostly Regulars and Monks no welcom Colleagues for the Protestants to join with ‖ See Brerewoods Inquiries 10. c. Botero Relat Vniversal Rel. del Gr. Turco The chief and most united Body of these Eastern Christians is in Greece which Boterus but long ago conjectured might make up two thirds of the inhabitants there And as for those more remote divers of them by the diligent missions of several Religious Orders of the Roman Profession out of Europe into those parts who by the Merchants help procure houses of constant residence there have been from time to time reduced to the Unity of the Roman faith and communion as appears in the relation of these Missions See Spondan Annal. A. D. 1616. 8. and Dr. Field p. 63. what hath hapned in the more Eastern Churches since A. D. 1550. And as their number
small so is learning there by reason of extreme poverty very much decayed ‖ See Roger. Recollect Terr Saincte 2 l. Tract 4 5. Thomas à lesu dé conv Gent. 6 l. p 285. So that he must now adhere to the Western who would adhere either to the major part of Christianity or to the learned And it seems a great tergiversation and distrust in their cause for any person or Church of this Western-flourishing Body to fly and retire to such remote Confederates some of them almost our Antipodes and to decline the judgment that is easily had of the same Western-Body which hath a Conclusive authority in respect of any part thereof for controversies arising within this Patriarchat and which was alwayes by reason of the Presidency of S. Peters chair the most dignified part of Christendom and is the most free at this present time in their exercise of Religion the most unmolested in their Government and Discipline the most flourishing in Learning and Records of Antiquity and lastly which by their numerous Clergy and Populacy and the extent also of several members of their Body into all those parts where these other Churches reside do seem by much the greatest part of Christianity 4. But 4ly how numerous soever these Eastern Christians be or how good their title to give their Suffrages in Councils yet §. 36. n. 7. there seems no great advantage that can arise to the Protestant-party hence all these Churches in their publick Liturgies Doctrines and Rites as to the Protestant-controversies much what agreeing with the Greek Church ‖ See 3d Disc §. 158. c. 177 c. and this again with the Roman 5. Lastly this consent and agreement of the Greek and other Eastern Churches or the greatest part of them with the Roman in the forenamed Controversies appearing in their Liturgies Writings common Practices and these not borrowed from the West between which and them there is known to have been for many Ages no great Friendship seems sufficient to render the Occidental Councils wherein these Points have been decided either General or Equivalent thereto without those Letters or Messages which the Bishop requires as necessary from these Churches which Letters depend on the assembling of some inferior Synods Diocesan or Provincial among them a thing in so great a Desolation not to be expected Yet before the Turks last Conquests in some of these Western Councils that have determined some of these points there hath been a considerable Representative of the Eastern Churches as in the Great Lateran Council under Innocent and in the Florentine So then stands the case with the Bishop and other Protestants that yielding submission to General Councils they cannot rightly on this account withdraw it from several Councils that have been assembled in the West in later Ages 3. But next this Bishop professeth himself to submit also to the Sentence of an Occidental Council §. 36. n. 8. if a free one so that we need not further trouble our selves to enquire after a more General * 3. Of Councils Occidental but search if any such free Occidental Council hath defined all or any of the present Controversies which Council he obligeth the Protestant Churches to acquiesce in and that with good reason For the same Authority hath a Patriarchal Council over the National Churches and Synods of the West as these claim over Provincial or Diocesan the authority of which National Synods see established in the Synod under King James 1603. Can. 139 140. And the same Authority of Patriarchal granted by Dr. Field and others Disc 2. § 24. Now Occidental Councils there have been many several of them before Luther's days one since that have decreed and given their Sentence in several if not all of those Points of Controversie of which yet the Protestants do still from a free Occidental Council seek resolution ‖ See below § 50. n. 2. The enquiry then remains concerning their freedom where also I suppose no greater freedom needs be proved than as to the particular Controversies defined against Protestants For a Council to which some violence is offered in one thing which perhaps is by some potent persons therein contended for yet may be left altogether free as to many other things wherein none have any particular or all an equal interest 1st Then If we enquire into the Western Councils before Luther that of Franckfort Mistakes being removed concerning which see Mr. Thorndikes ‖ Epilog l. 3. p. 363. Concessions the great Lateran Council and those five preceding it that defined a substantial conversion in the Eucharist the Council of Constance ‖ Of Idolatry § 57. and that of Florence I find nothing objected against their freedom nor any antifaction then in the Church as to the Points we speak of against whom there was any need to procure in the Council a stronger part or to over-awe any ones liberty Nor see I any necessity of force to be used upon the Fathers for voting those things lawful which were their daily practice or for voting such a thing a truth in their Meeting as that of a substantial conversion in the Eucharist which before their convening though agitated much and contradicted by some Inferiors yet not one Bishop in the Catholick Church of those times opposed And if the paucity of the number of Western Bishops in some of these Councils should be alledged as a prejudice to them the general acceptation of them by those times makes a sufficient amends for it Next if we take into consideration the freedom of that of Trent since Luthers time §. 36. n. 9. according to the particulars required by the Bishop ‖ Before §. 35 n. 1. there are four things sufficient to remove our jealousie of any violence used for the defining most of those points I will not say all to avoid some cavils controverted by Protestants concerning which only is our inquiry They 1st is That however some of those points may be pretended to have bin voted at first as it were surreptiously by a very small Body of Bishops and many of those of one Nation yet both a full Body of Bishops afterwards in the Conclusion of the Council unanimously agreeing ratified these and the General Body of the absent Prelaces of all the Western Churches except Protestants and those of France amongst the rest accepted them The 2d That Soave no friend to this Council yet testified that as to the Protestant or Lutheran controversies the votes of the Fathers of that Council were very unanimous without any cloak-bag expected from Rome without any dispute or contracts either between themselves or with the Pope though about some other points there was much See Soave p. 230. where speaking of the Councils using ambiguity of expression in some matters wherein was some diversity of opinion among the Fathers so to satisfie all But saith he that which hath been related in this particular perhaps did happen in
from one another all concurring in the same judgment for a corporal Presence and a substantial mutation Or can there be any new Light in this Point since there are no new Revelations attainable in these present times which those were not capable of Or if there could is not much the major part of the present Clergy and Ecclesiastical Governors of Christianity still swayed on the same side against any present evidence pretended If we consider saith Dr. Hammond ‖ Of Heresie §. 13. n. 2 3. Gods great and wise and constant Providence and Care over his Church his desire that all men should be saved and in order to that end come to the knowledge of all necessary Truth his promise that he will not suffer his faithful Servants to be tempted above what they are able nor permit Scandals and False Teachers to prevail to the seducing of the very Elect his most pious godly Servants If I say we consider these and some other such like General Promises of Scripture wherein this Question about the Errability of Councils seems to be concerned we shall have reason to believe that God will never suffer all Christians to fall into such a temptation as it must be in case the whole Representative should err in matter of faith I add to define therein any thing contrary to the Apostles depositum and which Christians may not safely believe or without idolatry practise and therein find approbation and reception among all those Bishops and Doctors of the Church diffused which were out of the Council And though in this case the Church might remain a Church and so the destructive gates of hell not prevail against it and still retain all parts of the Apostle's Depositum in the hearts of some faithful Christians which had no power in the Council to oppose the Decree or out of it to resist the General approbation yet still the testimony of such a General Council so received and approved would be a very strong Argument and so a very dangerous temptation to every meek and pious Christian and it is piously to be believed though not infallibly certain That God will not permit his Servants to fall into that Temptation Thus Dr. Hammond whose words I desire may be seriously considered with application to this great Controversie of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass We do not believe saith the same Doctor ‖ Ibid §. 14. n. 6. that any General Council truly such ever did or shall err in any matter of Faith ‖ See before §. 56. n. 2. We are most ready in all our differences to stand to the judgment of the truly Catholick Church and its lawful Representative a free General Council ‖ Vind. c 2. p. 9. Or in defect of that a free Occidental Council ‖ Schism Guarded p. 136 saith Bishop Bramhal It seems very fit and necessary for the peace of Christendom that a general Council supposed thus erring should stand in force till evidence of Scripture or demonstration make the Errors to appear as that another Council of equal authority reverse it Saith Arch-Bishop Lawd ‖ p. 227. Again An Argument necessary and demonstrative is such saith he as being proposed to any man and understood the Mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent unto it So it is not enough to think on to say it is demonstrative the light of a demonstrative Argument is the evidence which it hath in its self to all that understand it Well but because all understand it not If a quarrel be made as was by Berengarius four or five times Who shall decide it No question but a General Council For if it be evident to any man then to so many learned men as are in a Council doubtless And if they cannot but assent it is hard to think them so impious that they will define against it And if that which is thought evident to any man be not evident to such a grave Assembly its probable it s no Demonstration and the Producers of it ought to rest and not to trouble the Church ‖ Pag. 245 246. Thus Arch-bishop Lawd How then I say in the present point can the reformed reviving the former Arguments of Bertram Scotus Erigena Berengarius c. still trouble the Church again with urging of them after the judgment of so many Councils already passed upon them If the reformed tie us to obedience as of assent when the Council brings evident Scripture or Demonstration so of Silence when we cannot bring it against the Council and after our bringing what we think Demonstrative tie us to stand to the judgment of the Council whether it be so or no From hence it follows that as we may not gain-say a second Council after our Demonstrations proposed and disallowed by it so we may not gain-say the former or the very first Council if we produce no new demonstrations but such as were considered by such Council and rejected Now if Councils are thus to judg of Demonstrations brought against their former Decrees and the Contradictour to acquiesce in their judgment Can any desire a fairer Judicature by Councils in any matter for silencing future disputes if not for uniting variety of opinions than there have already bin of this And is there any reason that Protestants should refer themselves in this point as they do to the judgment of a new Council If all these Councils successively erred in this point so manifestly as that they could not lawfully oblige their subjects especially bringing no new Arguments to silence the next and the next to that of such Councils as ever we can hope for may err so too and the same obedience of silence be denied to them whilst one pretended Evidence or Demonstration quelled another new one starts up and demands satisfaction § 60 But if these Councils be invalid for establishing the belief or at least the non-opposition of a substantial Conversion Let us see the proceedings of the Reformation here to repeal their Acts and establish the contrary to them After all these Councils forenamed and that of Trent added to them A. D. 1562. a Synod is called at London of two Provinces only of the West consisting of about twenty four Bishops and two Metropolitans And by these against all the former Councils abovesaid it is decreed ‖ Article 28. That the change of the substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture and overthrows the nature of a Sacrament If then the rest of Christendom have no more then Protestants here say they have for many ages they have had no Sacrament of the Lords Supper amongst them Next in obedience to this their decree they tie their subjects not to silence or a non-contradiction of it but to subscribe ‖ Synod 1603 Can. 63 that they acknowledge it i. e. confess believe it to be agreeable to the Word of God i.e. to be true
Hooker Pref. §. 6. l. 2. §. 7. and in reason what can any say less § 21 10ly From this I also take it for granted That though such or so many Prop. 10. as can demonstratively prove the contrary are hereby disobliged to yield their Assent to the Doctrines of their former Guides yet so many others as cannot do the like remain obliged still to follow and obey the same their former Pastors and by no means may join themselves in communion or adhere to the new Demonstrators till they themselves are confirmed in the like Certainty By which Rule how few will there be of the Reformed that do not still owe their Obedience to the same Church giving her Laws still as formerly that was before Luther who upon new Evidences deserted it where all owe this Obedience save Demonstrators of their new Tenents CHAP. III. 11. That these Church-Governors may teach diversly and some of them err in Necessaries and fall into Heresies § 22. 12. And therefore Christians not left to follow whom of them they please But some certain Rule there is to which of them in any Division they ought to adhere That this in the universal Church-practice is and rationally can be no other than in these Judges subordinate dissenting to adhere to the Superior in those of the same Order and Dignity dissenting to the Major part § 23. c. Where Of the Major part concluding the whole in the ancient Councils § 25. n. 2. And Of the Defection of the Church-Prelacy in the times of Arrianism § 26. n. 2. 14. And that the Protestant-Marks whereby to discern true from false Guides as to the Quest here viz. to learn from these true Guides in matters controverted which is the true Faith are unserviceable § 28. § 22 11ly THat some of these Church-Governors more or fewer may become Hereticks and erroneous in points necessary and may guide Christians contrary to the rest of them Prop. 11. is granted by all sides and known by Experience § 23 12ly It seems therefore also evident That Christians for yielding the Obediences forenamed Propos 9th and allowed by Protestants in such dissenting of Governors Prop. 12. may not safely follow which of them they please or judge to be in their doctrines the rightest for so they judge of their Judges and may as well judge the Controversies but that some Rule there is to whom in such case they are to adhere whom to relinquish it being as necessary for the same divine providence to leave some means by which to know our Guide as to give us one And this Rule also by tradition hath been and in reason can be no other but that in Judges Ecclesiastical subordinate whether Persons or Councils dissenting men ought to adhere to the Superior in Judges equal dissenting to adhere to the Major not minor part For Example In England a Synod Diocesan and one compounded of both the Provinces dissenting here Obedience is due to the Provincial Synod or Convocation and in the Provincial Synod again a minor part dissenting due to the Major Otherwise any may hold what doctrine liketh him best and oppose the maintainers of the contrary since ordinarily some Ecclesiastical Governor either Inferior or Superior if not a greater yet some smaller part or other of them may be found also to hold it And thus the Unity of this Catholick Church as to doctrine is quite overthrown 1st In Persons §. 24. n. 1. or Councils subordinate that the Superior in case of any dissent rightly challengeth our Obedience I think it out of dispute So in England for the establishing of the authority of the supreme National Synod and the Obedience thereto in respect of all Inferiors for preventing dissentions see the Decree in Can. 139. 140. of the Synod under K. James 1603. Where it is said Whosoever shall affirm that the Sacred Synod of this Nation is not the true Church of England by representation Or shall affirm that no manner of person either of the Clergy or Laity not being themselves particularly assembled in the said Sacred Synod are to be subject to the Decrees thereof in causes Ecclesiastical as not having given their voices unto those Decrees let him be excommunicated and not restored until he repent and publickly revoke that his wicked Error And for Obedience to this Highest Ecclesiastical Court see the King 's resolute Speech in the Conference at Hampton-Court ‖ p. 72. I will have one Doctrine and one Discipline one Religion in substance and Ceremony and therefore I charge you never to speak more to that point How far you are bound to obey when the Church hath ordained it What Subjection then for preserving Unity is required in the English Church cannot reasonably be disallowed by them in the Catholick Again see in Dr. Hammond's Book of Schism ‖ c. 3. an acknowledgment of primitive Subordination as of a Presbyter to the Bishop so of Bishops to Metropolitans of Metropolitans to Primates or Patriarchs where he comes short but one Link of those which the Roman Church maintains viz. Of the Patriarchs to the Proto-Patriarch or the Bishop of Rome And again see his acknowledgment ‖ Schism c 8. p 158. Ans to Cath. Gentl. p. 29. of a Subordination of all these severed persons to the whole Corporation or Body of them assembled in Council in which Council he saith It is evident that the power which severally belongs to each Bishop Answ to Cath. Gentl. p. 29. §. 9 10. is there united I add and therefore if that Power which they have severally be by divine right so is this which they have conjunctly notwithstanding what is disputed against it ‖ See Stil Rat account 3 par c. 1. p. 515. c. as a subordination of all the Bishops in a Province to a Council Provincial in a Nation to a Council National of all Christianity to a Council General Only here he omits one subordination well known in the Church and sufficiently attested by other Protestants viz. a subordination of the Bishops of several Nations that are under one Patriarch to a Council Patriarchal Which defect of his give me leave to supply to you out of Dr. Field and Bishop Bramhall Authorities as authentick as his Thus then Dr. Field ‖ Of the Ch. p. 518. These Patriarchs might convocate the Metropolitans of their several divisions and hold a Patriarchal Council which was of greater Authority then either those in the several Provinces or of a whole Nation formerly mentioned because it consisted of more and more honourable Bishops yet had the Patriarchs no greater authority over the Metropolitans within their larger Circuits than the Metropolitans within their lesser Compass And Ib. 513. shewing against Bellarmine that by reason of the several subordinations of the Churches Officers and of their Consults there was no further necessity of a Monarchical Government in the Church for conserving the unity thereof 1 If saith
he a Synod consisted of the Metropolitans ‖ l. 5. c. 30. p. 513. and Bishops of one Kingdom or State only the chief Primate was Moderator 2 If of many Kingdoms one of the Patriarchs and chief Bishops of the whole World was Moderator Every Church and therefore this of England as to Ecclesiastical Governme being subordinate to some one of the Patriarchal Churches and incorporate into the unity of it 3. Thirdly the Actions of a whole Patriarchship were subject to a Synod Oecumenical And elsewhere he saith ‖ l. 5. c. 52. p. 668. That the Patriarch of the West may call a Council of the Western Bishops lawfully punishing those who obey not his summons and he and ihe Council so assembled may make Decrees which shall be obligatory to all the Western Church And thus Bishop Bramhall ‖ Vindic. of the Ch. of England p. 257. What power the Metropolitan had over the Bishop of his own Province the same had a Patriarch over the Metropolitans and Bishops of sundry Provinces within his own Patriarchate And afterward Wherein then consisted Patriarchal Authority in ordaining their Metropolitans for with inferior Bishops they might not meddle or confirming them in imposing of hands or giving the Pall in convocating Patriarchal Synods and presiding in them c when Metropolitical 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 Patriarchs the Bishop of Rome by a Priority of Order And see Ibid. p. 4. his allowing this Bishop to be Exordium Vnitatis This of the subordination of the Bishops of several Nations to a Council Patriarchal taken out of others because omitted by Dr. Hammond Above which the next and highest subordination is that of all the Bishops in Christianity to a Council General To which General Council this Doctor thus professeth elsewhere ‖ Of Heresie §. 11. p. 149. the due subjection of the Church of England Vpon the strength of this perswasion saith he that God will never permit any such universal testimony concerning the faith to conspire in conveying error to us as we have never yet opposed never opposed that implies obedience of Silence but upon the former perswasion I see not why he should not say never dissented from any universal Council nor other voice of the whole Church such as by the Catholick Rules can be contested to be such so for the future we professe never to do And on 1 Tim. 3.15 The Church is the Pillar and Ground of truth he comments thus According to this it is that Christ is said Eph. 4.11 to have given not only Apostles c. but also Pastors and Teachers i.e. the Bishops in the Church for the compacting of the Saints into a Church for the continuing them in all truth that we should be no longer like children carried about with every wind of doctrine And so again when heresies came into the Church in the first Ages it is every where apparent by Ignatius's Epistles That the only way of avoiding error and danger was to adhere to the Bishop in communion and doctrine and whosoever departed from him and that forme of wholesom words kept by him was supposed to be corrupted And the same also to S. W. objecting ‖ Schism disarm p. 255. That it availed not for freedom from Schism to adhere to the Authority of our Bishop as the Arrians did if such Bishop hath rejected the authority of his Superiors and taught contrary to them He grants ‖ Answ to Schism disarm p. 261. concerning any Bishops and those adhering to them if departing from their Superiors That retaining the Authority of their Bishops is not being taken alone any certain Argument or Evidence of not being schismaticks c. This he for establishing such church-Church-authority and the due subordinations thereof from any of which whether person or Council a voluntary departure of those who are subordinate ‖ Of Schism c 3. Answ to C. Gentlem. p. 30 or also a wilful continuance under their censures laid upon them ‖ is by him declared Schism Of which Schism he speaks thus ‖ Answ to C. Gent. p. 9. First saith he those Brethren or People which reject the Ministry of the Deacons or Presbyters in any thing §. 4. wherein they are ordained and appointed by the Bishop §. 24. n. 2. and as long as they continue in obedience to him and of their own accord do break off and separate from them ‖ Of Schism p. 34. refuse to live regularly under them they are by the ancient Church of Christ adjudged and looked on as Schismaticks Here then are many late Sects among Protestants rejecting the Clergy I know not well by what name to call them confessed guilty of Schism In like manner saith he ‖ P. 37.41 if we ascend to the next higher link that of the Bishop to whom both Presbyters and Deacons as well as theBrethren or People are obliged to live in obedience the withdrawing or denying this obedience in any of these will certainly fall under this guilt And as this obedience may be of two sorts either of a lower or of a higher kind the denying obedience in any particular lawful command of the Superior or the casting off all obedience together de throning them or setting up our selves either in their steads or in opposition to them so will the Schism be also a lighter and a grosser separation And here are all Protestant Presbyterial whether Persons or Churches for any thing I can understand opposing Episcopacy or setling instead of it a Presbyterial Church-Government confessed also by him guilty of Schism of Schism I mean from their spiritual Superiors wherby also they becom no members of the Church-Catholick which Church-Catholick stands always contradistinct to Heretical and Schismatical Churches nor are any such Schismaticks known to be so and not recanting such their Schism to be admitted to enjoy the communion of the Presbytery of any Church that professeth it self a member of the Catholick Which thing will 1st cut off no small body of the Protestants from the Catholick Church And 2ly will render in some manner partaker of their guilt any other Protestant-Clergy that shall communicate knowingly with them The same sentence upon the Presbyterians deserting their Bishops that is their spiritual Superiors pronounceth Dr. Ferne They have incurred saith he by leaving us ‖ The Case between Eng. and Rome p. 46 48. and I wish they would sadly consider it no less then the guilt of Schism which lies heavily on as many as have of what perswasion or sect soever wilfully divided themselves from the Communion of the Church of England whether they do this by a bare separation or by adding violence and sacriledge to it For making good saith he this charge of Schism against them we
they removing it again with the Catholick Doctors quite out of the Pale of the Church and freeing the Reformed of their former Fears Which rectifying of so pernicious a Mistake of the first Reformers by a more sober posterity well considered may I hope in time much conduce to the Re-union of that Body which by this Great Engine of Satan chiefly hath been heretofore so unhappily divided § 33 In such a Division then to prosecute our Enquiry viz. who or where these Governors be that are our present Guide and that seem so much authorized by both sides in the former Propositions First If this Question had bin made by any 150 years ago there had bin no difficulty to resolve it For that Body here first named was then the whole or the only Catholick Church as to the VVest further than which he that would then have gone for choice of his Religion would have fared worse ‖ See Disc 3. §. 26. c That Body therefore then must have bin conformed to or the whole deserted as indeed it was ‖ See 1 Disc §. 55. n. 4. Now this Body is not changed in its Liturgies in its common Doctrines in its Rites since that time from what the whole was then VVitness the Reformation it self which was made against these very Doctrines and Practices that are now ‖ 1 Disc §. 47. 50. n. 2. 36 n. 5. as imposed on them before the being of the Council of Trent though some ‖ Stillingf p. 268 370 Field p. 880. 187 224. perhaps to lighten the charge of Schism would fain perswade the contrary and I wish the only contest between the two present Churches were put upon the trial of this § 34 It is here apparent then which of these two at that time when as yet one of them was not had bin our lawful Guide and Mother Church and easily cleared what then were its doctrines Of which Guide Protestants also testifie That then it erred not in Necessaries See before Prop. 3. § 3. c. Disc 1. § 41. And that also in all other points Christians were to believe it so many as could not demonstrate the contrary See Prop 9 10. § 20 21. We therefore may promise the same security to our selves in following this part of the Catholick Church as the Protestants call it though it calls it self the whole still now as our Forefathers had in following the whole then And this resting still in this Body remaining the same with what once was the whole seems security enough to all those who if this Body were now so entire and universal as it was then durst not now attempt a separation from the whole or to those who are not able to demonstrate the former separation that hath been made just and necessary the tie of Obedience to and acquiescence in the doctrines of these Guides Being dissolvable by none save demonstrators of their Errors ‖ See 3 Disc §. 44. which among the Church's Subjects can never be but a very small Number § 35 2ly But besides this main Motive of submission to the first Body as our right Judge and Guide because we find it the very same with the Church Catholick that was 150 years ago whereas the second Body confess themselves a Church that is since separated from the external Communion of that other and a body reformed from the pretended Errors and Corruptions found therein i. e. from the Errors which some of the Subjects and of the Flock for such I reckon a particular person or Church in respect of the whole found in their Guides and Judges when themselves also were inferior to them both in their paucity of number and quality of place I say besides this in the second place If we will follow the Principle laid down in the 12th Proposition ‖ §. 23. i. e. in any Contradiction happening to adhere to the Superior persons and Synods as our true Guide and amongst these to a major part as our Guide sooner than to a Minor By which Rule the Christian world hath been preserved hitherto from all those which both sides agree to have bin Heresies and which Rule unless we follow we dissolve all Government and all Vnity of this Body of Christ and introduce flat Anarchy and Confusion whilst for a Monarchical Government of the Church Protestants will not hear of it and in an Aristocratical or Government consisting of many it cannot be presumed but that there will be some Dissenters which if they may be followed against the others I ask by what Rule of Government was it that the Arrian Eutychian and Nestorian Bishops shops were forced to yield and were divested of their Pastoral authority or guiding any longer by the rest of the Bishops in the Council of Nice Ephesus and Chalcedon Lastly if we will be guided by the Church Catholick out of Council as we are in it Thus also we must needs acknowledg the first of these Bodies for our true and rightful Judge For it is apparent that this first is a much major part of the Church-Governors joyned also with the prime Patriarch of Christianity and so to be preferred by us before a minor separated If you would know then which of these two present Bodies of Ecclesiasticks you are to obey out of a Council First do you imagine them now met in a Council and next that in this Council every one delivers concerning things debated that which is his present judgment when called to the Council and this is but reasonable since there is no likelihood of new demonstrations to be made in the Council which already in so much writing on all sides these Bishops have not seen and since former tradition and not argument is the chief rule of their proceedings and no example is found in any Council past wherein its members have concluded any thing contrary to the preceding common faith of that Age wherein such Council was held Especially imagine what their sentence might be concerning this point whether the former Councils that have bin may have erred in their Definitions which one point stated negatively ruines Protestantism And then if your conscience weighing the present perswasions and practices of Christian Prelats doth convince you that the Votes of the one side would be very inconsiderable in it to the number of the other as likewise that S. Peters Chair concerning which Chair the Church's ancient Maxime hath bin Sine Pontifice Romano nihil finiendum ‖ See in Athan Apol. 2. Epist Julii Innocentii Ep. 91. apud August would join with this major part against the other what remains but that you here follow the same Body in the Interval of a Council which you must have followed in the time of a Council unless also you will reverse the common Laws of Councils § 36 Note that this is spoken of the Great Body of the Western Churches contained under the Roman Patriarch which do yet by Gods permission enjoy all
* A Government constituted by God founded and compacted in a due subordination to keep all its members in the unity of Faith from being tossed too and fro with several Doctrines Eph. 4.11 13 14 16. And * perpetually to the worlds end assisted with the Paraclet sent from our ascended Lord to give them into all truth Jo. 14.16 26. * which Governors who so resisteth is in this rendred self-condemned Tit. 3.11 Lastly * S. Peter entitled to some special presidence over this whole Church by those Texts Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram Mat. 16. and Rogavi pro te ut non deficiat fides tua Tu confirma fratres Luk. 12.2.32 and Passe oves meas Jo. 21.10 compared with Gal. 2.7 Where thus S. Paul The Gospel of the Vncircumcision was committed to me as to Peter saith he relating to the Pasce in S. John was committed the Gospel of the Circumcision where it is observable also that then was the Circumcision the whole flock of Christ when it was committed to Peter St. Peters Commission over Christs sheep being ordinary given by our Lord here on Earth who also had the honour of the first converting and admitting of the Gentiles into this fold ‖ Act. 10 34-11 2-15 7 St. Paul's over the Gentiles extraordinary given by our Lord from Heaven ‖ Act. 9 6.-22.17.21 And this Commission manifested to the Apostles by a supereminent Grace of converting Soules and of Miracles that was bestowed upon him Gal. 2.8.9 Like to that more eminently given to St. Peter as may be seen in Act. 9.40 and 20.10 Act. 5.15 and 19.12 5.5 and 13 11-2.41.4.4 and Rom. 15 17 18 19. compared And that which is said Gal. 2. That the Apostles saw the Gospel of the Circumcision committed to Peter argues they saw it committed to Peter in some such special or superintendent manner as not also to them § 68 Again If we look upon the constitution and temper and manner of practice of this Church in the primitive times From the very first we find it acting as St. Paul directed Arch-bishop Titus c. 2.15 Cum omni imperio ut nemo contemnat Severely ejecting and delivering to Satan after some admonition those that were heterodox and heretical ‖ 1 Tim. 1.20 Th. 3 11.-1.11 In matter of controversy a Council called and the stile of it Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis and Nobis collectis in unum ‖ Act. 15.25.28 And if here it be said that the infallible Apostles had some hand therein yet if we look lower we find still the same authority maintained and exercised by the Catholick Church of latter ages and espâ—cially by that of the 4 th age when flour shing under the patronage of the secular power now become Christian if fully enjoyed as also the present doth in these Western parts the free exercise of its Laws and Discipline § 69 In all these times then 1 st We find the unquestioned Church Catholick of those dayes firmly joyned with and adhering to that which was then ordinarily stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the See Apostolick and St. Peters chaire and with the Bishop called his Successor as if Matt. 16.18 and Luke 22.23 were a prophecy thereof though some other of the greatest Patriarchs stood not so firm but that the Catholick Church in those dayes relinquished and cut them off We find the same Church when any opposition of its Doctrines happened as it was then exercised with the highest controversies that ever troubled the Church taking very much authority upon it self assembling it self in a General Body making new definitions as necessity required anathematizing all dissenters inserting as it saw meet for the more explicit knowledge of them by all its subjects some of its decisions in the Churches Creeds which were by it much enlarged from what they were formerly We find it declaring this also in the Creed concerning it self and enjoyning it to be believed by all Christians that the Catholick Church continues always Holy Apostolical preserving their Rules Traditions and Doctrines and One indivisa in se united in its saith and Communion and divisa ab omnibus aliis distinct from all others whom she declares Hereticall or Schismatical § 70 2. Again we find it by such definitions put in the Creed and Belief of them exacted sufficiently declaring also 2. that it held it self to be I say not proving that it was against which only peâ—haps misunderstanding his adversary Mr. Stillingfleet disputes ‖ p. 558. infallible or actually unerring in them Thus much is clear I say concerning the Catholick Church and her General Councills of those times that they held themselves infallible in the things they defined and if the testimony and veracity of the Catholick Church or her united Governours in what she then professed as of other things so of herself can obtain no belief with some protestants either from the witness that Church-Tradition grounded at first on miracles or that the Scriptures or some other sufficient evidence in point of reason ‖ See before §. 8. which Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ p. 559. is contented with gives to it of which see below § 87. c. Yet Protestants must grant that the present Catholick Church which or where ever it is should it profess it self infallible errs now only the same errour which the ancient Church-Catholick did before it And if here it be thought that this may qualify some thing concerning the former Church that by this way it declared not it self infallible universally but only in those things it defined so I say neither doth the Church-Catholick of the present age profess her self infallible save in her Definitions Nor requires she of her definitions any other belief than the ancient Church did of hers Nor matters it whether this certainty of the truth of her definitions ariseth from the evidence of the former Revelation and Tradition of such points defined or from our Lords promise that in her definitions she shall not err See before § 10. To proceed § 71 3. We find it * declaring those Hereticks who opposed any of those definitions and expelling them from the Catholick Communion most strict by Synodical and Communicatory Letters in preserving in all points once defined the Vnity of the Catholick Faith and most carefully separating from any person suspected of any Heterodoxness or division from it * Proceeding in its censures not only against some private persons but against Churches against Bishops against Patriarchs themselves yet such as then also failed not to pretend a dutiful continuance in the Faith of former ages and appealed to the former short Creeds and Confessions of Faith Such authority the Church Fallible or infallible then presumed to use cum omni imperio and punishing all contempt § 72 If we look next on the two present Bodies or combinations of Churches that flourish at this day in that part of the world 2. The Face of
Church or in such representation to be infallible But 2ly Neither can it be made evident that the universal Church de facto hath either by a formal act or by a tacit consent devolved either its infallibility or its whole power and authority on or given any commission to any General Council to appear in behalf of the universal Church which Commission must precede the being of such a Council and also is necessary not only to the first but toties quoties to every General Council but that the universal Church did ever agree in any such act is utterly impossible to be demonstrated either that it was or could be 3ly Neither suppose it had such a delegation yet can this representative upon this lay title to our Lords or to any divine institution of which there cannot be produced one tittle from Scripture of Christs conveying over the Churches power to it or any particular order from the Apostles concerning it but only to the Church's i. e. humane institution And if we enquire thus instituted what authority it hath The utmost saith Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ p. 510. that can be supposed is this That the parts of the Church i. e. such parts whom by their delegation and chusing of them the persons in the Council represent may voluntarily consent to accept of the decrees of such a Council and by that voluntary act or by the supreme authority enjoyning it such decrees may become obligatory Thus he And thus I think the authority of General Councils is sufficiently pared 1 Their authority only delegative from that Body which yet they pretend to bind by their acts 2. None of them a representative of the whole which neither hath nor can make any such representative 3. Commissioned by some parts of the Church only 4. The promises of divine assistance as to infallibility not made to them if any made but only to the whole diffusive Body of the Church Catholick from whose laws let us but take away Councils Protestants are secure enough 5. Nor possible by the Church diffusive to be made over or assigned to them 6. These not of our Lords nor Apostolical but only humane institution 7. Obligatory only to those parts of the Church who voluntarily consent to accept of their Decrees One would suspect that General Councils have been no great friends to Protestantism when they put in so many bars to keep out their Decrees from annoying the Reformation Men seldom vilifie an Authority that favours them § 92 To this I answer 1st That the Church Governours whenever assembled in Council do act by the self same authority received from our Lord and from their Divine Institution by which they act singly in their several charges and that all the rest of the Church Catholick are their subjects obliged in all duty to them as much when con-as dis-joyned For as Dr. Hammond answers the Catholick Gentleman ‖ p. 27 28. in clearing of himself that his mentioning of Schism against Bishops Metropolitans and Primats involved also Schism against the Councils compounded of all these It is evident that this Power which severally belongs to these Bishops is united in that of the Councils compounded of them and so the despising of that the power of such Councils is an offense under the first sort of Schism and a breach of the subordination to all the rancks of our Ecclesiastical Superiours What authority then and whence they had it singly they have united Neither is this their authority either in their several Provinces or in their Synods delegative save from Christ and his Apostles § 63 2. Next That they are not pretended to have their infallibility in necessaries by any assignment from the Church diffusive but that they have it immediately from the divine promises made principally and primarily to them to whom is committed the feeding of our Lords sheep for ever and the guiding them in the right way of which see Disc 1. § 7.14 and that the Church diffusive is therefore unerring for ever in necessaries because these Guides are so and the reason why the gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church the building is because in the chief place they shall not prevail against these Pastors and Teachers the Rocks and Foundations whereon it is built And if such promise made primarily to them then surely made to them in this their most comprehensive capacity when all joyned together If at any time the Church in the Acts ‖ cap. 15 28. might use the stile Visum est Spiritui sancto nobis then in their general assembly and when they were collecti in unum ‖ ver 25. every smaller meeting of them or also every single person seeming muchless capable thereof and if this inerrability necessary to them in any manner at all most necessary in these highest Courts to which ultimately all others do appeal and whose Laws all are bound to obey See before § 8. § 94 3ly As to the convening and composure of this conjunct Judicature of the Clergy I answer 1st That these Church Governours are by our Lord's and Apostolical constitution placed in a due subordination one to another †See Disc 2. §. 23 24. and several Superiours indued with power to assemble them in greater or lesser Bodies as the business requires and times permit these Superiors being sometimes assisted herein by the secular powers as in the times after Constantine yet sometimes also without them as in the ages preceding Constantine the Diocesan Synod being convened by the Bishop Provincial or National by the Metropolitan or Primat and General by the Prime Patriarch and Bishop of the chief Apostolick See For why not an Ecclesiastical person have the right of calling a General Council as well as the Metropolitan of a Provincial Synod the Primat of a National and as Dr. Field ascends higher the Patriarch of a Patriarchal ' For it is evident saith he †p. 668. p. 518. that there is a power in Bishops Metropolitans Primates and Patriarchs to call Episcopal Provincial National and Patriarchal Synods yet the last of which consisteth of the Bishops living under the temporal Government of several Princes and that neither so depending of and subject to the power of Princes but that when they are enemies to the faith I add by the same reason or enemies to the Orthodox faith they may exercise the same without their consent or privity and may subject them that refuse to obey their summons to such punishments as the Canons of the Church do prescribe in cases of such contempt or wilful negligence Thus he 2. Next That these conjunct Proceedings and Judicature of the Church-Guides in greater causes do appear also to be sufficienly allowed and authorized by our Lord and his Apostles both * from those Texts which mention and refer to a conjunct authority as from Mat. 18.17 tell the Church which signifies a presence of more than one of those who were to
can be established and that before one error will so be amended many truths whilst its definitions are exposed to the trial of every private fancy will be perverted and that it is much the better of the two that some error in non-necessaries remain unremedied than that no truth in necessaries stand fixed and confirmed Again since all persons for the truth of such things wherein the sence of Scripture is controverted if they will not profess themselves Scepticks ought to acquiesce in some ultimate Judge or other though liable to error let those then who reject a General Council name what other ultimate Judge they will chuse rather I suppose here they will blush to name themselves for that Judge neither can they have shew of reason to name either any other single person or yet inferior Council to be that Judge against a General Lastly The same difficulty and hazard may be charged upon the Protestant's ground of the certainty of his faith †See Disc 2. § 38. viz. That the sence of holy Scripture is clear to all using ordinary industry to understand it in all necessaries For now supposing that indeed the sence of Scripture should not be clear and so such Protestant solely guided by it using his industry yet should err in some such point such error of his is no way to be rectified so long as he maintains this ground A thing observed by Mr. Thorndike Just Weights c. 21. p. 137. 7ly Again it is asked whether a lawful General Council be affirmed infallible only with Q. 7. or also without the concurrence and confirmation of its decrees by the Bishop of Rome § 104 To which waving here what testimony may be produced from Scripture and the Exposition of Antiquity concerning St. Peters supremacy and the Bishop of Rome's succeeding in it 1st I answer in the words of the Apostle †1 Cor. 11.16 standing upon the Church's custom in another matter That the Churches of God alwayes have had such a custom to define nothing in faith without or against the consent of this Successor of Saint Peter and Bishop of the prime Apostolick See and that this hath been constantly delivered by their Tradition See the ancient Canon concerning this Sine Romano Pontifice nihil finiendum * urged by Julius not long after the Council of Nice in his Epistle recited by Athanasius Apol. 2. against the Oriental Arrian Bishops slighting his authority * urged by Innocentius apud August Ep. 91. * mentioned by Socrates l. 2. c. 13 by Sozomen l. 3. c. 9. And it is remarkable that in the times that those acknowledged by all capital errors suppressed in the Athanasian Creed troubled the Church though all the other chief Patriarchs were tainted with one or other of them yet the Bishop of Rome alwayes stood firm and the Church in her vote alwayes joyned with his Chair though divided from some of the other If the Act of Liberius be here objected see what is answered to it Disc 2. § 26. n. 4. And seeing this Prime Patriarch of the Church Catholick presides in General Councils †See before §. 33. as the Metropolitan doth in Provincial therefore as the Canons ordered concerning Provincial Councils Vt nihil praeter Metropolitani conscientiam gerant c. sic enim unanimitas erit †Apostol can 35. Concil Antioch can 9. so there seems the same equity that neither the General Councils should pass any acts without the consent of the Roman Bishop their President and Head But 2ly So long as no Councils are pressed upon Protestants as lawfully general or infallible save only such which this Prime Patriarch hath alwayes consented to and confirmed this question whether the Acts of such Councils may stand good or their authority be infallible without his consent may be superseded 8. Again it is asked Q. 8. How the Pope's Confirmation of its decrees can concur to the not erring of such a Council since his Confirmation follows its final decision For now if it hath erred it is erroneous though he approves it if not it is Orthodox and so may be safely accepted though he rejects it †Dr. Pierce Answ to Cressy p. 17. Stillingf p. 509. I answer his Confirmation secures us that the Council errs not or the Council never errs when he confirms it because supposing that the rest of the Council should decree an error the Grace of God or the Holy Ghost assists this holy Father and Prime Patriarch of the Church Catholick President of these Councils so as that it effectually hinders him after what manner or by what means it pleaseth that he doth never confirm it least so the whole Church should be misguided in something necessary Or again when he perhaps would left to himself confirm an error the same Holy Spirit assists the Council so by what wayes of the divine wisdom it matters not that they do not define it And thus the Council never erreth being confirmed by him either because its decree is Orthodox or his consent with-held Hence then if the decrees be erroneous he never approves if Orthodox he safely approves them 9. Again it is asked Q. 9. if the Council not secure from erring without the Pope's approbation § 106 nor again the Pope without the assistance of a Council in which of the two the infallibility or not erring resides For in which soever we shall place it it renders the other needless I answer where is supposed the consent of both in a truth the actual non-erring lies in both But the Original cause of this not erring may be sometimes in the one and sometimes in the other as also erring may be in either separated as they are by the holy Ghost more effectually illuminated or guided so as in the last question is explained CHAP. IX 10. Q. If General Councils infallible whether they are so in their conclusions only which infers Enthusiasm or new Revelation Or also in their premises and proofs upon which assent will be due to all their Arguments § 107. 11 Q. Why being infallible at least in their conclusions they do not end all controversie but leave so many unresolved § 108. 12. Q. How such infallibility of theirs differs from that of the Apostles And the infallibility of their Decrees from that of Scripture 109. 13. Q. How many persons or Guides all fallible can make up one infallible § 112. 14. Q. Supposing all lawful General Councils infallible yet how can any know infallibly which are lawful General Councils Because of the many conditions required to make them such in some one of which he can never be infallibly certain of any Council that it hath not failed § 114. 10. A Gain it is asked If a lawful General Council be not liable to error whether it is so in its Definitions and Conclusions only or in the Premises also and its right deduction of the Conclusion from them I answer That it is not necessary that it
Poenitentiam Et 7 Extremae Vctionis oleum Of which see below § 181. Resp ad 9. sect 172 For these many differences of the Greek as well as the Roman from the Reformed Churches it is that Mason being to prove a case of necessity for the ordaining of Protestant Ministers beyond Seas only by Presbyters in § 23. on that subject argues thus These Ministers could not receive Ordination from the Popish Churches because of the abomination of their sacrificing Priesthood and because these would ordain none but in a Popish manner to a Popish Priesthood c. And neither saith he by the same reason could they obtain Ordination from the Greek Church For Bellarmine denyeth it to be a Church because they were lawfully convicted in three full Councils of Heresie and especially of the Heresie about the proceeding of the holy Ghost which to be a manifest Heresie saith Bellarmine both the Lutherans and the Calvinists do confess Wherefore seeing no Church as Mason goeth on will give Orders but only to such persons as approve their doctrine therefore they could not with a safe conscience seek to the Greek Church whose doctrine they justly misliked And being thus excluded from the Greek and the Latine from the East and the West no Bishops being as yet turned Protestants to ordain what shouâ—d be done It was the duty of the Magistrates not to suffer false Prophâ—ts and to plant godly Preachers in their plaâ—es But whence shouâ—d tâ—â—y have them the Bishops were so faâ— fâ—om yielding Ordinaâ—â—o◠〈…〉 tolerable manner that they persecuted such as sought thâ—◠〈…〉 Wherefore it must either be devolved unto Presbyters 〈…〉 â—ad already dâ—sâ—rted eur former Church-Commuâ—â—◠〈◊〉 the Church of God must suffer most laâ—entable ruine and desolation 〈◊〉 Anâ— was not this a case of necessâ—ty thus Mason well â—eeing the Reâ—ormation as much destitute of any relief or countenance from the Greek Church as from the Roman § 173 And now by the two Relations of Sands and Ross both Protestants we may see how much truth the assertion of Cardinal Perron in his Reply to King James Observation 3. c. 22 hath in it who there undertakes to make good That these doctrines or customs are common to the Western Church with the Oriental and Meridional upon which Doctrines therefore the Pope's Supremacy may be gathered to have had no influence Namely Transubstantiation of bread into the Body of Christ Adoration of the Eucharist Oblation of the Sacrifice of the Mass as a propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead Prayer to Saints Veneration of Reliques and Images prayer for the dead Confession Sacramental and Auricular Lent Vows Celibacy of Religious Interdiction of Priests to marry after having taken Orders Seven Sacraments using in Divine Service the original Tongue not understood by the vulgar The same doctrine of Freewil and Justification § 174 To Perron add Grotius his judgement in the Preface to his Votum pro pace where giving account of the success of his former Studies he saith Ii qui secesserant the reformed ut factum suum tuerentur asserebant validè doctrinam Ecclesiae ejus quae cum sede principe cohaeserat esse corruptam per multas haeraeses idololatriam Id mihi causas dedit inquirendi in dogmata ejus Ecclesiae legendi libros utrinque scriptos legendi eriam quae scripta crant de praelenti statu ac doctrinâ Ecclesiae ejus quae est in Graeciâ earum quae per Asiam Aegyptum ei cohaeserunt Inveni in Oriente eadem esse dogmata quae essent in Occidenti Conciliis Vniversalibus definita de Regiminee Ecclesiae exceptis cum Papâ Controversiis i.e. about his authority de Sacramentorum perpetuis Ritibus sententias consonantes Therefore the Pope easily indulged the Russian Greek Churches who are subject to the King of Poland when they reconciled themselves to the Roman Church and submitted to his Supremacy to continue all their former Grecian Rites and Ceremonies and the same he permitteth also to the Greek Church in Rome § 175 This of the modern Greek Church which now hath two Patriarchs undependent of one another one residing at Constantinople and another at Hierusalem to which later the Greeks in and about Palestine do adhere Now with the Greek Church are joyned in Religion and Communion * the Russian Churches excepting those under the King of Poland joyned to the Roman * the Inhabitants of Georgia or Iberia and * the Melchites of Syria called so by other Sectaries because they adhere to the Council of Chalcedon i. e. as the other reported it to the Imperial Faction To whom also I may join the Maronites conforming in their Liturgy and most of the Ceremonies of their Religion to the Greek Church but in their Communion now joyned to the Roman Of these the Maronites Georgians have two independent Patriarchs of their own set up without any conciliar authority acting therein the one residing in a Monastery in Mount Sinai the other in a Monastery in Mount Libanus The Metropolitan of the Russians also hath of late cast off his subjection to the Patriarch of Constantinople and stands absolute Only the Melchites of Syria continue their subjection still to the Patriarch of Antioch translated to Damascus Antioch now ruined Now if inquiry be made after the judgment or practice in the points forementioned of the other Churches or Sects §. 176. n 1. in the Eastern parts of the world 1. Here 1st If we should admit some variation or disparity of all these Churches from the rest as to several of these points yet cannot these reasonably be put in the scale to counterballance the Greek and Latine Church shewed already to be united therein Especially since these I mean the remotest Eastern and Southern Churches and chiefly those comprehended within the Patriarchate of Alexandria with which also the Ethiopian or Abyssin Church hath alwayes run the same course being a constant adherent to it were the first part of Christianity that was over-born with the Power of Mahomet that great false Prophet and open opposer of our Lord Christ and his Kingdom and so the first wherein the Christian Doctrine and discipline learning and good manners were oppressed relaxed and corrupted these miserable Churches falling under the Mahometan bondage in the seventh Century suffering first the Arabian or Sarazen and then the Scythian or Turkish tyranny whereas the Greek meanwhile was respited from it till about the 14th Against these Churches also there want not some other prejudices both for that several of them have causlesly departed from the obedience of their former Patriarchs and have set up new ones in their stead And yet more for that they have made a recession also from the former allowed General Councils some of them by maintaining Nestorianism and others Eutychianism contrary to them and as the Greek Church stands divided from the Roman in the procession of the holy Ghost so these again from the
whole I mean either by a General or any other Superior Council wherewith also the belief or practice of the whole consenteth such Church cannot be freed from Schism Now that several of those points wherein the Protestants have left the Greek and Roman when agreeing in them are such See Disc 1. § 50. n. 2. But not such those wherein the Roman and Western Churches adhering to it do differ from the East and Protestants § 186 To γ. The first of those instances wherein he urgeth the consent of the Eastern Churches with Protestants To γ. viz. their opposing the Pope's Supremacy I answer that though there are several branches of the Pope's Supremacy which the modern Greeks allow not but so there are also some that the French Church doth not admit yet it is well known that thus much the Representatives of the Greek Church in the Council of Florence subscribed That the Bishop of Rome was Successor Petri. Principis Apostolorum totiusque Ecclesiae Caput cui in Beato Petro gubernandi universalem Ecclesiam plena potestas tradita est and the Greek Church never denyed his Primacy and Presidency in General Councils as appears * by the fifth Canon of the second General Council at Constantinople consisting only of Eastern Bishops Constantinopolitanae Civitatis Episcopum habere oportet Primatus honorem post Episcopum Romanum * By the Eastern Bishops in the fourth General Council the most numerous of any that hath been allowing the Presidency to the Roman Bishops Legats witness Arch-Bp Lawd †p. 214. * By Cyril an Eastern Bishop his presiding in the third General Council Vt Celestini Episcopatum antiquae Romae gerentis locum obtinens witness Evagrius †Evagrius 1. c 4. whose Deputy or Legate also he was made for the Excommunication of Nestorius by the authority of the Apostolick See witness the Pope's Letter to Cyril †Act. Conc. Ephes tom 1. Nostrâ vice loco cum potestate usus ejusmodi sententiam exequeris c. and Mr. Stillingfleet †p. 487. * by the Roman Legates also subscribing the first general Council of Nice before all the Patriarches and I know not why it is that Protestants granting this Bishop the Primacy among the Patriarchs and why should he being the Bishop of the chief See saith Mr. Stillingfeet †p. 488. in case of general concernment of the Church as that of Chalcedon I add and of other General Councils not be allowed by his Legates to have the prime place yet should take so much pains †See Stillings from p. 482. to 489 to shew de facto that in some Councils He or his Legats had it not or did dot preside therein § 187 To the second δ. I answer had Mr. Stillingfleet not thrust in the term Roman the infallibility of which To δ. taken singly is no Article of Faith in the Western Church †See Bellarm de Concil l. 2. c. 4. that as for the infallibility of the Church Catholick or of her lawful General Councils in their definitions concerning matter of Faith I suppose he knew the Greek Church to ascribe therein no less to It or Them than the Roman doth Of which thus Jeremy the Constantinopolitan Patriarch in his first answer to the Lutheran Divines Quod i.e. ut legi divinae adversentur de his quae à nobis dicta sunt nullo modo vere intelligi potest Ea enim quae Synodicè constituta sunt omnes Christi fideles tanquam divinitùs inspiratae Scripturae consentanea recipiunt atque amplectuntur semper To which Synodical decrees therefore this Patriarch requires a most strict submission of judgment and constitutes them the ultimate establishers of the Christian Faith in all matters controverted seriously advising the Lutherans to a final acquiescence therein Neque enim nobis licet saith he †Respons 1. Epilog prâ—vatâ confisis interpretatione aliquid divinitùs inspiratae Scripturae aut ipsos intelligere aut aliis tradere nisi quantum cum scopo sanctorum Synodorum Ecclesiaeque sancta Theologorum illud ipsum convenit why so Ne semel ex recto Evangelicae doctrinae tramite abrepti praecipites feramur neve sensus deinceps noster more Protei in hanc illam formam fidei transferatur Again At forte dicet quis vestrum of the Lutherans quae igitur earum rerum quae suo loco dimotae sunt correctionis spes Quae ratio Haec inquam si nihil praeter ea quae nobis à sanctis Apostolis including the Canones Apostolici sanctisque Synodis divinitùs ordinata sunt ordiemur nihil aliud sequemur And Vna sola rerum recuperandarum ratio superest idem semper cum sanctis Conciliis sentire Canonibusque Apostolicis per omnia inhaerere sic in omnibus Christum Dominum Magistrum sequi Thus you see East and West excepting the Protestants do agree in the same language concerning the infallibility of and duty of adherence to the Church and her Councils for matters of Faith And even those Eastern Sects who refuse submission to the third or fourth General Council do it not on this account that lawful and free General Councils may err but that these over-powered by the Emperor were not free thence calling their followers Melchites To the third To ε. ε. I answer That their difference is only about Purgatory-fire a thing never defined in the Roman Church But for the agreement and practice of both Churches in prayer for the dead with the same intentions See before § 162. To the fourth To ζ. ζ. See what is said before § 163. For the fifth To eegr. eegr. I refer you to § 164. And for the sixth To θ. θ. to § 161. leaving to the equal Readers judgment whether in any of those here named there be any considerable difference save in the first This in answer to Mr. Stillingfleet § 188 The Arch-Bp saith As for Jeremias 't is true his censure is in many things against the Protestants but I find not that that censure of his is warranted by any authority of the Greek Church To satisfie this see their modern Liturgies and Rituals and the other authorities that are quoted before for several points § 158. n. 2 c. 〈◊〉 165. concurring with what Jeremias hath delivered § 189 Bishop Bramhal opposeth to this testimony of Jeremias the contrary testimony of Cyril a late Patriarch there in the Confession of his Faith which had not the new set up press at Constantinople been disturbed he intended to have printed there and to have dedicated to the King of England See Knowles Tur. Hist A. D. 1628. c. having sent also some who had relation to him to be educated in Divinity in one of our Universities To which I answer 1st That to shew that the Protestants Reformation was not made from the whole Church Catholick but only the Roman we are to prove not what the
Laity which is the only Church Catholick the Pillar and Ground of Truth and the visible external Communion thereof to be continued in See his Instit 4 l. 1. c. 2. § upon the Article Credo sanctam Catholicam Ecclesiam ' Ecclesia saith he ideò Catholica dicitur seu universalis quia non duas aut tres invenire liceat quin discerpatur Christus quod fieri non potest 4 § In Symbolo ubi profitemur nos credere Ecclesiam id non solùm ad visibilem de quâ nunc agimus refertur sed ad omnes quoque electos Dei therefore this Article relateth to a Church visible and visible in all Ages Quia nunc de visibili Ecclesiâ disserere propositum est discamus vel uno Matris that it is termed a Mother Elogio quam utilis sit nobis ejus cognitio immo necessaria quando non alius est in vitam ingressus nisi nos ipsa concipiat in utero nisi pariat c. Adde quod extra ejus gremium nulla speranda est peccatorum remissio c. such a visible Mother-Church then it seems there is in all Ages some where or other as that none can enter into life that are not numbred among her children and inclosed within her bosom 7. § Quemadmodum ergo nobis invisibilem solius Dei oculis conspicuam Ecclesiam credere necesse est ita hanc quae respectu hominum Ecclesia dicitur observare ejusque communionem colere jubemur i.e. Communionem externam visibilem Ecclesiae visibilis 10. § Cujus authoritatem spernere vel castigationes ludere nemini impunè licet multo minus ejus abrumpere unitatem authoritatem castigationes he must mean of the Clergy and the spiritual Governours thereof Sic enim Dominus ejus authoritatem commendat ut dum illa violatur suam ipsius imminutam censeat Neque enim parvi momenti est quod vocatur columna firmamentum veritatis domus Dei. Quibus verbis significat Paulus ne intercidat Veritas Dei in mundo Ecclesiam visibilem esse fidam ejus custodem and that in all Ages else intercideret veritas quia ejus ministerio operâ voluit Deus puram verbi sui praedicationem conservari Vnde sequitur discessionem ab Ecclesia Dei Christi abnegationem esse 8. § Proinde quatenus eam agnoscere nostrâ intererat Dominus certis notis quasi Symbolis nobis designavit 10. § Symbola Ecclesiae dignoscendae verbi praedicationem sinceram Sacramentorumque observationem ex Christi Instituto See § 9. posuimus 11. § Ne sub Ecclesiae titulo impostura nobis fiat ad illam probationem seu ad Lydium lapidem exigenda est omnis Congregatio quae Ecclesiae nomen obtendit 2. l. 4. § Minimè permovere nos debet inanis hic fulgor Romanensium ut Ecclesiam esse recipiamus ubi verbum Dei non apparet 7. § Quis ausit eum coetum nullâ cum exceptione Ecclesiam appellare ubi verbum Domini palà m impunè conculcatur c. Thus Calvin in this place but how constant elsewhere to this doctrine I say not of the authority of and the obedience due to a permanent visible Church which is Columna Firmamentum veritatis and which is Governed by Christs Orthodox Ministers of the Word and Sacraments which Church he affirmeth to be the Reformed and not the Roman Concerning the Church then Which is It he and the Roman Catholicks differ but not in the Obedience due to the Church if he may name it Lastly were Protestants in this matter altogether silent yet those essential Notes or Marks they give of the true Church The true preaching of Gods Word and right Administration of the Sacraments always to be found in the Church do infer a Clergy to whom only both these Offices do belong as well as a people always Orthodox § 30 But here again so long as these Divines do still together with the former deny the promise of such a perpetual divine assistance to Superiour persons Reply Where That the subordinate Clergy can be no Guide to Christians when opposing the Superiour nor a few opposing a much major part or Synods of the Clergy in respect of Inferiors or to a major part of a Synod in respect of a lesser that holdeth or teacheth contrary which Superiours and major part only in such cases must be the Christians Guide a thing warranted by as universal a Tradition and Practice as any Fundamental whatever of Church-Government and whilst they do affirm this assistance continued only to some Clergy or other always but how inconsiderable a party for number or dignity in respect of the rest they know nor matter not In saying this they in effect say no more than the former This Clergy which they affirm unfailing in necessaries being in such a case only private persons not Guides to others no not to their own Flocks who according to the Traditive Constitution of Church-Government are not to hear their own private Pastors teaching contrary to the definitions of Superiour Prelats or Councils or in a Council a lesser part voting contrary to a major not to hear an Arrian Bishop teaching contrary to the Council of Nice nor the Patriarch Nestorius and Dioscorus and their Adherents voting contrary to the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon of this see what is said more at large in the second Discourse § 23. c. And therefore if the Promises are interpreted in this their manner the people in following the Superiour the major part the Traditive Rule of Obedience always observed in the Church somtimes will be tied to obey only those of the Clergy to whom Christ denies such assistance and to disobey those who have it § 31 Neither matters it much as to constitute them a Guide any more for this though this supposed Orthodox Clergy in whom our Saviours promise is said to be preserved be all too of one distinct Communion and one particular Church or Nation and these too the whole Clergy of that Church Because the whole Church through the whole world is but one body governed by one Law of Christ neither hath any against the whole more reason to adhere to his own particular Church when separating as to a Guide because his own than to any other unless he hath some greater assurance of its non-erring than of any others and besides what reason in this kind he hath to take that particular Church wherein he lives for his Guide the same have all other Christians living elsewhere to refuse it for theirs and do adhere to their own particular Church and thus if he by such obedience light on truth they by the same obedience will be necessitated to Errour Again if suppose twenty six Bishops of several Nations opposing an Oecumenical Council cannot be a Guide to all Christians much less can they if all these of one Church or Nation because here is more dependence one on
another and so a just fear of less integrity Lastly if these against the whole can have any authority the proceedings of General Councils in condemning and exercising Ecclesiastical Censures against them as subjects to those Courts have bin unjust which yet those General Councils universally allowed have used not only against Bishops but Patriarchs and the Clergy joined with them And the Churches Decrees thus will be necessarily obligatory never but when the Governours thereof to a man or to every particular Church or Society of Church-men are all of a mind Neither can the people when the Ecclesiastical Court which consists of many Judges is any way divided tell which to obey if our Saviours Promise be only to some certain Guides we know not in how small a number because they know not whether our Saviours promise of Indefectibility even in necessaries belongs not to the more inconsiderable part thereof He that appoints us to follow a Guide in what it shall enjoin us and then leaves us no way when our Guide consists not of one but many persons and particular Churches and when two parties of them contradict one another and guide us contrary wayes to know which of them is to be our Guide it is all one as if he left us no Guide and he that ties us besides our own judgment in doubtful matters to obey and follow only some Ecclesiastical person or other not obliging us to the most or major part to the Superiour rather than an inferior person or Court revolves our obedience in any division of our Governours only to our own Judgment i. e. to chuse that side which we judge is most conformable to Scripture as we follow the Counsel of that friend who we think speaks most reason But can this be called any obebedience to his authority and then left to this choice what opinion can our selves take up that is so absurd in which we cannot finde some Clergy or other for our Leaders This concerning these Protestant-Divines allowing an absolute Promise of Indefectibility as to Necessaries made to and always verified in some Persons or also some Body and Society or other of the Clergy i.e. of the Church-Guides but not to these always in such a capacity as that they are in the Churches constitutions and traditions to be our Guides these Orthodox-Guides as they suppose being perhaps in some Ages a very small number nor those of the highest rank in comparison of the rest CHAP. V. III. Other Expressions of Protestant-Divines granting the Churches Prelacie as defining her Doctrines Or the General Councils of them to be unerrable in Necessaries § 32 when accepted by the Church Vniversal § 32. The Expressions of * Dr. Potter § 33. * Of Bishop Bramhall § 34. Where III. 3. Other expressions of Protestant-Divines granting the Churches Clergy as defining her doctrines Or the General Councils of them to be unerrable in necessaries But then only when universally accepted no considerable persons or at least Churches dissenting concerning what Judgment of the Church sufficiently obligeth her subjects in respect 1st of the Church-Catholick diffusive § 36. n. 1. 2ly of Councils General § 36. n. 3. 3ly of Councils Occidental § 36. n. 8. Where particularly of the Freedom of the Council of Trent § 36. n. 9. * Of Bishop Lawd § 37. Where concerning what acceptation of Councils by the Church-diffusive is only necessary § 38. * Of Dr. Field § 40. III. BUt thirdly several other Expressions may be found in some of them wherein they would seem to go further yet and to allow That the Church-Catholick taken in general or in her greatest Body of Clergy as she is a Canonical Guide and as she teacheth and defineth doctrines can never err in Necessaries or Fundamentals But whether all their expressions cohere one with another or whether their opinion when strongly assaulted will not retreat and resolve it self into the first or second already explained I conclude nothing § 33 For this see first that of Dr. Potter § 2. p. 28. Where he saith Expressions Of Dr. Potter The Church Catholick is confessed in some sence i. e. in Fundamentals as he explaineth it afterward § 5. p. 148 c. to be unerring and he is litle better than a Pagan that despiseth her judgment For she follows her Guides the Prophets and Apostles and is not very free and forward in her Definitions Here we hear of Definitions and Iudgment of the Church Catholick that are to be followed Therefore I infer that such judgment may be known So § 4. p. 97. The Catholick Church saith he is careful to ground all her Declarations in matters of Faith upon the Divine authority of Gods written Word and therefore whosoever wilfully opposeth a judgment so well grounded is justly esteemed an Heretick Then he addeth not properly because he disobeys the Church but because he yields not to Scripture sufficiently propounded or cleared unto him Where I do not see but that whoso believeth this in general as all ought that the Church Catholick alwaies groundeth her Declarations in matters of Faith on Divine Authority though every particular Declaration of hers is not cleared to him that it is so well grounded yet must needs wilfully and self-convicted oppose her judgment and so incur Heresie But however he is or is not an Heretick who dissents from such Decrees yet by the Doctor all those it seems are secured as for necessary Truth that do obey and adhere to them And § 5. p. 169. If in any thing saith he General Councils erre and mistake the Vniversal Church hath means of remedy either by antiquating those Errors with a general and tacit consent General Consent therefore such Decree of a General Council to tender it non-obligatory must be at least tacitly reversed by a major part of the Church Catholick else if any single Church's reversion serves the turn to annull the Obligation thereof no Churches are obliged to such Decrees further than they please Or by representing her self again in another General Council which may view and correct the Defects of the former Here are two ways of the Church Catholick's correcting the Errors of her Representative the Council 1. Either by generally not observing or practising their Decrees 2. Or by condemning them by another Representative therefore I gather where the Church Catholick neither by another general Council contradicts such assembly nor in her most general practice or Doctrines varies from its Decrees the definitions and judgment of such a General Council are admitted as the definitions and judgment of the Church Catholick Or else there is no way of knowing what or which are so Ib. After that p. 141. he hath spoken of the present Church-Catholick her being as a Candlestick to present and hold out the light to us and p. 143. of her being a witness and an Instrument for working Faith in us he p. 148 149 156. accords as he saith with some moderate Roman Writers That the