these divine Revelations from those who were known by Miracles to be sent from God the multitude of them I say together with their wisdom their sanctity their unanimous consent throughout so many ages their affirming such truth much contrary to all their secular interests to the appetites of the flesh and ambitions of this world their delivering them both by word and writing to their children and posterity to be delivered again to theirs as matters of the highest moment and wherein it eternally concerneth them not to be deceived as also their strict charge to deliver nothing in these matters of faith to their children which they have not received from their Forefathers their suffering many times cruel deaths for the verity of their testimony the miracles in several ages done also by them which miracles when done for the testifying of their Faith such in those ages as have seen have had the like evidence of this Faith as those who saw the miracles of the Apostles and those who have not seen but believe the credible Relators of them have the like evidence of their Faith as those also had in the Apostles times who believed as doubtless many did not seeing but only hearing of their miracles If I say I proceed thâ—s to prove the Church-Tradition infallible from these motives of credibility Here again it is asked concerning these motives whether they also be pretended infallible and whether they carry a certainty in them equall to that infallible assent of divine faith that is given to Divine Revelations and particularly to this of the infallibility of the Church which assent of divine faith is pretended to be more firm than any humane knowledge can be because it doth ultimately rest upon divine authority and yet which divine faith at last to avoid a Circle is by Catholicks for its certainty made to rest upon these prudential motives It is asked therefore in the last place whether these motives be pretended not-possibly-fallible or no. If not how can an infallible or divine faith be grounded on motives only highly probable or only morally certain or the thing that is proved or Conclusion be rendred certain and not-possibly-fallible to me from a possibly-fallible proof or medium since the thing proving or the ground of my assent must be more credible evident and certain to me than the thing proved But if these motives also be affirmed infallible 1st How can that be since all men however taken divided or conjoyned single or a multitude vulgar or wise and learned are possibly liable both to deceive and to be deceived and 2ly Thus at least divine faith will at last be built upon and resolved into not divine but humane authority contrary to the Doctrine of Catholicks § 122 And if it should be said here that the resolution of divine faith into these prudential motives whether fallible or infallible is only as into extrinsecal prerequisites or introductives to it not as into the formal cause or ground of it for so I ground alwayes the divine and infallible assent I give to any Article of my faith upon Divine Revelation and the prime verity because God who I believe saith it cannot lye It will be asked still since some Divine Revelation is alwayes the final motive of a Divine Faith from what other Divine Revelation I do believe such a point to be a Divine Revelation in which proceeding if it go not in infinitum I must come at last to some Divine Revelation concerning which I can produce no other revelation divine and so no ground at all why or from which I can believe it with a Divine Faith to be such unless I will betake my self to a Circle So for example in proving the Churches infallibility from Divine Revelation contained in the Scriptures and again the Scriptures God's Word from Divine Revelation unwritten delivered by the Apostles I can produce no further Divine Revelation that testifies such Revelation or Tradition to be delivered by the Apostles if I return not back to the Church's infallibility which returning thither makes a Circle And the same thing will happen the other way also in proving Scripture from Apostolical Tradition and this Apostolical Tradition again from Church-infallibility § 123 To which intricate Question to answer as distinctly as I can 1st It is agreed by all That the faith by which we are saved must be in it self most true and infallible or that there must be a certitudo objecti and those be true Revelations which our faith apprehends to be so 2ly Agreed also That such divine §. 124. n. 1. and saving faith doth alwayes ground it self on God's Word or Divine Revelation of those things which are believed and upon the authority veracity and goodness of God revealing such things And that Christians however coming to the knowledge of these Divine Revelations from their Parents Pastors or the Church in her Councils yet resolve this divine faith no otherwise as to the ultimate ground and reason of their believing than the Apostles themselves did who received these Revevelations immediately from Christ and God himself namely into the veracity of God delivering such particular Articles of their Faith 3ly Again agreed §. 124. n. 2. That this Divine Faith is wrought no otherwise in the soul than by the operation of God's Spirit †See S. Thom. 22. q. 6. De causâ fides many times begetting so firm an adherence to the things believed not only that what is Divine Revelation cannot deceive but that such particular points are Divine Revelations as exceeds that adherence we have to any humane Science whatsoever wherein there is often a possibility of deceit though not as to the thing yet as to us i.e. that we may think we know what and when we do not For this see the Arch-Bp †p. 72. Faith he means the habit or act of a saving faith is the gift of God alone and an infused habit in respect whereof the soul is meerly recipient And therefore the sole infufer the Holy Ghost must not be excluded from that work which none can do but he Which virtue of faith of whatever Article though it receive a kind of preparation or occasion of beginning from the testimony of the Church as it proposeth and induceth to the faith yet iâ— ends in God's revealing within and teaching within that which the Church preached without And p. 75. Man do what he can is still apt to search and seek for a reason why he will believe though after he once believes his faith grows stronger than either his reason or his knowledge and great reason for this because it goes higher and so upon a safer Principle than either of the other reason or knowledge can in this life quoting in the margin S. Thom. †p. 1. q. 1. a. 5. Quia sâ—ientiae certitudinem habent ex naturali lumine rationis humanae quae potest errare Theologia antem quae dâ—cet objectum
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
Catholick diffusive 1st Here he professeth ‖ Schism We are ready to believe and practise whatsoever the Catholick Church of this present Age doth believe and practise Here if he meaneth the Protestants are ready to believe and practise whatsoever all the Catholick Church of this present Age Guarded p. 98 3 besides them doth believe and practise and understands a Consent of this Catholick Church according to the former explication thereof which is but reasonable Then 1st I refer you to what is said in the third Discourse § 26 whether for the most of the modern Controversies the whole Catholick Church I mean the main body both of the Oriental and Occidental Churches especially as to the Guides and Governours thereof who only have authority of voting and giving Laws in the Church's highest Consultations and to whose Judgment Inferiours in spiritual matters ought to conform at the coming of Luther did not and do not still agree in their opinion in many things now opposed by Protestants and then by Luther and a few others who sided not with or joined themselves to any though lesser part of the then Church-Governours Eastern or Western but freely acknowledged their discession à toto mundo See below § 55. n. 4. Which made Luther sometimes thus to utter the Objections of his Conscience within and of the Church without Quot medicamentis saith he ‖ Praefat. de de abroganda Missa privata quam potentibus evidentissimis Scripturis meam ipsius conscientiam vix dùm stabilivi ut auderem unus contradicere Papae credere eum esse Antichristum Episcopos ejus esse Apostolos Academias esse ejus Lupanaria Quoties mihi palpitavit tremulum cor reprehendens objecit corum fortissimum unicum Argumentum Tu solus sapis Totne errant universi And elsewhere ‖ In Galat. 1 11 12. Ecclesia sic sentit credit Impossibile est autem quòd Christus tot saesulis Ecclesiam suam errare sinat Tu certè solus non sapis plus quam tot sancti viri tota Ecclesia And Sanctissimae Catholicae Ecclesiae authoritatem amamus illaesam Ea tot saeculis sic sentit docuit sic senserunt docuerunt omnes primitivae Ecclesiae dectores viri sanctissimi multo majores dectiores te Quis tu es qui ansis ab omnibus his dissentire nobis diversum dogma obtrudere To which the summe of the Answer he gives I pray you see the place is Neque mihi neque Ecclesiae neque Patribus neque Apostolis neque Angelo è Coelo credendum est si quid contra Dei verbum docemus And Quisque igitur videat ut certissimus sit de suâ vocatione doctrina As for those Answers * of Dr. Field ‖ p. 82. 880. That the Doctrines which Luther and the Protestants oppose were not the generally received Doctrines of the present Catholick Church but only of a prevalent Faction in it Or * of Mr Stillingfleet ‖ That if they were Doctrines generally received p. 368. yet they were not Catholick Doctrines but generally received in the nature of an Opinion I say such Answers were not then thought on or not thought fit to be made use of For what ground is there to call all those Church-Governours of the present Age that have power to vote in Councils and steer the Church only a prevalent Faction in it Or to say those Doctrines or Practices which none could then oppose without incurring the Church's Censures for so Luther and others did before the Council of Trent were only generally received in the nature of an Opinion 2ly But next if all the points that are pretended are not found to have been generally believed or practised in the Church-Catholick at Luthers appearance yet if two or three of them appear to be so according to the Bishops Concession here to so many will the Protestants stand obliged in a conformity of their Belief and Practice nor can they excuse their dissent from these because a dissent in more than these is falsely laid to their charge But 3ly If at least what is contained in the publick Liturgies and Missals to which all are obliged to conform both of the Eastern and Western Church may be said to be of universal Belief and Practice Protestants by this Profession are bound herein at least to believe and practice with the rest And why then do they compose new Liturgies why absent themselves from the old Is it not that these contain somthing in them to which they cannot thus conform 4. Lastly For points no way enjoined yet if such either speculative or practical do appear so far as our Examination can discover to us not only to be tolerated but justified and maintained either by the whole or a much major part of the Church Catholick united with the Prime Apostolick Chair it seems here necessary that no particular person or Church do decretally censure any such Points as Errors in Doctrine or Practice or do any way oblige their Inferiors to think or profess them to be so which this much major part alloweth and practiseth If liberty to think teach or practice otherwise according to their Opinion in a point yet no way defined or enjoyned may be granted to such a minor part yet not a liberty to define against it or pronounce it an Errour in matter of Faith for this cannot be done without such minor condemning the much major part joined with the prime Patriarch which small part 's condemning both the superiour and much greater if it be allowed destroies Church-Government 2. After this first Submission §. 36. n. 3. wherein the Bishop seems to engage the Protestants Belief 2. * Of Councils General and Practice to any thing which is generally believed and practiced by the Catholick Church though it be not also conciliarly defined if next we come to the Church's Councils Here also he makes fair promises of submission I mean as to external Obedience and non-contradiction And 1st In respect of a Council General he is not in every thing so nice or exceptions as some other Protestants be He 1st not exacting that this Council should be so absolutely general as that any Hereticks should be admitted such as true General Councils have evidently declared to be Hereticks or such as will not pronounce Anathema against all old Heresies ‖ Schism guarded p. 352. I suppose he means all which have been condemned for Heresies by undoubted General Councils 2ly Nor that all the five Proto-Patriarchs should be present there four of them and their Clergy being under the power of the Turk but granting it sufficient if the sense and Suffrages of them and their Churches be delivered by Messengers or Letters 3. As for the calling also of this Council considering the division and sub-division of the ancient Empire and the present distraction of Christendom i. e. as to the Princes thereof their altogether contrary
same Doctrines and interpretation of Scripture was judged clear on the other side 10. Of which Controversies and matters in debate if any were in points necessary it must be granted that such Councils being universally accepted in such a sence as can only be rationally required ‖ See before §. 38. in these were unerrable and might lawfully require from their Subjects assent thereto Or at least if later Councils faulty in demanding their Subjects assent so must be the four first that are allowed by Protestants 11. To which Councils also and not to their Subjects must belong the judgment of what or how many Points are to be accounted necessary Or else neither did the judgment hereof belong to the four first Councils nor could they justly upon it require assent and join som such points to the Creed 12. But if such Controversies be supposed in non-necessaries yet for the peace of the Church after the determination of such a Council the advers party ought to acquiesce in silence and non-contradicting without either pronouncing that an Error which such Council holds a Truth or the Scripture clear for such a sence as such Council disallows 13. Or If Protestants will not be obliged to this why do they appeal to a free General Council for deciding differences and setling a peace when they will neither yield the obedience of silence to the Definitions of such Councils in points not necessary nor grant that any of the Controversies concerning which they appeal to them are points necessary wherein such Council universally accepted may be submitted to by them as un-errable The summe then is That their Reformation was not from some co-ordinate Church attempting to tyrannize over them as the second branch of their defence and those following to the eighth do import but from their Superiors From these not for somthing held or practised and not enjoined for here all having their liberty was no cause to depart but for points defined and wherein Conformity was required by them to whose judgment therefore they ought to have submitted so far as to learn from it in matters questioned what is Truth and Error Or at least so far as not to contradict it and consequently as not to reform against it In doing the contrary of which they are charged as guilty of Schism and of breaking the Laws of Subordination and Vnity established in the Church ‖ Of which see Disc 2. §. 24. n. 1. 14. Lastly VVhereas against such Obedience an Obligation is pleaded n. 6. to do nothing against Conscience It is replied that a man's conscience miss-perswaded that somthing is an Error is to be followed indeed and he upon no command to profess assent thereto but excuseth not from guilt nor freeth from the Church's Censures those who might have better informed it ‖ See Dr. Hammond of Schism c. 2. §. 8. Thus the Remonstrance After which well weighed I see not what security any one can have in continuing in such a Society as hath thus broken the Links of Ecclesiastical Government and lives in a separation from the main Body if either the rejecting the Definitions of the Church's former Councils be Heresie or relinquishing her Communion Schism CHAP. VIII VI. That according to the former Concession made in the Fifth Chapter § 32. If so enlarged as ancient Church-practice and Reason requires all or most of the Protestant Controversies are by former obliging Councils already decided § 56. n. 1 c. An Instance hereof in the Controversie of the Corporal Presence in the Eucharist or Transubstantiation § 57. NOw to consider the other Concession ‖ See before §. 41. and § 32 c. of more moderate Protestant Divines §. 56. n. 1. * granting our Lord's assistance to the Church Catholick such as that she shall also for ever be an unerring Guide in Necessaries a thing denied by Mr. Chillingworth ‖ See before §. 4. That according to those Conditions of determining controversies that can justly be required most of those between Cathol Protestants have been already decided because of a Consequence thereof which he foresaw Namely That we must take her judgment and guidance also in this point what points are fundamental or necessary and then who seeth not what will follow Namely That we are to believe this Church in all Points wherein she saith she is unerring And upon this * granting also her General Council or Representative she having no other way to teach direct define any thing or at at least no other way so clear and evident to be unerring in Necessaries provided that such Council be universally accepted and not opposed or reversed by the Church Catholick in another following Representative but received by a general tacit at least approbation and conformity to its Decrees Where also it is conceded that a Council for its meeting less General yet if having an universal acceptation is equivalent thereto And hence making their frequent Appeal to these Councils as the supream and ultimate Ecclesiastical Court for setling Unity of Doctrine and Peace in the Church and wherein they promise victory to their Cause and an end of Debates Of which see before § 32. c. A General Council §. 56. n. 2. after it is admitted by the whole Church is then infallible saith the Archbishop ‖ p. 346. he means in Necessaries But Bishop Bramhall further When inferior Questions saith he ‖ Vindic. of the Church of England p. 27 not fundamental are once defined by a lawful General Council all Christians though they cannot assent in their judgments are obliged to passive obedience to possess their souls in peace and patience And they who shall oppose the Authority and shall disturb the peace of the Church deserve to be punished as Hereticks Reply to Chalced. Prefat And I submit saith he ‖ my self to the representative Church that is to a free General Council or so general as can be procured And Schism Guarded p. 136. There is nothing saith he that we long after more then a General Council rightly called rightly proceeding or in defect of that a free Occidental Council as general as may be See much more to this purpose said by this Bishop before § 34 c. And thus Dr. Hammond ‖ Of Heres §. 14. n. 6. notwithstanding what is quoted out of him before § 5. We do not believe that any General Council truly such ever did or shall err in any matter of Faith nor shall we further dispute the authority I suppose he means to oblige us then we shall be duly satisfied of the universality of any such Council And Answer to Catholick Gentleman ‖ c. 2. §. 3. A Congregation that is fallible may yet have authority to make Decisions and to require Inferiours so far to acquiesce to their Determinations as not to disquiet the peace of that Church with their contrary Opinions And ‖ Ibid. c. 8. §. ◠n. 7. I
from being in some of the fore-named respects necessary especially when he must do this against better Judgments whilst these Guides consulted about any particular decrees of theirs will never professe or grant to him to have passed it but as thought in respect of some times places or persons Christian-faith or manners edification of particulars or Government of the Church necessary This concerning the reasonablenesse of believing in all points those who are infallible in all Necessaries § 17 4ly Though these Church-Guides should be granted not to be enabled by the divine assistance so far as to distinguish exactly Necessaries 4. from non-Necessaries in all points so that nothing should be redundant in their definitions or proposals Yet it seems rationally concluded That they are always so far divinely assisted not only in their decisions not to err in Necessaries but also in their judgment to discern and distinguish them from others not necessary to be so much pressed and in their diligence to propose them as that they shall never fail in the discerning or proposing in their Creeds Catechisms and other publike teaching all more absolute necessaries or all points requisite to be explicitly believed for all things defined are not necessary to be by all known or to all taught never fail in proposing these I say so clearly and entirely to all the subjects of the Church even the unlearned as that none can be ignorant thereof without his neglect to hearken to such a sufficient Proposal which is in all times made by the Church § 18 The Reason of this Indeficiency of Church-Guides in the Proposal of such Necessaries is Because it seems most just and is on all sides accorded that all Necessaries wherein an explicite faith is required of all Christians should be to them by some means or other sufficiently proposed And then the dispute concerning this sufficient Proponent lying between the Scriptures and the Church for what other external Proponent can be devised of these two as to several of these Points the latter must be it 1st Because experience shews the sense of Scripture not evident to all in many great Articles of faith which Articles yet are cleared by the Church-Guides ‖ Stillingf p. 58 59. So that tho' it be true which Mr. Chillingworth saith ‖ p. 18. 160 â—6 That he who believes all that is Scripture believes all Necessaries yet so it is that in many places of Scripture and that about points thought necessary when variously interpreted many unlearned especially know not what to believe for the Scripture-sence in such places and thus fail in the explicit belief * of some part of Scrirture and so perhaps * of some Necessaries in it 2ly Because before the penning of the New-Testament-Scriptures this office of the Proposal of all divine necessary truths to the people belonged to the Church-Guides to Timothy Titus and others Nor seems their authority by the writing of the Christian faith diminished by which Writings also they are still more enabled compleatly to perform their former duty 3ly Because these Scriptures also refer us in controversies and in learning our faith to the direction of these Guides See § 3. 4ly Because the illiterate within the Church-Catholick to whom also God is not deficient in the revelation of all necessary faith cannot have this from Writings but must receive it from their Guides and Pastors as also they did in all those times before Christ when the Holy Scriptures remained only in the hands of the learned or also before any of them were penned § 19 18. If we ought to submit our judgments to these present guides in their deciding what are necessary matters of Faith Prop. 8. according to the fifth Proposition preceding ‖ See §. 6. it seems reasonable that so we ought also to submit * in their expounding all former Writings concerning the same matters that are pretended any way ambiguous and so cannot end the Controversie made about their sense whether these be the Writings of the Scriptures or Fathers or former Councils of the Church And also * in their declaring which of former Councils are Legal and Obligatory So that the ultimate determination of doubts * concerning all former Determinations and Definitions of former Church in such matters of necessary Faith as well as * concerning new questions when Controversie is raised in them ought to be referred to these present Judges and their determinations hereupon so far as we can have them to be peaceably acquiesced in For if we ought to receive all that they deliver to us as matters of necessary Faith we ought also and may as securely credit them when declaring what in these Necessaries was the Faith of their Predecessors § 20 9ly Protestants also agree that though these Guides may erre in some Points not necessary yet their Subjects ought to yield their silence and by no means to contradict them Prop. 9. or as some more judicious Protestants do yield yet further ought to submit their Judgments also and yield their Assent to them even in those Definitions wherein these Guides are liable to Error whenever not these Guides do prove to them their Conclusions so much is thought unreasonably exacted but when their Subjects cannot demonstratively prove the contrary In this matter thus Dr. Jackson in stating the Question whether the Injunction of publick Ecclesiastical authority may oversway any degree of our private perswasion concerning the unlawfulness of any Opinion or action ‖ On the Creed l. 2. § 1. c. 5. It is most evident saith he ‖ Ibid. c. 6. from the former places alledged ‖ Eph 4.11 Heb. 13.17 Luk. 10.16 Ioh. 20.23 Ib. concerning the Commission of Priests and Ministers that the lawful Pastor or Spiritual Overseer hath as absolute authority to demand Belief or Obedience in Christ's as any Civil Magistrate hath to demand Temporal Obedience in the State or Prince's Name And Our Disobedience i. e. Dissent or non-submission of Judgme is unwarrantable unlesse we can truly derive some formal contradiction or opposition between the injunction of Superiors and express Law of the most High Every Doubt or Scruple that the Church's Edicts are directly or formally contrary to God's Law is not sufficient to deny Obedience Again We may not put the Superior to prove what he commands but he is to be obeyed till we can prove the contrary If Pastors are only to be obeyed when bringing evidence out of Scripture what Obedience perform we to them more than to any other man whatsoever For whosoever shews the express undoubted Command of God it must be obeyed of all If we thus only bound to obey then I am not more bound to obey any other man than he bound to obey or believe me The Flock no more bound to obey the Pastor than the Pastor them And so the donation of spiritual Authority when Christ ascended on high were a donation of meer Titles This he this others ‖
ecce illic ecce in deserto quasi ubi non est frequentia multitudinis ecce in cubiculis quasi in secretis traditionibus atque doctrinis Habetis Ecclesiam ubique diffundi crescere usque ad messem Habetis Civitatem de quâ ipse qui eam condidit ait non potest Civitas abscondi super montem posita Ipsa est ergo quae non in aliquâ parte terrarum sed ubique notissima est And Contra Cresconium l. 1. c. 33. He iterates the same Si autem dubitas quod Ecclesiam quae per omnes gentes numero sitate copiocissimâ dilatatur haec S. Scriptura commendat multis manifestissimis testimoniis ex eâdem authoritate the Scriptures prolatis onerabo where he that will say this Father speaks of the Church Catholicks only as it was in his not as it is to be in all times must also interpret those Scriptures from which he proves it to speak of his or some times only not of all which is absurd and would have voided S. Austine's arguing used against the Donatists then as well as any others now who might have replyed to him that these Texts were verified of some but not of their times And indeed they did urge that S. Austine's sence of them in application to the Church failed in the Arrian times and upon this See in his 48 Epistle his vindicating them to be verified of it in all times And it seems all reason that in the Scripture's describing that Church to whose bosome and Communion all people were for ever to resort the marks to know it by should be Universal and no more demonstrate to Christians the Church of one age than of another no more that in S. Austines times than that in ours to whose Faith and Communion Christians have in all times a like duty to conform and whose judgement a like necessity to consult Though it is willingly granted that such Properties admit of several degrees nor is it necessary either for its multitude extent or eminency that the Church should alway enjoy them in an equal proportion 3 ly Concerning our duty of crediting §. 82. n. 4. and adhering to the Church's testimony and judgement in matters controverted and obscure he thus discourseth ‖ Contra Cresconium l. 1. c. 33. against the Donatists who pleaded nothing in Scriptures could be shewed clear against them Proinde quamvis hujus rei certe de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum earundem tamen Scripturarum etiam in hac re a nobis tenetur veritas cum hoc facimus quod universae placuit Ecclesiae quam ipsarum Scripturarum commendat authoritas ut quoniam Sancta Scriptura fallere non potest quisquis falli metuit hujus obscuritate quaestionis eandem Ecclesiam de illâ consulat quam sine ullâ ambiguitate Sancta Scriptura demonstrat Again De Vnitate Ecclesiae c. 19. Hoc saith he aperte atque evidenter i.e. in the Scripture nec ego lego nec tu Nunc vero cum in Scripturis non inveniamus c puto si aliquis sapiens extitisset cui Dominus Jesus Christus testimonium perhibet that we should be directed by his judgment Et de hac quaestione consuleretur a nobis nullo modo dubitare deberemus id facere quod ille dixisset ne non tam ipsi quam Domino Jesu Christo cujus testimonio condemnatur repugnare judicaremur Perhibet autem testimonium Christus Ecclesiae suae 4. Lastly Concerning the benefit in adhering to §. 82. n. 5. and relying on the Church authority or testimony before that proved to us which yet she delivers to us he discourseth thus in his Book De utilitate Crerendi i.e. credendi Ecclesiae ‖ cap. 13. written not long after his Conversion to a former acquaintance ' qui irridebat as he saith ‖ Retract 1. l. c. 14. Catholicae fidei disciplinam qua juberentur credere homines non autem quid esset verum certissima ratione docerentur Recte saith he Catholicae disciplinae majestate institutum est ut accedentibus ad Religionem fides i.e. adhibenda anthoritati ecclesiae persuadiatur ante omnia and c. 10. Sed inquis nonne erat melius rationem mihi reddere ut quocunque ea me duceret sine ulla sequerer temeritate Erat fortasse sed cum res tantasit ut Deus tibi ratione cognoscendus sit omnesne putas idoneos esse percipiendis rationbus quibus ad divinam intelligentiam mens ducitur humana an plures an paucos ais existimo Quid Paucos caeteris ergo hominibus qui ingenio tam sereno praediti non sunt negandam Religionem putas If not such must receive this their Religion not from Reason but authority And c. 16. Authoritate decipi miserum est miserius non moveri Si Dei providentia non praesidet rebus humanis nihil est de Religione satagendum Non est desperandum ab eodem ipso Deo authoritatem aliquam constitutam qua velut gradu incerto innitentes attolamur in Deum Haec autem authoritas seposita ratione qua sincerâ intelligere it diximo difficilimum stultis est dupliciter nos movet partim miraculis paâ—â—â—â—â—quentium multitudine And c. 8. He thus exhorts his scepties Friend Honoratus seduced by the Manicheans Si jam satis jactatus videris sequere viam Catholicae Disciplinae quae ab ipso Christo per Apostolos ad nos usque manavit abhinc ad posteros manatura est Those who can humble their reason so far as to embrace this holy Counsil through the abundant providence of God will find no great difficulty in discerning their right Guides and chusing the true Religion CHAP. VII Whether the Church of England doth not require assent to her Articles of Religion Several Canons in her Synods seeming to require it § 83. n. 1. The complaint of the Presbyterians concerning it § 83. n. 4. The Doctrine of her Divines § 84. n. 1. Where concerning the just importance of Negative Articles § 84. n. 1. and 85. n. 2. and concerning conditional assent § 84. n. 4. and 85. n. 10. That to some of the 39 Articles assent is due and ought to be required § 85. n. 1. That the Roman Church doth not require assent to all the Canons of her Councills as to points Fundamental i. e. of any of which a Christian nescient cannot be saved § 85. n. 4. That obedience either of assent or non-contradiction if required by the Church of England to all the 39. Articles seems contrary to the Laws of the Church and to the Protestant Principles § 85. n. 11. AFter this view of the 2. present opposit Churches §. 83. n. 1. which of them more resembles the ancient Catholick the latter whereof the Protestant Churches seem to build the defence of the Reformation and the Vindication of their liberty from former Church-laws upon the denial of any such obedience
whatever she defines to be infallibly true And The Church of England bindeth men to peace to the Churches Determinations reserving to men the liberty of their judgements on pain of Excommunication if they violate that peace And Mr. Chillingworth saith ‖ P. 375. That Protestants cannot with coherence to their own grounds require of others the belief of any thing besides Scripture and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it without most high and most Schismatical presumption plain irrefragable indubitable consequences such therefore cannot be the most of the 39. Articles we know by how great a part of Christianity controverted denied Lastly thus the Arch-bishop answering to the fifth Canon of the Church of England objected by A. C. ‖ P. 51. It's one thing for a man to hold an opinion privately within himself and another thing boldly and publickly to affirm it as if that Canon prohibited only the latter of these This then seems of late the commoner exposition of subscription and most suitable to the Protestant Principles 8. But 8 ly Some other expressions also fall from the same Writers §. 84. n. 3. and others intimating assent required For 1 st The Arch-bishop saith concerning the fifth Article that perhaps only publick affirmation is the sence of it but speaks nothing clearly against assent required by it and I suppose he saw good reason for it I pray you view the place in him So in the precedent page he saith The Church of England is not such a shrew to her Children as to deny her blessing or denounce and Anathema against them if some peaceably dissent in some particulars remoter from the Foundation Where this restriction remoter from the Foundation seems so to indulge dissent in respect of some of the 39. Articles as that she doth not allow it generally in respect of them all unless any will say all the Articles are such So Mr. Whitby ‖ P. 100. in his Answer to Mr. Cressy amongst other ifs puts in this for one If they the English Church-Governours require a positive assent it is because the thing determined is to be evident in Scripture c. We do use saith Bishop Bramball ‖ Reply p. 349. to subscribe unto them indeed not as Articles of Faith but as Theological verities is not this a subscribing that they assent to or hold them for Theological verities So p. 264. We do require Ecclesiastical persons only to subscribe them as Theological Truths for the preservation of unity among us and the extirpation of some growing errors and Mr. Stillingfleet useth the same expression from him To subscribe them as Theological Truths meaneth he not here to subscribe that they are Theological Truths For the preservation of unity means he not unity of Opinion and of the Profession of such Truths As the title also prefixed to the Articles mentioned before ‖ §. 83. n. 1. imports saying That the Articles were drawn up for the avoiding diversities of Opinions and establishing consent Else where diversity of Opinion is allowed in all things what extirpation of errours which follows in the next words can be hoped 9. μ Lastly §. 84. n. 4. I find frequent mention in these Authors of a conditional assent or belief required in general as due to the Churches proposals whether concerning matters of Faith or other constitutions yet without any particular application thereof to the 39. Articles Conditional viz. Then * when a person is not competent to search her grounds or * where the Church adheres to and forsakes no part of the Apostles depofitum or * when she proveth and evidenceth to them the truth of what she proposeth or * so long as they cannot evidence and prove to her the contrary But then they leave the judgement of this condition when she sufficiently proves such a thing or they the contrary when the party is not competent to search grounds or when the Church adheres not to the Apostles Depositum to themselves and not to the Church reserving to every private person the ultimate judgement a judgement of discretion as they call it See Dr. Ferne's Case between the two Churches p. 40.48 49. Division of Churches p. 45.47 61. Considerations p. 19. Dr. Feild p. 666. Dr. Jackson on the Creed l. 2. § 1. c. 5. 6. out of which see some Quotations before § 20. Dr. Hammond's answer to a Catholick Gentleman p. 16.17 Dispatcher dispatched c. 5. p. 358. Having seen this defence of Learned Protestants for the Church of England her composing new Articles of Religion §. 85. n. 1. and exacting of her Subjects subscription and conformity to them wherein they endeavour to represent the Yoke of these her Articles and her Excommunications very light though the Presbyterians groan under the weight thereof in comparison of that of the Roman Canons and their Anathemas Now give me leave to make some reflection on what they have said and out of these to return answers to the precedents so far as it seems necessary Obs 1 1 st Then this is clear that they confining their Rule of Faith within as narrow a compass as they please yet some of their 39. Articles will be found to be a part of it and to be such supernatural truths as are necessary to be known of every Christian necessitate medii and such as extra quo◠non est salus as well as some of those in Pius's Bull or in the Council of Trent are Of this sort must several of the 1 st 8. Articles be concerning the Trinity Son of God c. And I ask whether they are not willing that some other of them as 8. The fall of Adam 18. Salvation only by Christ 15. Christ only without sin 11 Justification by Faith 25.27 Two Sacraments ordained by Christ and these not only bare signs but effectual Instruments of Grace 6. Sufficiency of the holy Scripture for Salvation be admitted into the Rule of the Protestants Faith but thrown amongst Theological and inferior verities Since then it is most certain that some of their Articles are part of their Rule and of the most necessary and fundamental Faith Next I ask concerning these whether in the liberty they profess in their Church and the want of it they accuse in the Roman they require no assent from their Subjects or at least from those of them whom they admit to H. Orders and Ecclesiastical Preferments to these Articles or whether they do not require them to profess and teach all or some of them at least which they cannot do unless they also oblige them to hold them for none may profess against what he thinks and therefore who is tyed by them to profess so is by them tyed to think so But if they do not require such assent then may one that holds against them the 〈◊〉 Doctrines in several of the prime Articles of their Faith not only enjoy their Communion but sit down among their Doctors only if as he believeth professeth
or teacheth none of these Articles so he do not teach or profess the contrary but spend his discourses on other subjects See now whether there may not be some reason for that which is observed before § 84. n. 3. concerning the Arch-bishop Obs 2 2 ly Concerning those other Articles of which it is said that they are no new positive Articles of the Protestant Faith but only negations §. 85. n. 2. and refurations of new Roman assertions and additions You may note concerning them 1 st In General that Negatives may be Scripture-truths revealed therein matter of our Faith and as necessary to be believed as Bishop Bramhall granteth ‖ Reply to Chalced p. 227. when known to be revealed as any affirmative and possitive Articles are and the most Fundamental Articles may be as well negatively as affirmatively proposed and seeing that the one necessarily implies and inferrs the other as one is ratione medii necessary to Salvation so is the other So the negative Articles in the Nicen or Athanasian Creed Pater non creatus a nullo genitus non tres â—atres Filius non factus Filius unus non conversione divinitatis in carnem aut confusione Substantiarum are Articles of as necessary belief as the positives and indeed the same with them the same with Pater unus Pater eternus Filius genitus Filius ex duabus naturis consistens And they as much Hereticks that affirm any of these negatives as that deny the affirmative 2 ly Concerning the Negatives in the 39. Articles of the Church of England if they be well considered you may find that they are both in the Articles pretended to be Scripture and revealed truths and that all or most of them are equivalent to affirmatives and as new and positive on the one side as the Roman Articles which they contradict are pretended on the other and the Protestants Confession of Faith supposing him obliged to believe these Negatives as large and as particular on the one side as the Roman or Tridentine is on the other as to the maine Controversies that are bandied between the two Churches and these not only privatively but positively opposite For no difference can be made in the thing but only in the expression between a negative and positive Article where the negative implies and is equivalent to the affirmative of its contrary as it is where the contraries are immediate and the one of them is necessarily put wherever the other denied As God being granted a substance He that denies him to be a corporeal substance in this he affirmes him to be a Spiritual and so those that deny here something which others affirme in this must needs affirme somthing which the others deny and the negative may be as we please changed into another positive and he who had before the positive shall have now the negative side He that denies any Soules after this life to go into any temporal purgatory affirms them to go into Bliss or Pain Eternal and he that affirms Purgatory denies this So he that denies a Transubstantiation in the Eucharist affirmes the Substance of the Symboles to remain there and so e contra Hence he that hath 39. Articles of his Faith whereof 30. are in the expression negative 9. positive hath in matters wherein the one contrary being excluded the other is admitted as it is in most of these Articles of Religion that are in debate no fewer positive Articles of his Faith than he who hath 39. expresly positive and again he who hath 39 positive cannot but have 39. Negative also and e contra only a negative confession argues a former contest And as Faith so Heresie is conversant in either And here also note that it is one thing for a Church meerly to exclude from or omit in her Articles or confessions of Faith those points which another Church defineth i. e not to tye her Subjects to believe them and another thing to tye her Subjects to believe the Negatives of them or not to believe them Which is indeed a defining one way as much as the other Church doth the other way For Example 'T is one thing not to tye her subjects to believe or hold the Roman Doctrine concerning Purgatory Pardons Images Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints c. and another thing to tye her subjects to believe or hold that the Romish Doctrines concerning Purgatory c. are vainly invented or grounded on no warrant of Scripture but rather repugnant to the Word of God as it is in the 22. Article Ecclesiae Anglic. Neither can the Church of Rome be here more justly questioned in her not leaving points in Universals only and their former indifferency but new-stating Purgatory Transubstantiation c. than the Reformed for their new-stating the contrary to these Which to make more perspicuous §. 85. n. 3. It is to be noted that of those who seem in their Theological Positions to affirm lesâ— and so to make fewer Articles of their Faith than some others do there are two sorts 1. Either such as peremptorily deny the truth of those additionals which the other affirm 2. Or such as do suspend their judgement concerning such additionals neither affirming nor denying them for truths only denying that the others as yet do prove or evidence them to be so Now though it may be said of these later that indeed they do not make so many Articles of Faith or new definitions as the other do and so also that they seem much more safe and modest in the paucity of their Credends because they who neither affirm nor deny a Tenent cannot err in it yet the former who deny as far and as peremptorily every new point as the other affirm it these can free themselves from no curiosity tyranny liableness to errour c. wherein they pretend the other to transgress nor can plead any safety in their Doctrine viz. in their not erring because not determining but do ingage every whit as far in such points as their adversaries do one in holding and endeavouring to prove such a thing a truth the other in holding and endeavouring to prove it an error And this is the case of the Church of England which suspends not her judgment in those new points which the Roman defines nor denies them onely to be proved or clear in the Scripture but denies them as Errors and things contrary to Scripture So Purgatory Adoration of Images and Reliques Invocation of Saints Indulgences are declared repugnant to Gods Word Art 22. Works of Supereorgation Art 14. Publick Prayer or Ministery of the Sacraments in a Tongue not understood by the People Art 24. Denying of the Cup to the People Art 30. Sacrifice of the Mass Art 31. Transubstantiation Art 28. Now he that believes Transubstantiation for Example to be contrary to Scripture makes the contrary to Transubstantiation to be Scripture and so to be also a point of his Faith if Scripture be so and hence the
as a Prelatist For since the judgment here concerning the condition viz. when the Church proves what she proposeth or when the Subscriber proves the contrary when he is competent to search grounds or the Church unfaithful in conserving her Depositum is left not to the Church but to the Subscriber it casts the assent and dissent also wholly into his dâ—sposal and arbitrement and note here also that who may require only a conditional assent can likewise exact only in such points as are practical a conditional conformity i. e. that none be absolutely enjoyned to practice such a thing but onely upon supposition that the Church first prove it to him lawful to be done or that he cannot prove it to the Church to be unlawful or that he is a person unable to searth the grounds of the lawfulness or unlawfulness thereof c. of which conditioâ—s himself also not the Church is judg For otherwise he that obligeth a person absolutely to the performance of a thing obligeth him also absolutely to the believing that thing lawful to be done which later the Church of England not owning neither may she the first and who ought to have his liberty for the one ought so for the other too Now 't is ordinary in the English Canons to require upon pain of Excommunication conformity to her Constitutions where had this secret been known to the Presbyterians that it is understood onely of such a conditional conformity I suppose there would have been no cause of their forbearing subscription or complaining of the English Church-Laws their being as rigorous and unjust as those of Rome Thus I have made a search into the obedience §. 85. n. 11. which is required of her Subjects by a Church that seems not well grounded in her authority by reason that having disjoyned herself from that which she acknowledgeth was formerly the Catholick Church and from Superior Councils she can neither lay claim to that Infallibility in necessaries which from our Lords perpetual superintendency resides in the whole as all members throughly consenting with the whole and guided by it do lay claim to such Infallibility and therefore do require obedience from their Subjects in the same manner as the whole doth as to all such doctrines wherein they agree with the whole nor can she standing apart and alledging the reason of it the former Churches errors have the confidence to claim a new Infallibility to herself and therefore it is no wonder if there seem some uncertainty what obedience she requireth where there is what authority she possesseth and where such obedience is grounded rather on the pretended clear evidence of the matter proposed than the soveraign and undeclinable authority of the Proposer Meanwhile whether she challengeth an obedience of assent from her Subjects §. 85. n. 12. or that of non-contradiction I see not how she can be justified by the Laws of the Church or by her own Principles For 1st By the Laws of the Church if she justly require assent from her and was she not in conscience obliged to yield it These as well as she determining nothing but what they think a clear truth Or can she blame the fallible Church of Rome for requiring assent to her Canons upon Anathema when she fallible requires the same upon Excommunication For the disparities that are made here have been formerly answered and any evidence or certainty Protestants pretend for those Doctrines to which they require assent the Roman Church pleads the like for hers and so sub judice lis est Concerning this hear Mr. Chillingw †p. 375. Any thing besides Scripture and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it I suppose he means appearing such not onely to the Church-Governors but their Subjects and that all the 39 Articles have not such an evidence well may Protestants hold it as matter of opinion but as matter of Faith and Religion neither can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it themselves nor require the belief of it of others without most high and most schismatical presumption But 2ly If laying assent aside onely a non-contradiction of her Articles or a non-affirmation that they are any way erroneous is required upon excommunication of the person so offending yet neither will this be justifiable by the Laws of the Church for no Canon of a National Synod can justly pronounce Excommunication on any for affirming so many points in their Articles erroneous as have been determined by Superior Councils a General or a Patriarchal Synod contrarily For example It is not lawfull for a National Synod in England to excommunicate a person for affirming their Articles erroneous in denying Transubstantiation because this hath been determined affirmatively by many former Superior Synods accepted by the whole Western Church as is shewed before 1. Disc § 57. which therefore oblige Christians to the belief and profession of it against the Decrees of any Inferior Western Synod Neither 2ly Do they seem to inflict Excommunication on every one that affirms any of their Articles erroneous without condemning their own Principles because what they say of General Councils is as true I suppose for their own Synods viz. That they may err grosly and manifestly in which case they say one may lawfully affirm these Councils in such thing erroneous else how can they ever be corrected See before § 43 44. c. The case therefore is the same as to their own Synods And then for what they say a person may lawfully do they cannot lawfully excommunicate him But if it be replyed §. 85. n. 13. that their Synods challenge an obedience of non contradiction onely to what they are certain is truth and therefore none may lawfully in such case contradict them or affirm they err 1st It follows they may upon the same terms require assent also of which they seem more shie But 2ly As theirs plead certainty so do other Councils whom yet they will not excuse upon this pretence for requiring assent as hath been but now said 3ly It seems unreasonable that a certainty either from the sense of Scripture necessary Deduction former universal Tradition or any other way should be pretended by a particular Church in any such matters from which a major part of Christianity perusing the same evidences dissents †Disc 2 §. 5. Disc 4 § 11 12. such as are several of the 39 Articles 4ly Protestants themselves affirm that those who are certain of truth yet may not require an absolute but conditional assent from others who first know them in general to be fallible and next do not know or have it not proved to them that in this particular they dot err See before § 85. n. 10. And the same they say for non-contradiction required that it must be onely conditional i. e. if the contrary truth to the error defined do not appear to the Churches Subjects necessary to be divulged Meanwhile it is not denied which was also
but now said that particular Churches or Provincial Synods may be certain of something as Truth where either Scripture saith it or a necessary deduction collecteth it or Tradition delivereth it such as are Generally undisputed and unquestioned and may require from their Subjects an absolute assent and that upon Excommunication or Anathema to all such Articles of Religion as are either defined or otherwise agreed on by the whole Catholick Church and that herein they have the same infallibility as the Catholick and their Subjects are or may be convinced that they are the tenents of the Church Catholick As the Church of England though otherwise fallible may require not a conditional but an absolute assent to the Articles of the Athanasian Creed because she in these is infallible if the Catholick Church be so Thus much said concerning the quality of the submission required of her Sons by the Church of England to her Articles of Religion I now proceed to the 2d thing proposed before § 66. The many Difficulties and Objections urged against an Infallible Church-Authority CHAP. VIII Solutions of several Questions concerning an infallible living Guide 1. Q. From what we can be assured that Councils are infallible since neither the Texts of Scripture the sense whereof is disputed nor the Decree of any Council whose erring is the thing questioned can give such assurance § 86. 2. Q. From whence General Councils receive their Infallibility such promise if made at all being made onely to the Church diffusive and not delegable by this Church to others Or if so no such Delegation from the Vniversal Church appearing to have been beforehand made at all or any General Council § 91. 3. Q. How the Infallibility of General Councils is necessary or serviceable to the Church without which Councils the Church subsisted for several ages most Orthodox § 98. 4. Q. How Lawfull General Councils which experience hath shewed to have contradicted one another can be all Infallible § 100. 5. Q. Lawfull General Councils being supposed to be liable to error in some things how Christians can be assured concerning any particular point that in it these Councils do not erre § 101. 6. Q. Whilst such Councils are supposed Infallible How if they should not be so can any error of theirs be rectified § 102. 7. Q. Whether such Councils onely when confirmed by the Pope or all when yet unconfirmed by Him are infallible § 104. 8. Q. How the Popes Confirmation can any way concurr to such Councils non-erring since if it erred before it doth so still though he approve it but if orthodox before it is so still he not approving it § 105. 9. Q. In which the Pope or the Council this Infallibility lies For if in one of them the other is needless if in Both then either of them sufficient such qualities being indivisible and without integral Parts § 106. § 86 AGainst a living infallible Ecclesiastical Judg of Controverfies in necessary matters of Religion Solutions of several Questions asserted above in this discourse by Catholicks and the Church Governors in a Lawfull General Council affirmed to be so many difficulties are urged and some with much subtilty which it seems to me may be with as much plainness satisfactorily removed 1st Then Q. 1. it is asked †See Mr. Stillings p. 409 539 558. whence can arise a sufficient certainty to Christians that lawfull General Councils are infallible Since it cannot arise * from the Decree of any Council because we know not whether Councils err in such a Decree till this thing first be stated to us whether they are infallible Nor 2ly * From the Scripture Because this were to make the Scripture the sole Judg of this great Controversie which Catholicks deny to be the sole Judg of any and if Scripture may decide this Controversie it may as well all others for that it is evident that there are no places of Scripture whose sense is more controverted than the sense of those urged concerning the Churches Infallibility If therefore these may be understood without a living and Infallible Judg so as that we may be certain of their true sense then why not all others which concern the rule of Faith and manners whose sense is far less disputed than of these § 87 To which I answer 1st That Scripture though it cannot properly be a Judge to decide any dispute about its sence yet may be a rule plain and free enough from obscurity in its sense there where some corrupt and interessed judgements may question it nor is it to be thought really ambiguous where ever disputed or controverted and that though the clearness of this Rule can never be pretended or such argument in reason made use of on that side where a few do oppose either the common traditional sense of former ages or of the much major part of the present age yet on the other side the sence thereof that is given by the common judgment either of former or present times may be rationally urged against these few and especially where a superior Authority requires their conformity they ought to yeild unto it And here see what he saith ‖ Still p. 58 59. who urgeth this both concerning Scripture wrested by some in its sence even in those places of it where it is a Rule of necessary faith and manners and concerning the Christians duty herein to follow the common sence and consent of the Church Now that these Scriptures here spoken of however by some of late controverted have been alwayes understood in the common sence of the Church to declare a promise of infallibility in its Governours for necessaries appears sufficiently by the proceedings of her Councils ancient and modern requiring upon Anathema assent to their decrees and inserting some of them in the Creeds Of which more by and by ‖ § 90. Here then it is denied that Scripture when ever controverted by a few in some age against the traditional and common sence of the Church both in the former and present age as the Texts concerning the Trinity are now of late by the Socinian is no Rule plain or free enough from obscurity in the traditional sence thereof to decide such controversie § 88 2ly I answer for so much as is affirmed of such Councils namely their infallibility in all their definitions made in necessary matters of faith That Protestants themselves grant a sufficient certainty both from Scripture and from universal tradition that the Church Catholick of all ages is unerring in necessaries and that this Church Catholick alwayes doth and shall consist as well of a guiding and ruling Clergy as a guided and subject Laity And that thus far there is no controversie concerning evidence of Scripture or Tradition And next from hence it certainly follows that there shall be a body of Clergy for ever not erring in necessaries And again from this that this Clergy when joyned in a general assembly or Council and unanimously
argumentations alwayes made by them concerning such particular Conclusion so neither do they collect it from any such inspiration which they sensibly pâ—rreive nor from any express testimony that the Spirit gives to such its operation as the Apostles did but only in general from the Divine Promise that in all such Conclusions they shall not miscarry § 111 3ly The Church's infallibility differs from the Apostolical in that it is an inspiration or revelation if you will not of any new Doctrine but of such as was in its principles at least formerly revealed and delivered by Christ or his Apostles and therefore the knowledge thereof if at any time it was not might be attained by deduction from those Principles without any new inspiration and is actually had in the Church still either from such true Principle or by Tradition of the Conclusion it self And to end this question let them who ask it consider in what manner the Church Catholick diffusive is for ever preserved infallible in necessaries a thing they affirm without its equalling infallibility Apostolical And I answer her General Councils are so too To the other part of the Query I answer In what sort their infallibility equals not the Apostles so neither that of their decrees that of Scripture § 112 13. Again Q. 13. it is asked †Dr. Pierce Answ to Cressy p. 9. How many persons or Guides all fallible can make up one infallible any more than many Planets one Sun or many acts of finite knowledge one truly infinite I answer 1st with another question How the whole diffusive Body of the Church consisting of many members all fallible or failable in necessaries yet is affirmed by Protestants that it shall be for ever infallible or unfailable in necessaries 2ly Infallible being understood as it is meant i. e. for the Church actually never erring at such time in such a meeting and treating on such matters the question is no more than this How several persons erring in one thing may be non-erring in any or in another thing Or how the same persons when met together and divinely assisted in the matters they consult about do not or shall not err when the same persons in the same things at some other time when not consulting together and having no certain divine assistance promised to them may and ordinarily do err And it is answered that this is effected by the good pleasure of God divinely assisting and preserving them in such meeting in such matters from error It is also urged †Dr. Pierce Ib. p. 11. That Councils indeed may actually not err as single persons also may not yet that hence none can rightly stile Councils infallible or unerrable and that there is a great difference between the Participle suppose non fallens or non falsus and the Adjective in bilis non fallibilis I answer whatever difference there be between Participles and Adjectives no more is here meant by the second that by the first only with a semper added to it viz. Ecclesia infallibilis i. e. semper non falsa if I may use this word in errabilis i e. semper non errans or de facto nunquam errans Now though particular members of the Church are also unerring in several things yet not alwayes and though this that God may preserve single persons unerring alwayes is true yet that he doth so is denied of them but affirmed of the Church or lawful General Council as to all necessaries Is it not strange that grave Divines rather than be found without a reply should raise mâ—sts and make great difficulties and fall on vindicating the divine Attributes in such a matter as this intelligible to children who one day must give account hereof § 113 After all these objections and difficulties made concerning the infallibility or not erring of lawful General Councils Next supposing that all such are as to all necessary faith an infallible Guide and all the former difficulties concerning this point clearly removed yet a new roll of objections and interrogations is brought in against our discerning or knowing certainly what or how many of past Councils have been lawfully General 14. Next then it is urged That Q. 14. lawful General Councils only being pretended infallible Any § 114 to be certain of any particular Councâ—l it s not erring and so to yeild his assent to its decrees as such must know first whether it is a lawful General Council And for this again must know who are justly the constitutive members of such a body * whether Bishops only or also Presbyters or also the Laity as Act. 15.22 23. the Brethren also are admitted * whether the votes therein ought to be numbred according to the persons or rather to the several Churches and Nations the greater Churches having many times in the Synod the fewer representatives and so the fewer personal votes * whether the Bishops sitting therein were lawful Bishops and in order to this whether 1st truly Priests and truly baptized and whether that some of these Sacraments had no miscarriage for want of the Priests due intention in administring them * whether a sufficient number of Bishops residing in it and those equally from all parts so to make it a full and entire representative of the Church Catholick and * whether the Pope's summons be sufficient thereto though this question seems needlesly asked for all those Councils in the convening of which both the Pope Christian Princes have concurred * 1. whether the Bishops appearing in Council were sufficiently commissioned from those Churches they pretend to represent and 2. * whether sufficiently instructed as to the points to be decided concerning the fence therein of the absent Bishops first declared in their Provincial or other Synods or meetings and 3. * whether those in the Council did truly speak and render this their fence * whether being lawfully assembled they have also lawfully proceeded * whether they came to the Council without prejudice and sought nothing but the truth otherwise they are not gathered together in Christ's name and then neither is he in the midst of them whether a faction or some few more powerful have not out-witted or over-awed the rest and * whether some not corrupted or bribed to give their vote against conscience * whether being lawfully assembled and lawfully proceeding they made indeed such decrees as are pretended theirs * what of these decrees are de fide what not * whether these decrees have that meaning really which the peruser of them apprehends for Scriptures in deciding of Controversies being doubtful and liable to wrong interpretations why may not the decrees of Councils be so too †Stillingf p. 512. Nay much more for we have many other places to compare the help of original tongues and the help of the primitive Church to understand Scripture by when the decrees of Councils are many times purposely framed in general termes and with ambiguous expressions to give satisfaction
decrees yet it is not affirmed by Catholicks that either a non-possibly or a non-morally fallible certainty of these Councils or of their Decrees or Definitions is necessary to all persons for the attaining a divine and salvifical belief of all the necessary articles of their Faith Of which see below § 125.127 Provided that every one be rightly disposed to believe both concerning Councils and their Decrees what is or shall be by their Superiors sufficiently proposed to them without and before which proposal he may be not only not infallibly certain but without peril to salvation ignorant supposing the common Creeds professed by him to contain all articles that are necessary ratione Medii to be explicitâ—y believed both what Councils are lawfully General and what such General Councils have decreed CHAP. X. 15. Q. Lastly Catholicks pretending a Divine Faith of the Articles of Christian Religion to be necessary to salvation and all Divine faith necessarily to be grounded on Divine Revelation it is asked upon what ground a Christian by a Divine Faith believes all those Articles of his Faith that are defined by particular Councils Where if it be said from the testimony of the present Church which is declared by the divine Revelation infallible the question proceeds whence this testimony can be proved by divine Revelation infallible unless it be from God's Word written or unwritten But then such writings for effecting a Divine Faith cannot be proved to be God's Word but from some other Divine Revelation for a Divine Faith can never ground it self save on a Divine Revelation where also we cannot return again to the testimony of the Church I mean as this is by Divine Revelation infallible without making a Circle § 120. To which is answered 1. That the object of a Divine Faith is alwayes in it self infallible § 123. 2. That Divine Faith alwayes resolveth it self into Divine Revelation and that into some one wherein it ultimately resteth without a process in infinitum or wheeling about in a Circile § 129. n. 1 § 132 143 144. 3 4. That such Divine Faith is alwayes wrought in Christians by the operation of God's Spirit § 164. n. 2. 5 6. But attainable without any extrinsecal infallible Introductive or Proponent Neither that it is necessary that all men for the enjoying a Divine and saving Faith be first infallibly certain that the external proponent thereof is infallible § 127. c. 7. Yet that there are those morally-certain grounds producible for this Faith and all the Articles thereof as they are believed in the Catholick Church which no other Religion befides Christianity nor no other Sect or seducing private spirit in Christianity can pretend to § 135. 8. That a rational certainty or morally-infallible ground of a Christians Faith for this at least that the Scriptures are the Word of God and consequently whatever is contained therein infallible is affirmed by all § 136. But further That an infallibility of the Church-Guides in necessaries as clearly revealed in Scripture and by Tradition Apostolical is believed by Catholickes From which infallibility of the Church thus cleared to them they retain a firm faith of all those other points that are not in Scripture or Tradition as to all men so evidently revealed as Church-infallibility is In many of which points those-others who believe only infallibility of Scripture are liable to miscarry § 140. Shewed from the precedents that no Circle is made in the Roman-Catholicks resolution either of a Divine or acquisite Faith § 143. c. The Conclusion Wherein of the many advantages of promoting their salvation lost by Protestants in persisting out of the Communion and rejecting the conduct of the spiritual Guides of the Roman-Catholick Church IN this Query which follows concerning the Resolution of Faith wherein several Catholicks do variously express themselves according to their liberty of opinion unrestrained by any former Church definition and many of the terms have such a latitude of signification as it is hard to speak so distinctly as not in something to be misunderstood I have purposely quoted several Catholick Authors of good note in confirmation of what is delivered to remove from you all jealousie that any thing is said here new Heterodox or formerly censured by the Roman Church § 120 15ly In the last place it is further pressed Q. 15. That a moral certainty or if you will a moral infallibility could it perhaps be shewed for many of those things mentioned in the former questions yet is not sufficient to afford a ground of that faith which Catholicks do require as necessary For that they say that a Christian cannot with a right and a divine faith believe the particular points of his faith to be divinely revealed unless he have an infallible or not possibly fallible assurance thereof nor can he have such infallible assurance unless the Church's definitions in her General Councils that deliver such doctrines to be divine Revelations be so infallible Nor can he infallibly believe the definitions of any Council in part cular to be so infallible unless he be infallibly certain that it is a lawful General Council for all other inferior Councils Catholicks grant may err in their Definitions nor can he be infallibly certain of this unless he be so of all those things too without which Catholicks grant it is no General Council And if an infallible certainty also of all these things so far as it is necessary should be pretended from the Tradition of the Church ever since the time of the sitting of such Councils delivering and declaring to posterity these Councils in gross for lawfully General because this Church-Tradition is held infallible It is asked again whence this Tradition is infallibly known to be so where if it be said from our Lord's promises to the Church declared in the Scriptures and so the infallibility of the Church-Tradition be resolved into Divine Revelation It is still urged whence can any know infallibly either in particular that those Texts which are urged to make good such a promise have such a sence as is-pretended or in General that the Scriptures containing such Texts are the infallible Word of God and here again if we return to prove an infallible certainty of the sence of these particular Scriptures or in general of the Scriptures being divine from the tradition and testimony of the Church then here again I must make this testimony of the Church infallible and the former question returns as unsatisfied by the former answer viz. whence I can prove its testimony or Tradition infallible of which infallibility for me here to resume an evidence from the Scriptures or from the former Texts will cast my reasoning into a vicious circle § 121 But if I proceed and say That the Tradition of the Church may be proved sufficiently to be infallible from the motives of credibility much dilated on by Catholick Writers As From the multitude of those who have affirmed their receiving of
round Fides divina discursiva esse non potest circa omnia objecta sua quia alioquin sequeretur processus in infinitum Layman p. 181. quoting Caietan in 22. q. 1. art 1. Si dicas assentio huic revelato ex fide acquisitâ tunc fides infusa dependeret in esse infaciendo adhaerere alicui articulo à fide acquisit â sicut à principio Scotus l. 1.23 d. § contra fid § 145 3ly Concerning such ultimate particular Divine Revelation whether it be authority and veracity of Scripture or authority and veracity of the Church or of Apostolical Tradition or of miracles If we say further that we ground our divine faith of it upon God's veracity or because God is true and cannot lye an undisputable prime principle Yet note that God's veracity alone is not a sufficient ground of such faith of any particular Revelation since on this veracity of God in general many false Religions also are pretended to be grounded i. e. many false Religions believe that whatever God saith is true and further believe but falsely that God hath said what they are taught unless another proposition be joyned with it viz. that God who is thus True and cannot lye in whatever he saith hath also said this particular thing which we believe namely that the testimony of the Church or Apostles or Scriptures our particular ultimate ground named before is true Of which thus Card. Lugo †De virtute fidei divin Disp 1. §. 7. Duplex est ratio formalis partialis cui ultimò fides divina nititur 1. Deus est prima veritas Et 2. Deus it a dixit and we know the certitude of any Conclusion must alwayes be built on two premises or principles And then letting the first pass unquestioned Deus est prima veritas the second that God hath said this or that must either be grounded that it may be the foundation of a divine faith on some other Divine Revelation from which we collect that he hath said it which still will proceed to the inquiry after another divine Revelation on which to ground that or else I must rest there with an immediate assent to it and acknowledge that I have no divine faith that he hath said it which relyes on any other Divine Revelation and then why might I not have rested as well in the forenamed Revelations Lastly concerning that Divine Revelation which by due consequences seems to be the ultimate resolvent of a Christian faith those who disallow that which others assign let them assign another such as is truly a Divine Revelation and not mistaken only by them to be so as assigning the letter of Scripture taken by them in a wrong sence c. and it sufficeth § 146 4ly I take this also for agreed on by all that the internal efficient of all faith divine is the power or grace of the Holy Spirit both * illuminating the understanding that the prime verity cannot lye in whatever thing it reveals if perhaps the understanding herein needeth any light and also that the particular Articles of our faith are its Revelations * And perswading and operating in the will such a firm adherence unto these Articles as many times far exceeds that of any humane science or demonstrations § 147 5ly Now then If any Christian be asked concerning the ultimate Resolution of his divine faith as to the extrinsecal prime motive ground reason or principle thereof that equals in certainty the faith built on it he can alledge none other than that particular divine Revelation which is first made known to him by what means it matters not since this varies as to several persons or from which in building of his faith he proceeds to the rest Again if any ask concerning the internal efficient of such faith as is divine the answer must alwayes be one and the same for the divine faith of all Christians That it is wrought in the faithful by the grace of the holy Spirit § 148 6ly The Motives forementioned which are such a rational evidence of the verity of Christianity and of the several Articles thereof believed in the Catholick Church as no other forreign Religion or Sâ—ct in Christianity can produce do serve indeed antecedently for an introductive to or after it introduced for a confirmative of this divine faith i. e. to make it credible or acceptable to humane reason my own or others that this faith is true and no way liable to error that I am assured in it by the Holy and no seducing spirit But not to constitute it in the notion of faith divine because the faith so stiled is supposed to rest alwayes on an higher ground viz. Revelation Divine § 149 And by what hath been here said I think you may perceive the circle clearly avoided which is still so hotly charged on Catholicks though not for the resolution of their faith in general which resteth in the last place on the prudential motives yet for the resolution at least of the divine faith they pretend to For if a Protestant ask at large why I believe without inserting with a divine faith the Scriptures to be the Word of God It is answered because Apostolical Tradition which is the unwritten Word of God or Divine Revelation a thing conceded by the Arch-Bp †p. 81. testifies it to be so Again if asked why I believe there was any such Apostolical Tradition I answer because the Church which I believe in this matter infallible or not erring delivers such Tradition to me And if it be asked again why I believe the Church infallible in this It is answered I believe her but this is by an acquisite faith to be so from the motives of credibility forementioned †§. 121. which do so perswade me But note that this acquisite faith is not a necessary prerequisite to every one that believes with a divine faith for as Layman †Theol. moral l. 2. tract 1. c. 5. Non omnes eodem modo sed alii aliter ad fidem Christi amplectendam moventur And as Estius before †See §. 129. Fidei impertinens est quo medio Deus utatur ad conferendum homini donum fidei and in all this Protestants confess there is no Circle †See Stillingf p. 126. § 150 But if now putting in the word Divine the Protestant †Id p. 127. ask me again the two former questions why with a divine faith I believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God and then upon the former answer returned ask me why 2ly with a divine faith i. e. with such a firm assent as I give thereto transcending that of an acquisite faith I do believe that which the Church relates as Apostolical Tradition to be so indeed I answer now that I finally rest on this Revelation without having any other whereon to ground it But if asked why so firmly and if I may so say divinely without any further
divine evidence I adhere to it I answer from the internal operation and testimony of the Holy Spirit which Spirit causeth a most firm fiducial assent in me that these Scriptures were delivered to the Church as God's Word by Apostolical Tradition for the Church pretends no new Revelation concerning the Canon of Scripture i. e. were delivered by those divinely preserved from any fallibility therein Neither doth here again in the matter of divine faith appear any Circle at all And if it be further asked what rational ground I have to think this is a perswasion of God's and not of some evil spirit or this indeed an Apostolical Tradition which I am told is so here I urge for these the prudential motives § 151 Again Suppose I be asked concerning some other Article of faith that is defined by the Church though the same Article doth not appear to me clearly delivered in the Scriptures why with a divine faith I do believe it to be divine Revelation I answer because the Church which is revealed by the Scriptures to be perpetually assisted by the holy Ghost and to be infallible for ever in matters of faith defined by her hath delivered it to me as such If again why with a divine faith I believe these Scriptures in general or such a sence of those Texts in particular which are pretended to reveal the Churches infallibility to be divine Revelation I answer as before because Apostolical Tradition hath delivered them to be so which Apostolical Tradition related or conveyed to me by the Church I believe with a divine faith by the internal operation of the Holy Spirit without having at all any further Divine Revelation from which I should believe this Revelation to be divine Or if any will go one step further and prove this Apostolical Tradition also divine from the divine works the Apostles did Miracles yet here he must conclude neither have we any further divine word or work to confirm to us their doing such divine works But then if I be asked further whether I do not believe with a divine faith the Church's relation concerning such Apostolical Tradition or Miracles to be infallible I excluding now this supposition which in the order of these questions is in this place to be excluded viz. that Scriptures are the Word of God and so excluding this answer that I believe the Churches relation infallible with a divine faith from the testimony which the Scriptures give to the Church Here I answer No I do not believe with divine faith this relation of the Church to be infallible for divine faith builds upon nothing but Divine Revelation and if I were to bring another Divine Revelation still to support my faith of the former so must I also bring yet a further Divine Revelation for this my believing the Church and here must needs be a process in infinitum But in this place I answer That I believe the Churches Tradition or testimony being taken here in the latter sence mentioned before § 126 infallible only with an humane and acquisite faith builded on the forenamed prudential motives and the ultimate resolution here of my divine faith is into Apostolical Tradition or their Miracles not the Church-Tradition or her Relation that conveys to me the Apostolical With a divine faith I do believe the Apostolical Tradition related by the Church but I do believe the Church her truly or infallibly I mean not as infallibly here relates to the divine Promise but to the prudential Motives relating this Apostolical Tradition with an acquired or rational faith § 152 The natural order of a Christians belief then seems to be this 1st The Divine Revelations are communicated to the world by certain persons chosen by God and for the confirmation of their mission from him doing Miracles which persons also are commanded by God to ordain others to divulge and perpetuate the knowledge of the same Revelations to mankind to the end of the world the chief body of which these persons also draw up and deliver in writing Of which Divine Revelations delivered by them this is one That these their Successors shall for ever be so far assisted by God's holy Spirit as never to err in teaching all truths or if you will in truly relating all Divine Revelations any way necessary to mens salvation which Divine Revelation also concerning themselves is as it ought to be delivered among the rest to all posterity by these very Successors of whom it is spoken These things thus conveyed those to whom these Revelations are made do 1. with a rational and acquisite faith believe the Tradition of these Successors of the Apostles who are rendred most credible to them by all those prudential motives mentioned before § 121. their multitude their sanctity their Martyrdoms in testimony thereof c. 2. But then applying themselves to the things related which are said to have been revealed and delivered first by God to persons assisted with most infallible Miracles they do believe these things related after the manner expressed before § 134. with yet an higher and a divine faith wrought in them by the holy Spirit and resting it self not on the veracity of these secondary Relators but on the veracity of God himself from whom these Revelations are said originally to come yet the rational introductive to all this faith being the veracity of those who immediately convey the Tradition of these things to them 3. Then further one of the Divine Revelations which the Church or these Successors do deliver to Christians as I said being this That these Successors of the Apostles who deliver their doctrine to us shall be for ever infallible in delivering all necessaries from this Revelation I say delivered by them Christians also believe the infallibility of this Church or of these Successors not by a rational faith only grounded on the former motives of credibility but by a divine faith because grounded on a divine Revelation and consequently believe also all things delivered by these persons as necessaries with a divine faith on the same account § 153 After all this to reflect now a little on the objection We see 1st That no Circle is made in a Catholicks ground or resolution of faith divine or acquisite but that there is an ultimate Revelation divine though this not necessary to be alwayes the same whereon divine faith resteth and into which and no humane motives it resolveth it self and an inward operation of God's Spirit whereby the firmness of adherence of this faith to such Revelation in particular as divine is effected And again that these are motives from humane authority sufficiently credible or also morally infallible or as some of late express themselves not-possibly-fallible which if they can prove whenas it is in the natural power of all men even taken collectively abstracting here from any divine superintendencies to tell a lye none have reason to envy any advancing of the evidences of Christian Religion or any part thereof
But here seems no necessity of pretending any other infallibility in these motives than Catholick writers have formerly maintained and the adversary also allows on which an acquired or humane faith securely resteth these motives carrying such an evidence with them as no other Religion differing from the Christian nor in Christianity any Sect divided from the Catholick Communion can upon any rational account equall 2ly That the infallibility of the Church grounded on divine Revelation and believed by a divine faith is a main ground and pillar of the Catholicks faith for any other Articles thereof that are established by the same Churches definitions where the Scriptures or Tradition Apostolick are to him but I say not the Church doubtful Of which ground and assurance of such points believed by Catholicks from the Church's infallible authority the Protestants faith is destitute 3ly That the faith of all such Articles grounded thus on the Church's infallible authority is by this grounded also on divine Revelation Where note That resolving faith into the Church's infallibility I mean as the Church is declared thus infallible in necessaries by God's Word or divine Revelation whether written the Scriptures or unwritten Tradition Apostolical or into Apostolical Tradition or into Scripture is in general all one and the same resolution i. e. into divine Revelation and ultimately is only believing a thing because God saith it saith it in the Scriptures or also out of them by his Apostles or by the Church succeeding the Apostles by it I say as declared by God's Word to be also infallibly assisted truly to relate and expound what the Apostles or Scripture have formerly said where still the resolution of faith is into the same infallible Word of God delivered by these and not into any proper authority or infallibility of the deliverer and when we say we resolve our faith into the infallibility of the present Church or of the Apostles we mean into Gods infallible Word delivered mediately by the one or immediately by the other And whilst to one that asketh me why I believe the Scriptures I answer because those who wrote them were assisted by God's Spirit to deliver to men those divine Revelations And again to one that asketh me why I believe the Church I answer because the Church is for ever assisted by the same Spirit of God faithfully to relate and expound these former divine Revelations delivered by those who wrote the Scriptures in all necessary matter of faith Here it is clear that if one of these resolutions be into divine Revelation imparted and communicated to man by God's Spirit so must the other though the manner of conveying them to us by the assistance of God's Spirit is different as is explained before § 109. And had the New Testament Scriptures not been writ as they might have been not written without nullifying the being of Christian Religion then all the resolution of the Articles of our faith would have been only into the unwritten testimony of the Apostles and from them of the Church following them to which Church for ever though without any testimony of Scripture the same promises must be supposed to have been made for the writing of these Scriptures surely was no cause of these promises And next these promises might also have been made known to Christians by Tradition Apostolical related only by the Church and consequently the same credence must have been given to this Tradition Apostolical related by the Church concerning such promises made to it as is now given to the Scriptures testifying it 4ly Yet that this Church-infallibility or that Divine Revelation which establisheth it is not necessarily the first or the ultimate divine Revelation into which every Catholick's faith concerning any particular point of his belief is necessarily resolved for the divine faith of several persons concerning particular points may have a various resolution as they come by divers wayes or from divers principles to believe it and one Article of faith may be savingly believed without the present knowledge or belief of another whereon it hath dependance as one may believe with a divine faith either the Scripture's or the Church's infallibility from Apostolical Tradition one before the other as they happen to be first proposed to them of which see what is said before § 128.145 and by the certainty of his Faith grounded thereon attain eternal salvation And blessed be his Divine Majesty for so firmly establishing Christianity one these two sure Bases the Scriptures and the Church For both are Pillars of Truth †1 Tim. 3.15 and both alwayes bear witness as to it so also to one another And what thou hast thus joyned O Lord let no man be able to separate nor the Gates of Hell ever so far prevail against them as that any should prosper in their indeavours to build the Authority of the one out of the ruines of the other Amen § Thus much be said concerning the necessary Resolution of a Catholick's Faith The Conclusion and in satisfaction to those other objections that are urged against a living Ecclesiastical infallible guide in all necessaries maintained in the former Discourses and affirmed also easily discernable from all other Pretenders After all which in the last place the Protestant Reader is humbly desired soberly to consider with himself whether if indeed there be such a Catholick unfailing Guide as is here pretended and that Church also whose conduct he hath renounced be It whom our Lord hath left amidst the distractions of so many Sects and Opinions to bring men by a sure way to Heaven whether I say notwithstanding all those reasons and arguments that have been here and are elsewhere by Catholicks frequently urged in demonstration thereof yet his ignorance thereof still remains so innocent and invincible that he dares rely on this Plea at the appearance of our Lord for his living and dying irreconciled unto Her because no sufficient evidence hath been left him to discern Her And next to consider whether if indeed she be what here she is pretended there can be any secular interest so valuable as any way to recompence the loss he sustains in his present separation from this Church by foregoing all that means of salvation and growth in grace and advantages of an holy life which he might with great spiritual content enjoy in her happy bosom Of which advantages because they are by few of those departed from this Church so well weighed as they ought for a conclusion of the whole I beg leave not to stay only in universals but to represent some particulars to the begetting in Him by the aid of the Divine Grace an holy emulation and longing for the re-fruition of them and a greater resentment of his present impediments and defects § 155 Let him then in the name and fear of God consider the great benefit as to the working of his salvation which he might happily enjoy in this Church by these particulars following * By
Church Where the Dr. seems to grant these two things That all that the Catholick Church declares against Heresie is grounded upon the Scripture and that all such as oppose her judgement are Hereticks but only he adds that they are not Hereticks properly or formally for this opposing the Church but for opposing the Scriptures Whilst therefore the formalis ratio of Heresie is disputed that all such are Hereticks seems granted And the same Dr. else here concludes thus ‖ p. 132. The mistaker will never prove that we oppose any Declaration of the Catholick Church he means such a Church as makes Declarations and that must be in her Councils and therefore he doth unjustly charge us with Heresie And again he saith †p. 103. Whatsoever opinion these ancient writers St. Austin Epiphanius and others conceived to be contrary to the common or approved opinion of Christians that they called an Heresie because it differed from the received opinion not because it opposed any formal Definition of the Church where in saying not because it opposed any Definition he means not only because For whilst that which differed from the received opinion of the Church was accounted an Heresie by them that which differed from a formal definition of the Church was so much more Something I find also for your better information in the learned Dr. Hammond †Titus 3.11 commenting on that notable Text in Titus A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition reject a Text implying contrary to your discourse Heresie discoverable and censurable by the Church where he explains 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self condemned not to signifie a mans publick accusing or condemning his own doctrines or practices for that condemnation would rather be a motive to free one from the Churche's censures Nor 2ly to denote one that offends against conscience and though he knows he be in the wrong yet holds out in opposition to the Church for so none but Hypocrites would be Hereticks and he that stood out against the Doctrin of Christ and his Church in the purest times you may guesse whom he means should not be an Heretick and so no Heretick could possibly be admonished or censured by the Church for no man would acknowledge of himself that what he did was by him done against his own conscience the plea which you also here make for your self But to be an expression of his separation from and disobedience to the Church and so an evidence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his being perverted and sinning wilfully and without excuse †See more Protestants cited to this purpose Disc 3. §. 19. § 26. What say you to this Soc. What these Authors say as you give their sence seems to me contrary to the Protestant Principles †See Dr. Potter p. 165.167 Dr. Hammond of Heresie § 7 n. 3 §. 9. n. 8 Des of L. Faukl c. 1. p. 23. See before Disc 3. §. 41 n. 1. and their own positions elswhere neither surely will Protestants tye themselves to this measure and trial of autocatacrisy For since they say That lawfull General Councils may erre in Fundamentals these Councils may also define or declare something Heresie that is not against a Fundamental and if so I though in this self-convinced that such is their Definition yet am most free from Heresie in my not assenting to it or if they err intolâ—erably in opposing it Again since Protestants say Councels may erre in distinguishing Fundamentals these Councels may erre also in discerning Heresie which is an error against a Fundamental from other errors that are against non-Fundamentals Again Whilst I cannot distinguish Fundamentals in their Definitions thus no Definition of a General Councel may be receded from by me for fear of my incurring Heresie a consequence which Protestants allow not Again Since Protestants affirm all Fundamentals plain in Scripture why should they place autocatacrisy or self-conviction in respect of the Declaration of the Church rather than of the Scripture But to requite your former quotations I will shew in plainer language the stating of Protestant Divines concerning autocatacrisy as to the Definitions of the Church under which my opinion also findes sufficient shelter We have no assurance at all saith Bishop Bramball †Reply to Chalced. p. 105. that all General Councils were and alwayes shall be so prudently managed and their proceedings alwayes so orderly and upright that we dare make all their sentences a sufficient conviction of all Christians which they are bound to believe under pain of damnation I add or under pain of Heresie And Ib. p. 102. I acknowledge saith he that a General Council may make that revealed truth necessary to be believed by a Christian as a point of Faith which formerly was not necessary to be believed that is whensoever the reasons and grounds of truth produced by the Council or the authority of the Council which is and alwayes ought to be very great with all sober discreet Christians do convince a man in his conscience of the truth of the Councils Definitions which truth I am as yet not convinced of neither from the reasons nor authority of the Council of Nice Or if you had rather have it out of Dr. Potter It is not the resisting saith he †p. 128. the voice or definitive sentence which makes an Heretick but an obstinate standing out against evident Scripture sufficiently cleared unto him And the Scripture may then be said to be sufficiently cleared when it is so opened that a good and teachable mind loving and seeking truth my conscience convinceth me not but that such I am cannot gainsay it Again †p. 129. It is possible saith he that the sentence of a Council or Church may be erroneous either because the opinion condemned is no Heresie or error against the Faith in it self considered or because the party so condemned is not sufficiently convinced in his understanding not clouded with prejudice ambition vain-glory or the like passion that it is an error one of these I account my selfe Or out of Dr. Hammond †Heresie p. 114. It must be lawful for the Church of God any Church or any Christian upon the Drs. reason as well as for the Bishop of Rome to inquire whether the Decrees of an universal Council have been agreeable to Apostolical Tradition or no and if they be found otherwise to reject them out or not to receive them into their beliefe And then still it is the matter of the Decrees and the Apostolicalness of them and the force of the testification whereby they are approved and acknowledged to be such which gives the authority to the Council and nothing else is sufficient where that is not to be found And elsewhere he both denies in General an Infallibility of Councils †Se before Disc 1 §. 6. and grounds the Reverence due to the Four first Councils on their setting down and convincing the truth
on those Nations who from time to time even from the furthest East and West have entred into this Church not as thus reduced only from one Idolatry to another which he formerly imagined from the Heathen Idolatry to the Râ—man but from Gentilism to that Faith to which our Lord foretold and promised a conversion of all Nations Matth. 24.14 before the last times and that not the Kingdome of Antichrist but of Heaven hath been truly preached unto them the same Kingdome to other Heathen People by her indefatigable missioners now which was heretofore to our Ancestors by St. Austin that holy Monk All these illuminations and consolations will he receive and all these Divine Providences will he rejoyce in and praise God for in this Church if it shall once be discovered to him to be his true Guide and if that which is asserted in these Discourses shall by the Grace and Benediction of God appear to him Truth In the proof and evâ—dencing of which the Author likewise hath reason to expect from him the more favourable audience because those who most vehemently dispute against any such infallible Director yet cease not to wish that there were such a one as a thing acknowledged most highly beneficiall to Christianâ—ty and they maintain the Controversie not without a professing that they would most willingly be confuted in it If there be such an infallible Judge of Contraversies saith Mr. Chillingworth †c 2. §. 136. it would have been infinitely beneficial to the Church and perhaps as much as all the rest of the Bible if in some Book of Scripture which was to be undoubtedly received this one proposition had been set down in terms c. Now if it be not necessary that there should be such an infallible Judge what great necessity certainly to know him in case there were one yet this a thing he saith infinitly beneficial to the Church and perhaps as much as all the rest of the Bible And elsewhere If I knew saith he any one Church to be infallible I would quickly be of that Church Behold this by Protestants so earnestly wished for R. Catholicks shew unto them with proofs sufficient to satisfie the rational but not force the obstinate It faring no better with this Church than with its Lord Of whom many of the Pharisees and self-wise though desiring nothing so much as the happiness once to see their Messias or live in his daies yet even whilst they conversed familiarly with him and received all Salutary doctrine from him confirmed with Miracles being blinded with many other prejudices and mistaken fancies concerning Him and also wanting that humility of the Common people to Learn this Truth amongst others from Him that He was their Messias could never perswade themselves that He was indeed such a Person and so perished in their unbelief But Blessed be our Lord who mean while both then clearly manifested Himself to those who were Babes i. e. humble Matt. 11.25 Rom. 12.16 and not wise in themselves And since upon his necessary departure hath not left his Children here Orphanes and destitute either of Spiritual Fathers of whom he hath said that He that heareth them Luk. 10.16 heareth Him therefore these not misguiding in necessaries or of a Spiritual Mother of whom he hath said that He that Heareth Her not shall be esteemed as an Heathen Nor yet left his Little ones destitute of sufficient Evidences and markes by which for ever to discern true Parents and Guides from other Pretenders and Impostors so that they know their Voice and do not follow the voice of strangers Jo. 10.4 5. Which Evidences the Author presents to the serious Inquirer in these following Discourses and commits him to the powerful Teacher of hearts and the illuminations of his Holy Spirit Errata Disc 1. Page 1. lin 12 read belong Page 6. l. 15. r. 3. And. Page 10. l. 32 dele If. Page 11. l. 14. r. are Page 20. l. 27. r. render Page 25. l. 1. r. Bishops Page 26. marg r. 398. Page 29. l. 22. r. 176. Page 30. l. 14. r. which Councils marg r. 10. and 14. Page 33. l. 21. r. Contrasts Page 36. l. r. them Page 38. 21. r. Consequently Page 39. l. 33. r. Melchites l. 42. r. is necessary Page 42. l. 10. r. 1st These Page 44. 19. r. 37. Page 45. l. 7. r. men professing Page 50. 23. r. and Transubstantiation in five l. 41. r. Nice Page 56. 3. r. religion for so none would be Schsmaticks but Arch Hereticks Page 73. ult r command Disc 2. Page 79. 4. r. these Page 80. 33. r. sufficient for deciding Controversies Page 83. 8 r. there is considering the times Page 87. l. 15. r. colour see 4 Disc § 11.12 Page 96. 22. r. rendring Page 103. 15. r. Sabellianism Page 104 27. r wherein Ib. Dele 28. r. But Page 105. 29. r. Valens 33 r. Essence Page 122. marg r. 104.172 Stillingf p. 241. Page 123. 19. r. Quonam Disc 3. Page 143. 33. marg r. Chillingw p. 140. 118. 166 Page 145. 8. r. that part Page 17. r. subordinate Page 150 9. r. oppose or deny the truth of Page 153. 14. r. follows Page 156. 3. r. clearing Page 157. 7. r. limitation Page 169. 14. r. Corporal presence in the Eucharist Page 170. 11. r. to be generally condemned Page 186. 10. r. to Page 194. 27. r. thereof under one Page 199. marg r. Churches Page 203. 30. r. Monachi Page 204. 10. r. probate Page 205. 22. r. confession 26. r. veterum Page 213. 9. r. Testimony 21. r. plures an paucos 22. dele paucos Page 223. 1. r. is so evident 17. r. hoped Page 224. 3. r. reflections 10. r. quos 15. r. Faith only 32. r. the contrary doctrines Page 234. 6. r. Anathema Page 247. 26. subjacete Page 254. 40. r. the last Page 259. 19. r. upon Page 267. 21. dele authority Page 269. 8. r. fide Page 271. 23. r. fidei Page 275. 38. marg r. †p. 137 Page 286. 38. r. on Page 301. 36. r. honoratis Page 305 Chrisma Page 307. 3. r. regimine Page 311. marg Aethiopum Page 321. 3. r. Church Disc 4 Page 332. 23. r. Carpocratos Page 338. 13. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Page 342. 39. dele as Page 365. 30. r. fides Preface p. 4. l. 1. r. 2. THE FIRST DISCOURSE Relating and considering the varying Judgements of learned Protestants concerning the Ecclesiastical Guide The CONTENTS Chap. 1. THE Church Catholick granted by all in some sence unerrable in Fundamentals for ever § 1. I. Some Protestant Divines granting the Church Catholick unerrable in Fundamentals or Necessaries but not as a Guide § 3. Reply § 6. That the divine promises of indefectibility or not erring in Necessaries belong to the Church Catholick as a Guide or to the Guides of the Church Catholick § 6. Chap. 2. Several limitations of Protestants concerning these promises 1. That they were made only to the Apostles
former Councils such as the Church of preceding Ages hath received as General or obliging as well those Councils since as those before the Sixth or Seventh Century which later the other Party rejects § 37. Chap. 5. The pretended Security of those Protestants who deny any certain living or Personal Guide infallible in Necessaries affirming 1. That all necessary Matters of Faith are even to the unlearned clear in the Scriptures and the Controversies in non-necessaries needless to be decided § 38. 2. That all Necessaries are clear in Scripture because God hath left no other certain Means Rule or Guide for the knowledge of them save the Scriptures § 39. n. 1. Not any certain living Guide 1. Which is infallible as their Guide the Scriptures are § 39. n. 2. 2. Which the unlearned in any Division can discern from the false Guides or know their Decrees better than the Scriptures 3. From whom the Scriptures direct them to learn Necessaries or tell them what Church or Party they are to adhere to in any Schism made In which infallible Guide if there were any such as being a thing of the greatest concernment the Scriptures would not have been silent Ibid. Reply 1. That Evidence of the Scriptures hath been the usual Plea of former Hereticks in their dissenting from the Church § 40. n. 1. 2. That as to the main and principal Articles of the Christian Faith the sufficiency of the Rule of Scripture is not denied by Roman Catholicks but only the clearness thereof as to all mens capacities questioned And another Guid held necessary § 40. n. 2. It is replyed then 1. Concerning the clearness of Scripture 1 That some Controversies in Religion since the writing of the Scriptures have been concerning points necessary As those Controversies concerning the Trinity the Deity and Humanity of our Lord the necessity of God's Grace c. § 41. 2. That the more clear all necessaries are in Scripture still with the more security may Christians rely for them on the Church's judgment from which also they receive these Scriptures § 42. 3. That there is no necessity that all Necessaries should be revealed in Scriptures as to all men clearly 1. Because it is sufficient if God hath left this one Point clear in Scriptures that we should in all difficulties and Obscurities of them follow the Directions and adhere to the Expositions and Doctrins of these Guides § 43. 2. Sufficient if God hath by other Apostolical Tradition at least clearly revealed to these Church-Guides all such necessary Truths to be successively communicated by them to his people § 44. 3. Sufficient if God hath by Tradition at least clearly revealed to these Church-Guides the sence of such Scriptures as are in points necessary any way obscure Ibid. 4. Sufficient if God in the Scripture hath clearly enough revealed all necessary Truths to the capacity of these Church-Guides using due means though he hath not to the capacity of the unlearned for from those these may learn them § 45. II. Concerning a living Guide 1. That where the Scripture especially several Texts compared is ambiguous and in Controversie the Christians Guide to know the true sence cannot be the Scripture but either the Church's or their own judgment § 46. n. 1. 2. That it is not necessary that God in the Scriptures should direct Christians to what Guide they are to repair § 46. n. 2. Or to what Church Prelates or Party in any Schism Christians for ever ought to adhere § 47. n. 2. 3. Yet that God hath given Christians a sufficient direction herein in his leaving a due subordination among these Governours whereby the Inferiors are subjected to the Superior and a par◠unto the whole § 47. n. 3. And that Christians may more clearly know the sence of their Definitions in matters controverted than the sence of the Scriptures § 48. THE THIRD DISCOURSE Examining What measure of obedience is due to these Guides and to the Supreme Ecclesiastical Judge of Controversies The CONTENTS Chap. 1. ROman Catholicks and Protestants do agree 1. That the Scriptures speaking of those books by the Protestants stiled Canonical are the Word of God § 1. 2. That in these Scriptures agreed on it is clearly declared that the Church Catholick of no age shall err in Necessaries § 2. 3. That the Church Catholick is contradistinct to Heretical and Schismatical Churches § 4. 4. That Christ hath left in his Church Pastors and Teachers to keep it from being tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of Doctrine § 5. Chap. 2. Catholicks go on and affirm 5. That the Church Guides at least assembled in Lawful General Councils shall never err in their determining things of necessary Faith § 6. 6. Shall never err in necessaries not taken for those that are absolutely required but for all that are very beneficial to Salvation § 9. 7. Shall never err in them not as infalliblly inspired to teach any new but as divinely assisted in delivering of the former revelations and Traditions wherein they affirm that the Church of all ages since the Apostles is for ever preserved equally infallible § 10. 8. That for knowing what or how many of former Councils have been lawfully General and obliging a Christian may safely rely on the General judgment of the Church since the sitting of such Councils § 11. 9. That in the absence of a considerable part of the Church-Governors from some Councils yet their acceptance of its decrees or concurrence with its doctrines renders it equivalent to a Council General § 13. 10. That particular persons or Churches parts of the whole are obliged to submit their judgment and yield their assent to the Definitions of the whole § 14. Chap. 3 11. That whatever particular person or Church holds the contrary to any known definition passed in a matter of Faith of any lawful General Council is Heretical § 16. 12. That any particular person or Church which for any cause whatever doth actually relinquish and separate from the external communion of the present Church Catholick is Schismatical § 20. 13. But yet That several persons or Churches coordinate may without Schism differ in any thing opinion or practise wherein they are not obliged to accord by their Common Superiors or by the whole § 23. Chap. 4. But Protestants after the four first propositions conceded in some sence do thus indeavour to qualify and restrain them 5. In granting the Catholick Church in all ages unerrable in necessaries they understand only such few Necessaries without the explicit belief of which Salvation cannot be attained § 24. 6. Therefore also they affirm that though the Church Catholick cannot err in such points absolutely necessary to Salvation yet it or all particular Churches in som one age or ages may in others the errors wherein are dangerous to salvation gross damnable c. § 25. Because it appears that many of the chief points from which Protestants dissent were General Tenents and practices
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 that any one of them hat not failed § 114. Chap. 10. 15. Q. Lastly Catholicks pretending a Divine Faith of the Articles of Christian Religion to be necessary to Salvation and all Divine Faith necessarily to be grounded on Divine Revelation It is asked upon what ground a Christian by a Divine Faith believes all those Articles of his Faith that are defined by particular Councils Where if said from the Testimony of the present Church which is in the former manner i. e. by divine Revelation infallible The question returns whence this Testimony can be proved to be in such a manner infallible without making a Circle in proving this present Church to be so infallible from Gods Word written or unwritten and then again proving infallibly such to have been Gods Word from the infallible testimony of the present Church Nor can the testimony of the Church be proved to be infallible in such a manner as to ground divine Faith upon it from the Motives of credibility or from any thing else but only from a divine Revelation i. e. from Gods Word because divine Faith can never resolve it self into any ground that is not divine Revelation § 120. To which is answered 1. That the object of a divine Faith is alwayes in it self infallible § 123. 2. That divine Faith alwayes ultimatly resolveth it self into divine Revelation and that into some one wherein it ultimately resteth without a processe in infinitum or turning in a Circle § 124. n. 1. 132. 143 144. 3. That divine Faith is alwayes wrought in Christians by the operation of Gods Spirit § 124. n. 2. 4. That from the operation of this H. Spirit may be produced in Christians a sufficient certainty of divine Faith whatever uncertainty be in the extrinsecal proponent thereof § 125. 5. That Church-Tradition in delivering unto us the divine Revelation is only the Introductive not the object of a divine Faith § 126. 6. That there in no absolute need either of it or any other extrinsecal infallible Introductive or proponent for a Christian 's attaining a divine Faith § 127. 7. Yet that there are those morally-certain grounds produceable for this Faith and all the Articles thereof as they are believed in the Catholick Church which no other Religion besides the Christian nor in Christianity no other Sect or seducing private Spirit can pretend to § 135. That a rational certainty or morally-infallible ground of a Christians Faith thus far at least that the Scriptures are the Word of God and consequently whatever is contained therein infallible is affirmed by all § 136. 8. But further that an infallibility in the Guides of the Church as perpetually assisted by the H. Ghost for all necessaries wherein the true sence of Scriptures or verity of Tradition Apostolical is questioned and disputed is believed by Catholicks From which infallibility of these Church-Guides clearly revealed to them in Scripture and by Tradition Apostolical they retain a firm Faith of all those points which are not in Scripture or Tradition as to all men so clearly revealed Whilst others denying the infallibility of these Church-Guides and only allowing that of Scripture miscarry in their Faith concerning some of the other points or can have no firm ground of their believing them § 140. Shewed from the Precedents That no Circle is made in the Roman Catholick's resolving either of a divine and infused or acquisit and humane Faith § 143. c. Chap. 11. A Supplement to the 4th Chap. 26th § Wherein is shewed a Consent of the Doctrine and practice of the modern Eastern Churches with the Occidental in the chief points of present Controversie 1. Transubstantiation § 158. n. 2. 177. 2. Adoration of the Eucharist § 159. 177. 3. Sacrifice of the Mass § 160. n. 1. 177. 4. Invocation of Saints § 161. 5. Prayer for the Souls of the Faithful departed as betterable thereby in their present Condition § 162. 6. Communion in one kinde or of the Symbol of our Lords Body onely intinct § 163.178 7. A Relative Veneration of Images or Pictures § Ibid. 8. Monastick Vows And Marriage denied the Clergy after the taking of Holy orders § 164. and § 179. n. 1. 9. Auricular or Sacramental Confession § 165.179 n. 2. The Replies made hereto by Protestants considered § 182. c. THE FOURTH DISCOURSE Containing the Socinians Apology for the be believing and teaching his Doctrine against former Church-Definitions and present Church-Authority upon the Protestant-Grounds Divided into Five Conferences The first Conf. OF his not holding any thing contrary to the Holy Scripture § 2. The second Conf. Of his not holding any thing contrary to the unanimous sence of the Catholick Church so far as this can justly oblige § 13 The third Conf. Nor contrary to the Definitions of lawful General Councils the just conditions thereof observed § 18. The fourth Conf. Of his not being guilty of Heresie § 23. The fifth Conf. Nor of Schism § 28. THE FIRST DISCOURSE Relating and Considering the Varying Judgments of Learned Protestants concerning the ECCLESIASTICAL GUIDE CHAP. I. The Church Catholick granted by all in some sence unerrable in Fundamentals for ever § 1. Of Protestant Divines I. Some granting the Church Catholick unerrable in Fundamentals or Necessaries but not as a Guide § 3. R. That-the Divine Promises of Indefectibility or not erring in Necessaries belongs to the Church Catholick as a Guide or to the Guides of the Church Catholick § 6. § 1 FIrst that the Church Catholick of any Age whatever is unerrable in Fundamentals The Church Catholick granted by all in some sence unerrable for ever in Fundamentals or absolute Necessaries to Salvation both by Roman-Catholicks and Protestants is granted for otherwise in some Age there would be no Church Catholick Errour in such Fundamentals destroying the very Being of a Church § 2 But when from the Church Catholick it is by Catholicks ascended to the Governours or Guides thereof to whom this Church is committed by our Lord departed hence That they are also by our Lords promise and assistance unerrable in their Decrees They at least in a lawful General Council of them such as the times wherein such Councils are assembled do permit unerrable § 3 at least so far as to Necessaries Here the Protestants make a stop 1. 1. Some Protestant-Divines granting the Church Catholick unerrable in Fundamentals or Necessaries but not as a Guide and seem to differ one from another in 12 their Judgments Mr. Ch llingworth in his Answer to F. Knot and after him Dr. Hammond in his Answer to the Exceptions made against the Lord Falklands Discourse of Infallibility with their followers in this point among whom I number the two late Repliers ‖ See Mr. Stillingf p. 154 251 252 514 517.55 Whitby c.
9. and 20. affirm indeed the Church Catholick according to the former Proposicion to be always unerrable in Fundamentals or Necessaries But then by Church Catholick they mean such a Church as neither is nor can be any Guide to us carefully distinguishing between the Church Catholick and her General Councils and holding that even in Fundamentals all her Councils whatever except such as are in their way universally accepted ‖ See below § 36 38 Disc 3 §. 36. may err thought she cannot To this purpose See Mr. Chillingw cap. 3. § 39. discoursing on this manner I must tell you you are too bold in taking that which no man grants you that the Church Catholick is an infallible Director in Fundamentals § 4 For if she were so then must we not only learn Fundamentals of her but also learn of her what is Fundamental and take all for Fundamental which she delivers to be such In the performance whereof if I knew any one Church to be infallible I would quickly be of that Church But good Sir you must needs do us this favour to be so acute as to distinguish between being infallible in Fundamentals and being an infallible Guide in Fundamentals That she shall be always a Church infallible in Fundamentals we easily grant for it comes to no more but this that there shall be always a Church But that there shall be always such a Church which is an infallible Guide in Fundamentals this we deny For this cannot be without setling a known infallibility in some one known Society of Christians as the Greek or the Roman or some other Church by adhering to which Guide men might be guided to believe aright in all Fundamentals Much what the same he saith cap. 2. § 139. You must know there is a wide difference between being infallible in fundamentals and being an infallible Guide even in fundamentals Dr. Potter saith That the Church is the former That is there shall be some men in the world whilst the world lasts which err not in fundamentals for otherwise there would be no Church But we utterly deny the Church to be the later for to say so were to oblige our selves to find some certain Society of men of whom we may be certain that they neither do nor can err in Fundamentals nor in declaring what is Fundamental what is not Fundamental and consequently to make any Church an infallible Guide in Fundamentals would be to make it infallible in all things which she proposeth and requires to be believed And cap. 5. § 60. You suppose untruly that there is any that visible Church I mean any visible Church of one Denomination which cannot err in Points Fundamental § 5 VVhere you may observe that Mr. Chillingworthtaketh the Church-Catholick that is infallible only for some certain persons in some place or other professing Christianity who whilst the world lasts de facto do not err in Fundamentals and that as he affirms no Church of one Denomination to be infallible in Fundamentals so he holds neither any Council nor any visible Body of Ecclesiastical Magistrates whatsoever or how far soever extended that proposeth to Christians matters of Religion to be in fallible in Fundamentals as you may see quite through the third chap. of his Book and as is manifest also from his reasons against the one which are of like force against the other Therefore though he frequently names Church of one Denomination and not Councils yet you shall find that to this Church of one Denomination errable he opposeth not Councils un-erring but only some men in the world whiles the world lasts de facto not erring and to these it is and not to Councils or any Ecclesiastical Governors that he applieth our Saviours promise Yet what hinders but that the Church-Catholick in some times as it stands contradistinct to Heretical and Schismatical Churches may be in his sense a Church of one Denomination nay any Church that is so united as to give Laws and to have all its members involved in one external Communion though it be an aggregate of many particular Churches and those in several Nations truly is so and the Church-Catholick always is but One as we confess it in our Creed But one Body it is and therefore not uncapable of one name or denomination and hence all the Western Churches in the times of Luther having only one external Communion may be said to be a Church of one Denomination and so were for a long time both the Eastern and Western This Caution I thought meet to give you that his seeming limitation of one Denomination may not deceive you § 6 After him thus also Dr. Hammond in defence of the Lord Falkland's Discourse against the Exceptions ‖ c. 1. §. 5 6. p. 23. I shall saith he thus far consent with you First That the universal Church is in Fundamentals infallible But then this Infallibility must signifie no more or is to be no farther extended than that Christ doth and will so defend his Church that there shall be for ever till the end of the world a Church Christian on the earth i. e. that the whole Church shall not at once make an universal defection err from the foundation or do any thing by which there shall cease to be a Church on the earth But then 2ly I say that this very universal Church though it be in this sence infallible in Fundamentals is not yet a Rule or Canon or Guide or Judge infallible even in Fundamentals visible it is infallible it is but it is not a visible Judge or Rule infallible Thus Dr. Hammond Here you see these Authors make a distinction between the Church Catholick and the Body of her Governors or her General Council giving Laws and in allowing Infallibility in Necessaries to the Church Catholick remove it from the General Council because they think it not safe to allow the Church Catholick unerrable as a Guide § 7 But this their denying the Church Catholick to be unerrable as she is a Guide Reply seems utterly contrary both to our Saviour's Promises made to her in the Scriptures and also to the Concessions of other Modern Learned Protestants which see below § 25 c. 32 c. First As concerning our Saviour's Promises from which is collected the Church's Indefectibility all Where That the divine Promises of Indefectibility or not erring in necessaries belong to the Church Catholick as a Guide or to the Guides of the Church Catholick or most of them are expresly made to the Guides of the Church and therefore to the Church as a Guide that so these might be fet for ever to all Nations as a City on a Hill and as a Candle on a Candlestick ‖ Mat. 5.14 15. * See Mat. 28.19 20. Upon our Saviour's sending his Successors abroad to teach the Nations his promising to be with them i. e. with the Teachers of these Nations to the end of the world * See John
14.16 26. 16.15 Compared with Acts 15.28 Joh. 5.20 27. 1 Cor. 12.7 8. his promising them a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. an Assista that should abide with them for ever to teach them all things and to bring all things to their remembrance For ever i. e. Not with the Apostles only For then what would become of the Nations that after their times were still to be instructed especially when any Controversies should arise concerning the understanding of the Apostles Writings which Writings are miss-understandable in things necessary and which S. Peter saith in his time the unlearned wrested to their own destruction ‖ 2 Pet. 3.16 but with their Successors also * See Mat. 18.20 compared with 17 18. his promising that when they were gathered together in his name to hear the Causes brought to the Church brought to her still daily notwithstanding the Scriptures he himself would be in the midst of them and would ratifie in heaven what they should upon earth which implieth also that he would assist them on earth at least when this is a supreme and unappealable Church-authority to do as to the main both what was meet to be submitted to by those whom he sent to their Tribunal and what was meet to be ratified by the heavenly Tribunal But if after the Rule of Scripture the necessity of such Tribunals ceased why are these afterward continued and in Controversies of Faith appealed repaired to * See Mat. 16.18 19. his promising that the Gates of Hell should never prevail against those to whom he gave the Keys i. e. against the Clergy nor against the Church built by and upon them And * see Luk. 23.31 the not failing of S. Peter's Faith prayed for by our Lord in order to establishing his Brethren * See 1 Tim. 3.15 the Church unlimited to the Apostles days said to be the Pillar and ground of Truth surely this from its Teachers being so For so the Apostle elsewhere using the same Metaphor frequently calls these Teachers Gal. 2.9 Pillars Eph. 2.20 Foundations and Grounds amongst which Teachers Timothy being admitted is warned here to be very circumspect and careful of his behaviour And * see 2 Tim. 2.19 compared with 16 17 20. the Foundation of God the Church standing sure notwithstanding that Hymeneus and some others as Vessels in this great house of God not of Gold and Honour but of Earth add Dishonour had erred from the Truth of God * See Eph. 4.11 13. his giving these Teachers that the world should not be tossed to and fro with every wind of Doctrine In whose Doctrine therefore in order to this end this Doner hath fixed some stability neither can it be applied only to the Apostles or their times seeing that the experience of so many various winds of Doctrines even since all their VVritings and concerning the sence of their VVritings see 2 Pet. 3.16 Blowing in the Church and carrying the unstable to and fro argues the same necessity of such Doctors still And * see Rev. 1.13 16. Where our Saviour to denote his perpetual presence to these succeeding Teachers and Governors of his Church after all the times of all the Apostles save St. John is described though in Glory yet walking in the midst of the seven Mother-Churches of Asia and holding their Bishops in his hands And therefore he hath commanded an Obedience to these Governors proportionable to his assistance that those who will not hear them should be reckoned as Heathens or Publicans he being in the midst of their Assemblies and ratifying in heaven what their Sentence binds or looseth on Earth * See Mat. 18.17 18 20. And hath said concerning them ‖ Luke 10.16 that he that heareth them heareth him From which may be gathered that that Clergy who have still the same mission from him may require the same audience in his stead CHAP. II. Several Limitations of Protestants concerning these Promises 1. That they were made only to the Apostles § 8. 2. Or made to all the succeeding Church-Guides but conditional § 12. R. That our Lord's Promise of Indeficiency in Necessaries was not made to the Apostles only but to their Successors § 9. And to their Successors not conditional but absolute § 14. And that this Indeficiency in Necessaries is most rationally placed by the Church § 8 in her General Councils or such accord and consent of the Clergy as is equivalent to such Councils § 15. IN Answer to these Texts some of the Reformed ‖ Chillingw p. 92. 115. 19. Stillingf p. 256 2 8 259 519. Several Limitations of Protestants concerning these Promises 1. That they were made only to the Apostles would restrain these absolute Promises only to the Apostles or first Promulgators of the Gospel for this reason because no need that they should be extended to any more For by these first for all succeeding times was a written Rule left clear and plain even to the unlearned and to all that use common reason in all necessary points of Faith and therefore that all Controversies which these plain and clear Scriptures intelligible to every one decide not are not Controversies in any point necessary and need not to be decided nor do Christians now having an infallible and plain Rule for Necessaries need afterwards besides this another living unerrable Guide in them But such an Answer 1st Seems neither any way sufficient to satisfie the Texts as hath been partly shewed already in the Explication of them § 9 which do promise to the world's end not a Rule only but Persons Reply 1. sent to preserve us from every wind of Doctrine and which command Obedience not to a Rule only but to Persons expounding it under pain of being ejected as Heathens and Publicans and under pain of being bound in Heaven when they bind us upon Earth an authority exercised not only by the Apostles but upon the strength of these and the like Texts extended beyond the former Limitation by their Successors also Only this Order is required to be observed in our Obedience that we perform it in the first place to the supreme Church-authority and then also to particular persons or Churches only as they are conformable to and united with the whole who otherwise as experience shews may err even in Fundamentals and so our obedience to them ruine us Nor 2ly seems such answer sufficient to satisfie the Necessities of the times following the Apostles wherein § 10 whether there have not risen controversies notwithstanding the clearness of the rule left us some of which have bin in matters necessary and wherein the people greatly needed the directions of their spiritual Guides I leave to your Judgment if you please to reflect on either the old Arrian Nestorian Pelagian or the new Socinian Solifidian Church-Anarchical both anti-episcopal and also anti-presbyteral errors all maintain'd by such who have presumed as much as any that they have common reason to understand plain Scriptures Nay who account these so clear
on their own side as to decline a trial by any other way save by the Scriptures only Add to this that several such strange and damnable Opinions arose after this Rule written even in the Apostolical times From which Errors and Heresies from time to time by the intervening definitions and diligent search of the Rule and traditive Exposition thereof made in those supremest Ecclesiastical Courts that the times afforded the Church hath bin hitherto preserved Mean-while what satisfaction or comfort can a Christian § 11 in these present distractions of the Church receive from such persons who when asked whom we shall have to end our controversies 1st tell us ‖ Chillingw p. 115. and â—92 Whitby p. 104. 98. * That these if clear Scripture intelligible to every one decide them not are not controversies in any thing necessary and so needlesse to be ended and therefore one would think it not much material also on what side they are held Again * That the Plea for an infallible Guide to secure us from wandring out of the way to Heaven is invalidated by the plainnesse and easinesse of the way which we cannot misse unlesse we will And we now secure then 2ly changing their former note tell us That some of the present Controversies are such For example the Controversie of Transubstantiation St. Invocation and Images as that unless we believe them on that side as the Protestants state them we become if we practice according to our belief guilty of most gross idolatry and if it be idolatry surely then it destroys the very essentials or being of a Church 1 And then again that we in such a danger may not think of retiring to and relying upon our Guides in the third place tells us that in the not seeing this Rule of Scripture to be clear and manifest in these Controversies on the Protestant side and in the not perceiving the Protestant Reasons brought for it to be Demonstrations thereof both those great Councils that have defined the contrary to them and the greatest part of Christianity that now follows these Councils all Scripture being in these supposed for a Rule want or use not common Reason § 12 This of their first Answer restraining these Texts 2. Or made to all the succeeding Church-Guides but condition and our Lord's Promises of Infallibility only to the Apostles and committing the succeeding times only to the Infallibility of the Apostles Writings But yet these not being secure here whilst some of the Texts as hath been shewed clearly enough promise Divine assistance also to the Apostles Successors which assistance can be none or nothing worth if not extended so far as to preserve them unerring in Necessaries they yet further allow from these Texts a Promise of Indefectibility in Necessaries to be made to the Catholick Church of all Ages after the Apostles taken in general as it is set down in the first Proposition ‖ §. 1. And not only to her but to her Guides also and Clergy But then they state these Promises as made to the Guides not to be absolute as they are to the Church but conditional only ‖ Chilling p. 176 Stilling p. 511 519 520. which condition they endeavour to shew also out of these Texts where such Promises are made As * in that John 14.16 And 16.23 The Comforter shall abide with you for ever and lead you into all truth True say they if you love me and keep my Commandments John 14.15 And * in that Mat. 28.20 I will be with you unto the end of the world True If you teach what I have commanded you * In that Luke 10.16 He that heareth you heareth me True so often as ye speak my words not your own Therefore thus Mr. Chillingworth where he sets down several irrational ways as he calls them of ending a Controversie ‖ p. 130. § 7 8. descants on these and such like Scriptures We could saith he refer the matter to any Assembly of Christians assembled in the name of Christ seeing it is written Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them We may refer it to any Priest because it is written The Priests lips shall preserve knowledge The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses's Chair c. To any Preacher of the Gospel to any Pastor or Doctor for to every one of them Christ hath promised he will be with them always even unto the end of the world and of every one of them it is said he that heareth you heareth me c. To any Bishop or Prelate for it is written Obey your Prelates and again He hath given Pastors and Doctors c. lest we should be carried about with every wind of Doctrine To any particular Church of Christians seeing it is a particular Church which is called The House of God a Pillar and Ground of Truth and seeing of any particular Church it is written He that heareth not the Church let him be unto thee as a Heathen and a Publican But these Means Mr. Chillingworth disallows because saith he they would fail us and contradict themselves This then they say that as these Scripture-promises are applied to the Catholick Church in general of all or any Age after the Apostles they grant them absolute But § 13 as applied to any particular Churches or their Guides since it is certain that such particular Persons and Churches may err even in Fundamentals and do somtimes contradict one another the Promises made to them must be understood to be only conditional and that before that any yield from these Texts any Obedience to them either of assent or also if in a matter of great moment of non-contradiction he must first look to it whether they have performed the condition of the promised assistance kept themselves to Christ's words kept his Commandments c. wherein also he cannot take theirs but must use his own Judgment and thus are these promises voided as to any certain benefit that the Subjects of the Church may expect by them and as to any certain Obedience which the Clergy can require for them § 14 To this way of expounding these Texts whereby in making the promises to belong conditionally to every man of the Clergy they would make them belong Reply That our Lord's promise of indeficiency in necessaries made to the Clergy is absolute absolutely to none of them I return this Answer 1st That by their representing Christ's promises only conditional in the manner above-mentioned ‖ § 12. they seem to unsettle the very Foundations of Christianity whilst from these Texts so expounded we can have no certainty of the Infallibility of the Apostles themselves to whom these things were said unless we be first assured of their performance of the Condition 2ly Seeing that themselves collect from these Texts an absolute promise of an indefectibility as to the knowledge and belief of all Necessaries which is the same as
at all to the preservation of the Church which subsisted well without it for the first three hundred years having had for that space no General Councils and therefore it is vainly put Or 2ly If such unerring Guide necessary yet that Christians have no such Guide to repair to in the Intervals of these Councils ‖ Dr. Pierce his Answ to Cressy p. 6. c. 3ly γ as for these Supreme Councils γ it is urged that Experience hath shewed them not unerrable in deciding Controversies since they are found as well as particular persons and Churches somtimes to contradict one another See Chillingw p. 131. arguing in this manner If you say that these particular Clergy-men or Churches would fail us and contradict themselves so as we pretend have yours There have been Popes against Popes Councils against Councils Councils confirmed by Popes against Councils confirmed by Popes Lastly the Church i.e. Catholick of some Ages against the Church of other Ages 4. Lastly If such Councils granted unerring ‖ Chillingw p. 93. Stillingf p. 538 c. Whitby p. 432. δ. δ yet that no certain knowledg can be attained by private Christians which Councils is general and lawful which otherwise ε. ε what be their definitions and how many and what the true sense of their definitions which and many more like Objections see more fully solved Disc 3. § 86. c. To the first of these α. α I answer That this Inerrability in Necessaries accompanies the Clergy and preserves the Church in all times and did so in the three first Centuries § 18 Answererd R. to being annexed to the whole Body or much major part of this Clergy not only when met in a General Council which supposition the Objection proceeds upon but out of it also whenever and however they shall manifest a concurrence in their Judgment and Agreement in their doctrine whether it be by several Provincial Councils assembled or perhaps only by some one convened in the place more infested with some new and dangerous errour which Council afterward hath the ratification of the chief Pastor of the Church together with his Council and hath the tacit approbation or non-contradiction of other co-ordinate Churches Or whether by their Communicatory and Synodical Letters Or whether in their publick Liturgies and Offices Or in a General Consent in their publick Writings Catechismes and Explications of Christian-Doctrine In none of which as to Doctrine Necessarie the whole Body of the Clergy or that which in any dissent is to he accepted for the whole shall ever err § 19 To the second I answer That this Body of the Clergy remaining in all times if in the Interval of Councils any new Errour dangerous to the faith and not formerly condemned by any such Council To β. doth afflict the Church is vigilant by some of those wayes aforenamed wherein it is unerrable as the times afford convenience to suppress it So was Pelagianism crushed without a General Council by several Provincial ones and the joint Declarations of the Chief Prelates of the Catholick Church But if such Errour trouble the Church as hath been condemned by such former Councils here the same Governours within their several Circuits take care to put in execution the former unerring Decrees In both therefore the present Church-Guides are secure from Errour in any Necessaries whilst in respect of Errours fore-condemned they adhere to and follow the definitions of former Councils in new ones raised which are thought any way to hazard the Christian faith they unite afresh their common Judgment in some of the foresaid wayes as times permit either in one General or several inferiour Synods or other Intelligence or Correspondences of Churches such as may be equivalent to those Assemblies which are more Oecumenical § 20 To the third γ. To γ. It is denied That experience hath at any time shewed the latter Church or Council to have varied from or contradicted the precedent As for those points which are frequently alledged by Protestants to prove some such difference they are either Decrees of some Council that is declared by the Church Catholick unlawful or Tenents held indeed by a considerable part of the Church in several ages diversly but in none defined by her in the manner above-mentioned § 21 To the fourth δ. To δ. I answer That what or how many of former Councils are lawful and obligatory a Christian ought to rely upon and is sufficiently secure in the judgment of the Catholick Church taken in the sense explained before § 18. and below § 36 38 § 22 To ε. To ε. A Christians certain knowing all the Decrees of Councils and their sense 1. That though all the definitions of such lawful Councils are supposed in some kind necessary to some or other yet some are necessary to be explicitly known to one that are not so to another and that there lies no obligation on every one or on most to know them all but only when sufficiently proposed to him not to dissent from them 2. Next That experience shews that in all Churches the subjects thereof do or may sufficiently learn from the common Tradition therein those publick Doctrines and Articles the confession and practise of which is required from them At least a Christian using a diligence suitable to his calling may receive sufficient instruction from his particular spiritual Guides if these are members of the Church Catholick both concerning them and the true sense of them so far as these are necessary to be known Which particular Guides also are the less liable to mistake or to deceive him because as hath been faid they do no more than he proceed upon their own judgment but do hold themselves obliged to submit this to the common one of the Church a way of security of not erring themselves in what they teach others which the Guides of all other Sects disclaim 3. But yet when any hath suspicion of mis-information from these he hath other superiour Guides subordinate in authority one to another whom to consult and is obliged only to acquiesce in the supremest which is secure from erring in any necessaries as is explained in the answer to the first In which obeying of his Guides God who hath enjoyned it to them will never suffer him in necessaries to be misled by them This then is the Catholick course § 23 As for the greater security which Protestants pretend to be in their way of directing Christians for the knowledge of necessaries ‖ See Chillingw p. 376. 377. because the Rule which they refer men to for their Guidance the Bible or holy Scriptures are all true certain infallible but these Guides the Roman Party directs men to especially those particular Pastors beyond whom few go are not so they mis-relate the matter For 1st The Bible or Holy Scriptures are equally acknowledged an all-true certain and infallible Rule for the guidance of Christians by both parties
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
Extent of the Infallibility of this Church i. e. in defining p. 156. reacheth to all matters Essential and fundamental simply necessary for the Church to know and believe But not so to all her Doctrines and Definitions And p. 155. The Vniversal Church saith he hath not the like assurance from Christ that she shall not erre in unnecessary additions as she hath for her not erring in taking away from the Faith what is fundamental and necessary Where Defining Adding Taking away c. argue that he speaks here of the present Church Catholick which he affirms to be infallible in Fundamentals in relation to the main Body of her Governour 's being so § 34 Bishop Bramhall ‖ Vindic. 2 c. p. 9. speaks much what on the same manner If saith he of two particular Churches Of Bishop Bramhall the one retain a communion with the Vniversal Church and be ready to submit to the Determinations thereof the other renounce the communion of the Vniversal Church and contumaciously despise the Jurisdiction and Decrees thereof the former continues Catholick and the latter becomes Schismatical Or as he expresseth it in Schism-guarded p. 2. That Church which shall not outwardly acquiesce after a Legal Determination and cease to disturb the Christian Vnity though her Judgment may be sound yet her practice is schismatical And afterward 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 Here the Bishops submitting and standing to the judgment and determinations of the Church Vniversal or a free General Council were it now called argues him to hold the present Church Catholick in such Councils as a Guide and Lawgiver infallible in Fundamentals or at least whose judgment in all points is finally to be stood to so far as not to contradict it and his pronouncing Schismaticks to be no Catholicks argues that this Church Universal may be also narrower than Christianity is Add to this what he saith below p. 26. That by disbelieving any Fundamental Article or necessary part of saving Faith in that sense in which it was evermore received and believed by the Vniversal Church a man renders himself guilty of Heresie Here he declares one an Heretick not only in his disbelieving a necessary point of Faith but in disbelieving in in that sense wherein the Church Catholick hath alwaies believed it which sense in the former quotation he holds is to be received and learned from her Councils Again In his Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon speaking of the Catholick Church in present Being he saith ‖ p. 279. I do from my heart submit to all things which the true Catholick Church diffused over the world doth believe and practise And afterward Though I have no reason in the world to suspect my present judgment I do farther profess my readiness to submit to the right Catholick Church in present bein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whensoever God shall be pleased to reveal it to me and Ibid. in the Preface I submit saith he my self and my poor endeavours first to the judgment of the Catholick Oecumenical Essential Church And if I should mistake the right Catholick Church out of humane frailty or ignorance which for my part I have no reason to suspect yet it is not impossible c. therefore Catholick doth not necessarily include all Sects professing Christianity I do implicitly and in the preparation of my mind submit my self to the true Catholick Church the Spouse of Christ the Mother of the Saints the pillar of Truth And after this he professeth That his adherence is firmer to the infallible Rule of Faith the holy Scriptures interpreted by this Catholick Church i. e. firmer to its interpretation than to his own private judgment So in his Reply to S. W. p. 43. We acknowledge saith he the Representative Church that is a General Council and the Essential Church that is the multitude or multitudes of Believers either of all ages which make the Symbolical Church or of this age which makes the present Catholick Church And Ib. We are ready to believe and practise whatsoever the Catholick Church even of this present Age doth universally believe and practise ‖ See Schism guarded p. 398. Surely from these Protestations it followes * that he supposeth that such a Church there is in this present age that may deliver her judgment Else his promise to believe and to submit to it is utterly unsignificant and * that he holds this Church not errable in Fundamentals else her judgment in them could not by him be safely followed And if you would know also §. 35. n. 1. what present Body he understandeth by this present Catholick Church to which he will yield his submission and beliefe he tells the Bishop of Chalcedon ‖ p. 279. That it is not the Church of Rome alone with all its Dependents but the Church of the whole world Roman Grecian Armenian Abyssine Russian Protestant which Churches i. e. Grecian c. are three times greater than the Roman is But if you think the present Church Catholick in this vast amplitude a Judge not likely to resolve his doubts He in the Preface to his Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon very conscientiously adds also I submit my self to the Representative Church a free General Council or so general as can be procured And in pursuance of the same Notion of General Schisme Guarded p. 350. he saith That the presence of the five Proto-Patriarchs and their Clergy either in their persons or by their Suffrages or in case of necessity the greater part of them do make a General Council And That we may well hope that God who hath promised that where two or three are gathered together in his Name there will he be in the midst of them will vouchsafe to give his assistance and his blessing to such a Council which is as general as may be although perhaps it be not so exactly general as hath been or might have been now if the Christian Empire had flourished still as it did anciently In summe That he shall ever be ready to acquiesce in the Determination of a Council so General as is possible to be had so it may be equal c. Naming several conditions thereof Equal Votes of Christian Nations Absents sending their Suffrages The place free wither all parties may have secure access and liberty to propose freely and define freely yet consenting ‖ p. 352. That none declared Hereticks by former true General Councils be admitted to any vote in them and ‖ p. 401. that all those be held for excluded from the communion of the Catholick Church whom undoubted General Councils have excluded He addes yet further reflecting on Dr. Hammond's words ‖ Answ to Catho Gentl. 3 c. §. 1. That Oecumenical or General Councils are now morally impossible to be had The Christian world being under so many Empires and
being just that either of these should be the Judge therefore that the Divines on one part and on the other arguing for their own Tenents there might be Judges i. e. Laicks indifferently chosen on both sides that is in an equal number to take knowledge of the Controversies And see Mr. Stillingfleet motioning some such thing p. 479. And this indeed was the only way they had in referring themselves to judgment not to be cast if the Judges of their own side at least would be true to them But to let these things pass As to a due proportion of National Votes this Council of Trent is not to be thought deficient therein whilst those Nations who by their own if by any ones fault had fewer Votes in the Council in passing the Decrees yet were as plenary and numerous as the rest in the acceptation of them after it And were now anew these things put to an equal Vote of the Western Nations I see not from what the Protestants may reasonably expect supposing the greatest liberty in these Votes that is possible an issue diverse from the former For have they any new thing to propose in their Orations and Speeches before such a Meeting that they have not already said in their Writings And notwithstanding are not the major part of the Occidental Clergy and the Learned that peruse them of a different judgment And why should not the others have as great presumptions upon an equal hearing to pcevail for reducing some of the Protestant party by Scriptures explicated by Apostolical Tradition Councils and Fathers as the Protestants of gaining some of the others by Scriptures alone Or if any will say that ancient Tradition Councils or Fathers are on the Protestant side how comes this to be one of their Articles proposed to the Council that all Humane Authority being excluded the Holy Scriptures might be judge in the Council And the Trent safe-Conauct running thus Quod causae controversae secundum Sanctam Scripturam Apostolorum Traditiones probata Concilia Sanctorum Patrum Authoritates Catholicae Ecclesiae Consensum tractentur VVhy desired they a freer Safe conduct after the form of that of Basil to the Bohemians Which if it had been granted saith Soave ‖ p. 344. they had obtained one great point that is that the Controversies should be decided by the Holy Scripture This from § 36. n. 1. I have said occasionally to Bishop Bramhal's so frequent free offers of Submission to the judgment of the present Catholick Church or of free General or also Occidental Councils § 37 Next come we to Arch-Bishop Lawd He § 31. p. 318. affirms That Of Archbish Lawd the Visible Church hath in all Ages taught that unchanged Faith of Christ in all points Fundamental Doctor White saith he had reason to say this And § 21. p. 140. It is not possible the Catholick Church i. e. of any one Age should teach He speaks therefore of the Governors of it in such Age against the Word of God in things absolutely necessary to Salvation And § 25. n. 4. If we speak of plain and easie Scripture the whole Church cannot at any time be without the knowledge of it If A. C. means no more than that the whole universal Church of Christ cannot universally erre in any one point of Faith simply necessary to all mens Salvation he fights against no Adversary that I know but his own fiction For the most learned Protestants grant it VVhere he speaks of the Church as teaching such points as appeareth by the Context Ibid. p. 139. Because the whole Church cannot universally erre in absolutely fundamental Doctrines therefore 't is true also that there can be no just cause of making a Schism from the whole Church That she may err indeed in Superstructions and Deductions and other by-and unnecessary Truths from her Curiosity or other weakness But if she can err either by falling away from the foundation i. e. by Infidelity or by heretical Errour in it she can be no longer holy for no Assemblies of Hereticks can be holy and so that Article of the Creed I believe the Holy Catholick Church is gone Now this Holiness saith he Errors of a meaner allay take not away from the Church Likewise § 33. n. 4. p. 256. the same Archbishop saith yet more clearly That the whole Catholick Church Militant having an absolute Infallibility in the prime Foundations of Faith absolutely necessary to Salvation if any thing sway and wrench the General Council he must mean here in non-necessaries such Council as is not universally accepted for a General Council universally accepted by the Church Catholick is unerrable in necessaries because the Church Catholick he saith is so upon evidence found in express Scripture or demonstration of this miscarriage hath power to represent her self in another body or General Council and to take order for what is amiss either practised or concluded in the former and to define against it p. 257. And afterward p. 258. That thus though the Mother-Church Provincial or National may err yet if the Grandmother the whole Universal Church He means in a general Council universally accepted cannot err in these necessary things all remains safe and all occasions of disobedience taken from the possibility of the Church's erring are quite taken away Again § 38. n. 14. he saith That a General Council de post facto after it is ended and admitted by the whole Church is then infallible And for this admittance or confirmation of it by the Church he granteth ‖ §. 26. p. 165. That no confirmation is needful to a General Council lawfully called and so proceeding but only that after it is ended the whole Church admit it though never so tacitly The sum of all in brief is this 1st That a General Council or indeed any Council whatever less than General accepted or admitted by the whole Church is infallible in Necessaries the reason is plain because he holds the whole Church is so 2ly Consequently that Obedience and this of Assent is due to such Council or to the judgment of the Church Catholick that is delivered by this Council as to necessaries Of Assent I say to it because infallible 3ly That all are to acquiesce none presume to urge or credit any pretence of Scripture or Demonstration against such a judgment because infallible 4ly That it is Schism to depart from the judgment of such a Council because the Archbishop holds all departure of any Member from the whole Church Catholick to be so ‖ §. 21. p. 139. § 38 Now thus much being professed by the Archbishop if he will also allow the Church Reply Where or her Councils and not private men to judge what Definitions are made in matters necessary and 2ly will grant an acceptation of such Council by a much major part of the Church Catholick diffusive I mean Concerning what acceptation of Councils by the Church diffusive is only necessary of those
then at the time that she is not so we believe a falshood under the Article of the Christian Faith Of this more needs not be said § 44 3. Again If under such Governors the visible Church preceding the Reformation is allowed to have been Catholick and Holy from these it must needs be granted also not to have been Heretical or Schismatical Which Churches Protestants contra-distinguish to the Catholick Church and all the Members of it and in which Churches dividing from the Vnity of the Catholick no salvation can be had by those who if either knowing or culpably ignorant of these sins of such a Church do not actually desert such a Communion For this likewise see the Quotations out of the Archbishop before § 367. and out of Dr. Field before § 40. Bellarmine saith he is to be blamed for idle and needless busying himself in proving that the visible Church never falleth into Heresie which we most willingly grant And l. 1. c. 7. he saith That the name of Catholick Church distinguisheth men holding the Faith in Unity from Schismaticks whom as also Hereticks though he there affirms to be in some sort of the Church taken more generally as it distinguisheth men of the Christian Profession from Infidels yet not of the Church Catholick or fully and perfectly of the Church with hope of Salvation ‖ l. 1. c. 14. p. 21 c. 7 p. 13. The Common Prayers also used both in the Roman and Protestant Churches on Good Friday shew the same Oremus saith the one pro Haereticis Schismaticis ut Deus eos ad Sanctam Matrem Ecclesiam Catholicam atque Apostolicam revocare dignetur Have Mercy Lord saith the other upon all Jews Turks Infidels and Hereticks and so fetch them home to thy Flock that they may be saved among the remnant of the true Israelites and be made one Fold under one Shepherd But in the trans-ferring these Good Friday Collects out of the former Missal into their new Common-Prayer-Book 't is observable that though the Reformed retained Hereticks yet they omitted Schismaticks and 2 ly changed the former Expression of revoca ad Sanctam Matrem Ecclesiam Catholicam Apostolicam into Fetch home to thy Flock c. As if the mention of our Holy Mother the Catholick Apostolick Church might occasion in the people some Mistakes See also Bishop Bramhal's Vindication of the Church of England c. 2. p. 9 27 28 before § 34. And thus Mr. Thorndike in his Letter concerning the present state of Religion ‖ 208. ' When we say we believe the Catholick Church as part of that faith whereby we hope to be saved we do not profess to believe that there is such a company of men as professing Christianity but that there is a Corporation of true Christians excluding Hereticks and Schismaticks and that we hope to be saved by this faith as being members of it of that Corporation And this is that which the stile of the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church signifies as distinguishing the Body of true Christians to wit so far as Profession goes from the Conventicles of Hereticks and Schismaticks For this title of Catholick would signifie nothing if Hereticks and Schismaticks were not barred the Communion of the Church Thus he § 45 In the former passages you may observe that the Authors fore-quoted speak not of some or other in the Church before Luther to have bin Catholick and consequently holy c. but of the visible Church consisting of the ruling Clergy and the subject and conforming Laity according to the publick doctrines and Definitions thereof as these being not deficient in the Essentials of the Church Catholick either as to Faith or Holiness for such a Church Catholick they believe always to be whose doctrine and definitions discipline and external visible profession maintained by the Governors thereof is Catholick And if in any other sense we call it a Catholick-Church when we hold its Governours and Doctrines mean-while Heretical and Schismatical viz. by reason of some that may be found herein Catholickly perswaded we may as well call that an heretical Church the Doctrines and Doctors of which are Catholick if perhaps some only in it be heretically affected To go on Therefore Dr. Field proceeds also so far as to own the Western Church that was before Luther § 46 for the Protestants true Mother for indeed where could he find at that time a Church any whit better to call Mother and to confesse ‖ l. 3. c. 6. ' That she continued the true Church of God until our time And To those saith he that demand of us where our Church was before Luther began We answer it was the known and apparent Church in the world wherein all our Fathers lived and died wherein Luther and the rest were baptized and ‖ 3 Part p. 880. wherein a saving profession of the truth in Christ was found In order to which he so far justifies the publick service also of those dayes which our Fathers frequented even the Canon of the Mass it self as to say ‖ Append. 3 l. p. 224. ' That the using therof no other was used in those days than is now is no proof that the Church that then was was not a Protestant Church and that both the Liturgie it self and the profession of such as used it shew plainly that the Church that then was never allowed any Romish errour And again so far justifies he the doctrine of that Church which he owns as Catholick and the Protestants Mother as to affirm ‖ 3 l. p. 81. That none of those points of false doctrine and errour which the Roman Church now maintaineth and the Protestants condemn were the doctrines of that Church before Luther constantly delivered He must mean constantly for the present Age before Luther for in that Age he acknowledgeth it Catholick or generally received by all them that were of it but doubtfully broached and devised without all certain resolution or factiously defended by some certain only c. It seems therefore that look how many Doctrines of those now condemned by Protestants may appear to have bin in the Church §. 47. n. 1. I say not here the Catholick but the Latin Church for of this he speaks before Luther not doubtfully broached but in her Councils resolved in her publick Liturgies conformed to and generally received Generally not as including every single person for so perhaps were not the doctrine of the Trinity or of Christs Incarnation received but so generally received by the then Western Church-Governors as is necessary for the ratification of the Decrees of their Representatives met in Councils for more than this cannot rationally be required so many he will acknowledge for Catholick and in obedience thereto shew a filial Duty to this his Mother And therefore after this to defend the discession of the Reformed from and their present non-communion with the present Western Church he seeks to relieve
Broachers of these Tenents suppose of a Substantial Conversion in the Eucharist Saint-Invocation Veneration of Images a Purgatory of Souls after this life Monastick Vows Sacrifice of the Mass c. condemned for Heresie in Oecumenical Councils or a continual disapprobation of those Doctrines by the Christian Churches of all ages as is clear in the cases of Arrius and Pelagius or the Church by any evident Act declaring her dislike of them as may on the other side be shewed many evident Acts of her Approbation of them And 2ly If no danger of perishing for Heresie or Schisme to those living and dying in this Communion before §. 50. n. 1. then neither to any since Luther's times For if since these times this Communion be become Heretical or Schismatical I demand in respect of what Council or what Definitions made since Luther's days which it opposeth is it becom Heretical or in respect of what Church in deserting or departing from its Communion Schismatical Or in the Protestant's Notions of Heresie and Schism in respect of what new Tenent or Practise against some Fundamental point of Faith since Luther's time is it become Heretical when guilty of none such before And in its requiring of Conformity to what new points of Faith since Luther's time is it become Schismatical so that one that could lawfully yield obedience to all those required before Luther's appearance yet cannot to all the present or so that the Church before Luther might lawfully require without hazard of Schism Conformity to its whole Faith then and not so the present Church to the whole present Faith For I hope none here will have the face to deny Conformity required by the Western Churches before Luther's coming to many of the chiefest of those points wherein Protestants now refuse it See those mentioned Disc 3. § 26. And you may observe §. 50. n. 2. that the most or chiefest of the Protestant Controversies defined or made de fide in the Council of Trent were made so By former Councils of equal obligation or also were contained in the publick Liturgies of the Church Catholick As The Lawfulness of Communion in one kind declared in the Council of Constance Canon of Scripture Purgatory seven Sacraments the Pope's Supremacy in the Council of Florence Auricular Confession Transubstantiation in the Council of Florence the Lateran and five others before it wherein Berengarius his Doctrines were condemned Veneration of Images in the 2d Nicene Council Monastick Vows and Celibacy of the Clergy sufficiently authorized in the four first General Councils And to these I may add the Council of Frankfort if the Capitulare Caroli which indeed was written before may be taken to deliver the sence of the Council * For Adoration of Christ's Body and Bloud in the Eucharist the Council applying the Psalmist's Adorate Scabellum thereto as it is expounded by S. Ambrose * Ibid. 4.15 l. 3. c. 24 and S. Austin ‖ De Spiritu Sancto l. 3. c. 12. And for Veneration of the Cross ‖ Capitulare l. 2. c. 5. c. 27. l. 4. c. 17 and of Relicks ‖ Only the Adoration of Images allowed by the second Nicene Council indeed is condemned but this upon a Mistake of the Doctrine of that Council as is confessed by Dr. Hammond Treatise of Idolatry § 57. And by Mr Thorndâ—ke Epil l. 3. p. 363. And as any one may easily discern if he will view in the Preface of this Capitulare what opinion was imputed by the Fathers of Franckfort to those of Nice Besides these Councils Invocation of Saints Prayers for the Dead Sacrifice of the Masse and several other are apparent in the Publick Liturgies of the Church â—naltered Protestants being Judges for many ages preceding the Council of Trent Now the Church obligeth her Subjects to believe all those things lawful which in her Liturgies she obligeth them to practice And why was there made a departure from the Church for these points before the Council of Trent if the Church before had not made them de fide or required Obedience and Conformity to them or if the Council of Trent or Pius the Fourth were first faulty herein ‖ See Bishop Bramhal's Concession before §. 47. Suppose then a belief of some more Points is since added yet I ask will the decreeing or imposing of these infer upon the present Church the guilt of Schism and not the like decreeing or imposing the former infer the same guilt upon the former Church that preceding Luther Now from this Identity in Faith and practice in the present Church with that preceding Luther excepting if our Gratitude may be allowed to speak the truth that the Council held since Luther's time hath reformed several practises in some persons of it which were before justly blamed it seems clear that whoso is a member of the present Western or Roman Church is secure that he is a Member of the Church Catholick For it is impossible that the Church which is the same with what was the Church Catholick 150 years ago should meerly by the difference and decurrence of time become non-Catholick Now if this be denied that the present Roman Church is the fame for it's Doctrines and Practices with that Church which was at Luther's appearing let the issue of the Contention be placed here and let search only be made concerning this Not to ask mean-while why Luther reformed then why exclaimed so vehemently on the Babylonish Captivity and sounded an Exite de illâ Populus meus if the Deformation of this Church it 's non-holinesse it 's non-Catholicknesse is since the Council of Trent and so not till after his time 3ly As I think here is shewed no danger of perishing in the present external Communion of these Churches upon the account of Heresie or Schism ‖ §. 51. so neither is there As to other gross Errors on the account of any grosse or grievous Errors For 1st How are they grievous Errors that are not against any necassary Point of Faith But if they be such with Protestants are Heresies For Example to name some chief ones How are Adoration of the Eucharist or Invocation of Saints grievous Errors if also they be not against any necessary point of Faith viz. this That Divine Worship and Divine Supplication which they say is presented to Saints may be given only to God But them they are Heresies Or what so grievous Error in the present Communion that was not it or as bad in the same Communion before Luther's time When yet Christians in this Communion were secure because it was then the Catholick and the Catholick being always Holy may err indeed in superstructions and deductions and other by and unnecessary Truths from curiosity c. but cannot err from the Foundation saith the Archbishop I add ‖ §. 21. p. 141. as of Faith so also of Good Manners These Errors then which are now charged to render the Church of Rome guilty of
a manifold Idolatry in her worshipping the Eucharistical Bread the Relicks and Images of Saints and making Prayers to them were they not the same in the Church before Luther and the same their effect Or if the same Errors then light are now become grievous Upon what account Is it upon a more evident Conviction Christians may have now than heretofore that such are Errors But what ground can we have to say that they now culpably and convincibly err in these who no more than those before Luther can be accused for holding any Errors save such as are the Publick Faith of the Church now authorized as much as that before Luther and who to preserve themselves from erring make use of the securest way that Reason can imagine or that Christians are prescribed whilst for the sence of the Scriptures controverted in such Points they chuse not to rely on their own judgment but on that of the supremest Guides of the Church and Judges of divine Truth that are afforded them here on earth and so if they err yet take the wisest course to miss erring that Religion or Reason can dictate To which Guides also all the Subjects of this former Communion believe submission of their private judgment to be due and to be commanded which is a very plausible one if an Error From whence also it follows that till they are convinced of Error in this one Point of Submission not to be due they are not capable of being convinced in any other where it is required Nay yet further to the Obedience of which Guides at least for silence and non-contradiction they are obliged even by the Doctrine of Learned Protestants ‖ See Disc 3. § 44. where-ever they cannot demonstrate the contrary which demonstration is a degree of Conviction surely very few can pretend to § 52 1. It is said indeed by Protestants ‖ Stillingf P. 330. Archbishop Lawd § 21. n. 5. That all Particular Churches or the whole Catholick Church in some age or ages may universally hold some Tenent that is an Error but then granted by them That any such universally held Error can never destroy the Essence or Being of the Church Catholick or render it non Catholick because thus in such age the Church Catholick would fail Now from this I collect my security ni holding any Tenents though they should happen to be Errors which were universally held in the Church before Luther that as they destroy not the Church it's being still Catholick so neither do they expell me from still continuing in the bosom of the Church Catholick And hence for example I am secured that I am no Idolater if not swerving from the Church's Doctrines because the Church whilst Catholick as she is affirmed to be is not such But in joining with a Church that pretending to reform holds the contradictories of these former universal Tenents I am not here secure but that some of these Tenents may be such Errors as exclude this new Church from being a part of the Catholick and me if adhering to it from being a Member thereof as the maintaining by the Arrians and others of some Tenents contrary to the universal Doctrines of the former Church hath separated them from the Church Catholick I say for any Tenent I can shew to have been spread over the whole Catholick Church at Luther's appearance I am secured by Protestants that in holding this I am free from Heresie or being rendred thereby extra-Catholick But then I am not so in my entring into a new Society that contradicts this Church and such Tenents except in such Points of the truth of which I am infallibly certain 2. Again it is affirmed by Protestants ‖ That a Separation may be made without Schism § 52 from the external communion of all particular Churches some of which or all which I say See Stillingf p. 331. Chillingw c. 5. §. 52 55 56 59. must be the Catholick of some age for some Points if held and imposed by them viz. Those Points wherein the Essence and Union of the Church Catholick consisteth not because in such the Church Catholick may err but cannot without Schism for other Points viz. such as constitute the necessary Faith of the Church Catholick wherein she erreth not for so she would cease to be Catholick Now from hence also I gather that I continuing in the external communion of all those particular Churches can never be non-Catholick or guilty in concurring in any Schism for my holding and conforming to any of the Church's universal Tenents because none such can destroy the Church from being Catholick still ‖ But in my separation from all these Churches imposing such Tenents I am not secure because some of these Tenents as Protestants grant may possibly be such as are some part of the necessary Catholick Faith and so my separation if made on such account is Schism § 54 This security then they seem to enjoy who live and die in the Communion of the unreformed And danger to those deserting it Western or Roman Church before or since Luthers times they being acquitted thereby from Heresie and Schism or any other error damnative to them who therein follow their spiritual Guides not against Conscience But the like I see not how any may promise to himself in living and dying in a new-raised Communion and in deserting the former especially if deserting it for any former general doctrines and practises thereof which if not enjoin'd he here left to his free liberty hath no reason for these to withdraw himself from the Communion of the whole but if enjoyned ought in these to submit to the judgment of the whole especially so many as cannot demonstrate against it ‖ See 2 Disc §. 20. to submit at least so far as if not to assent yet not to contradict All which are transgressed in following the Reformation where such a person for the sence of the Scriptures controverted and for his denying conformity to the doctrines delivered by the Church as matter of Faith either relies on his own judgment or in submitting to a Guide follows inferior against Superior Governors or Synods or a Minor against a much major part Lastly follows those who have refused conformity to the external Communion even to the Liturgies and publick service of the whole former Catholick Church whether Eastern or Western and have set up a new one against them of their own which are all manifest breaches of the unity of the whole I say I see no security any can have in such a new Communion excepting that which invincible ignorance affords which in such an apparent decession from former Churches and Councils God knows how few especially of the Learned that peruse the Writings of former times it may shelter The most moderate §. 55. n. 1. and plausible defence which Protestants or to speak more particularly which the Church of England makes for her discession Where A brief Relation of the
Protestants defence and reformation is this 1st That they have a most certain Rule of their Faith common to them with the rest of the Church Catholick the Holy Scriptures and besides these a summary thereof drawn up in the Apostles Creed and explicated by the first three Ages i. e. the writings we have thereof and the first four-General Councils And that in the sincere belief of this primitive Rule they rest secure of believing all that is necessary for salvation and likewise of their retaining a firm-Communion as to the essentials of Faith with the whole Catholick Church and even with that of Rome 2ly That the Roman Church is acknowledged by them a Catholick but not the whole Catholick Church one part only of the Catholick Church as also the Church of England is another 3ly That this Roman or any other part of the Church Catholick may err whilst it still remains a part of the Catholick in non-fundamentals or non-essentials and necessaries 4 ly That this part did err in such non-fundamentals and that grievously and that the Protestants or Church of England discovered these to be such grievous errors by the light of Scripture and testimony of Antiquity 5 ly That this Roman Church added this also to her erring that she exercised an unlawful dominion or jurisdiction over the Church of England and required an assent from this Church to such her grievous errors upon pain of losing her Communion 6 ly That the Church of England refused such assent to what by clear Scripture she had discovered to be Errors as in conscience she was bound though these had bin never so small ones nay though some of them were no Errors yet if she were perswaded they were so how much more when so great 7 ly Proceeded after mature consideration to reform these Errors but in her self only not imposing them upon or condemning by reason of them any other Church for non-Catholick 8 ly Whereas this her defence proceeds upon supposing the Romane Church that she left a part only and not the whole Catholick Church yet that were it supposed to have bin the whole or their departure to have bin from the whole also as well as from it that the whole though granted in Fundamentals infallible yet may err in non-fundamentals or non-essentially necessaries and that grievously and consequently if it should require assent from its members to such points in which it is fallible that they ought not to assent thereto nor to conceal if of consequence when they any way discover such Error nay further also that if the General Church neglect it they may and ought for themselves to reform such Error But this Plea seems easily overthrown §. 55. n. 2. in many of its particulars by this following Remonstrance made by the other side And of the Catholicks Remonstrance 1 To the first It is replied 1 That there is a faith of Agends or Practicals concerning what is lawful and unlawful and what is our duty to do or forbear as well as of speculative credends which faith is necessary and fundamental for attaining salvation and in which practical points also may be and have bin Heresies and Schisms I say the faith of them necessary because the practice of them is so which must be grounded on this faith that they are lawful or ought to be practised 2 That these points are of a much larger extent then the speculatives and that of these we have no Collection or Summary drawn up by the Apostles as we have of the other 3 That as these Protestants say they do not for the speculative Credends rely barely on the words of the Apostles Creed or any private sence of Scriptures but profess to believe them according to the Explications made of them by the Church in her first four General Councils and do place the security of their Faith in them not on their own judgment but on their conformity to the judgment of these Councils so it is all reason that for the practicalls also they should rely on the Scriptures only so as they are explicated by the Church in her General Councils 4 That for both these speculatives or practicals as they do or ought to rely on the Explications of the first four General Councils so * that they cannot rationally confine their submissions to these alone but do owe it also to any Councils of the Church following in any age whatsoever provided that these be of equal authority To which later Councils new Heresies may give like occasion of further explicating the Articles of our Faith either in speculatives or practicals as new Heresies did after three ot four hundred years time to the Explications made by those first Councils and * that for the speculative Articles of the Apostles Creed particularly that of the Procession of the Holy Ghost à filio the Protestants have submitted to the Explications of Councils after the four first and these too Western Councils only when the Greek Churches refused to consent to them and that as the Greeks say upon not a verbal but real diversity in their faith concerning this procession yet it seems the Protestants here preferr'd and thought fit to adhere rather to the authority of the Western Churches From all which it follows that if the Protestants dissent from the Explications of such Councils held in any Age in either of these speculative or practical Articles of their faith that are necessary of which necessity it is fit also the Council not they should judge they cannot be secure of their retaining all necessary faith so as no way to have fallen from it into Heresie or Schism no more then they will acknowledge Arrians and Socinians secure in their belief of the Apostles Creed when departing from the Explications of the four first Councils And thus is the Protestants security of their faith if any way built or dependent on the first Councils so also devolved on the perpetual conformity to the Decrees of other lawful General Councils of what Ages soever in all their Definitions Again 6 since Schismaticks I mean those that are so in respect of their spiritual Superiours by whom in a line of subordination they are joyned to the Head as well as Hereticks are no members of the Catholick Church and since all Schism doth not necessarily spring from some difference in the essentials of Religion but may arise upon smaller matters and occasions ‖ See Bishop Bramhall Reply to Chalced p. 8. Dr. Field l. 1. c. 13. l. 2. c. 2. Dr Hammond Schism 3 c. 3. and §. 9. §. 55. n. 3. any wherein obedience is due and the lesser the occasion of it the more criminal many times the Schism therefore there is no security to Protestants in this first Branch of their Defence that becaus they agree with the whole Catholick Church in the Essentials of faith hence they do still remain in its Communion This said to the first 2 ly To what follows it
is replied That the whole Catholick Church of Christ is but one body compacted with a due subordination of its members as well Churches as persons for the preservation of truth and peace among them and the avoiding of Schism 3ly That the Church of England is a member of the Western Church and subordinate to the Patriarch thereof the Bishop of the prime Apostolick See joyned with a Council composed of this Body 4 ly That being a part of this Body this Church together with the rest of the Protestants dissented and departed from the consenting judgment not only of one particular Church the Roman but of all the other Occidental Churches in several points of faith that are necessary as the other say but as themselves confess that are of moment and the failings in which are by them charged on the other side as grievous errors which will infer the contrary to be needful truths disceded likewise from their consenting judgments concerning the testimony of Scriptures rightly understood and of the Fathers affirmed by these not to be for but against them 5 ly Departed both from them and the most General Councils that have bin held therein for near this thousand years 6 ly And departed from them in several points wherin the Eastern Churches also consented and do so still with these Occidental Churches and their Councils 7 ly And for submission required to these doctrines §. 55. n. 4. departed also from the external communion not only of all the Western but of the Eastern Churches even of the whole visible Catholick Church of that Age of which in every Age is said Credo unam Sanctam Catholicam Apostolicam Ecclesiam wherein this discession was made From the external Communion I say so as they neither could nor yet can communicate with any Church Eastern or Western in their publick worship and service of God nor in the participation of the blessed Sacrament and Communion of the Altar And the necessity of such their universal discession both sufficiently appeareth from the modern Eastern and Roman Missals compared the Masses of S. Chrysostom S. Basil which admitting som small variations ‖ See Cassand liturg c. p. 24 c. are the present service of all the Eastern Southern Churches not much differing from the Roman and being as well as the Roman disallowed by Protestants And also the Discession it self is confessed both long ago by Calvin lamenting the Protestant's want of Union amongst so many Adversaries ‖ Epist P. Melancthoni p. 145. A toto mundo discessionem facere coacti sumus And by Mr. Chillingworth l. 5. § 55. As for the external Communion of the visible Church saith he we have without scruple formerly granted that Protestants did forsake it i. e. renounce the practise of some Observances in which the whole visible Church before them did communicate See likewise § 56.89 Forsake the external Communion of the whole visible Church i. e. as he expounds himself § 32 by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgies and publick Worship of God Thus he And this surely was done for some Errors extant in this publick Worship else why did Protestants also reform this publick Service And these again such Errors as were not only held and used in but justified and allowed by this Church Catholick and Obedience and Conformity from her Subjects required thereto since if any thing after the holy Scriptures be held by this Church Catholick sacred and authentick and by all her Subjects to be embraced and frequented her publick Liturgy and the most August Sacrifice of the Altar must be so What ground therefore of Discession and what just complaint the Protestants have against the Western Church excluding them from her Communion because requiring something in it they cannot conform to the same ground of complaint they have also against the Eastern Churches as requiring somthing in their Communion to which they cannot assent nor in which join with them This for the external Communion of the Oriental as well as Occidental Church as to God's Publick Worship partaking of their Sacraments forsaken by them And next as to any other Communion internal mean-while professed with these Eastern Churches in the Fundamental Faith and Essentials of Religion they can pretend none but that they have and confess they have the same Communion with the Western Churches too In what sence therefore they stand separated from the Roman Church viz. in external Communion of their publick service of God and receiving with that Church the blessed Sacrament they stand separated from the Eastern also and in what sence they still retain the Communion of the East viz. in the Essential and Fundamental Articles of Faith they still retain this with Rome as much as them How is it then that they say often in the Reformation they left the Roman Church only not the whole Catholick numbring the Greek Russian Abyssine and other Churches as three parts of four and all these as on their side and joined with them And to what purpose is the calculating what proportion the Western Church hath to the whole Catholick when as their separation for communion external is as much from the rest as it and both Churches if any for this their separation equally culpable and when as for the internal Communion i. e. in all the Essentials of Faith they maintain this no more with the rest of the great body of the Catholick Church than they do with the Roman or Western Church But here again if they alledg their further Union with the Eastern Churches not in Fundamentals only but also in some other Points not Fundamental which are but few and none of them on the Greek side defined by any former Superior Council wherein these Churches oppose the Roman among which is named the Pope's Supremacy and Infallibility of the Roman Church the later a thing the Roman Church taken singly pretendeth not to yet what will this help ‖ See Disc 3. §. 185. as to those many other points defined by Superior Couneils ‖ See before § 50. n. 2. and wherein both East and VVest consent as those mentioned in the third Discourse § 26. c. In which Points chiefly Protestants are questioned for having made in the Reformation not a secession from their Western Mother to another part of the Catholick Church but a discession from the consenting judgment of the whole Catholick 8. Departed from the whole in these points which were §. 55. n. 5. at that time of a general belief and practice not only so far as to dissent but also as to contradict and reform against them 9. And all this in several of these Controversies upon pretence of the clearness of those Scriptures the sence whereof by a much major part of the West and by the greatest Councils that could for those times be assembled there where these Controversies arose the sence also of the Eastern Church concurring in the
And whether a more General or any fuller acceptation of the Definitions of such Councils by the Church Catholick which acceptation also if any Council for the Meeting is not so numerous as others have bin supplies the defect can rationally be required than that which is set down before § 18 36 38. 4ly Whether most or at least some of the chiefest points of present Controversie between Catholicks and Protestants have not been decided by former Councils so accepted Which he may be pleased to examine in the points mentioned Disc 3. § 26 c. § 57 But for a present Example I will annex here a brief relation ‖ See Baronius and Blondel's Esclairciss sur L' Eucharist applied to the precedent Rules The great controversie of a Substantial Conversion in the Eucharist examined according to the former Proposals whether a sufficient decision hath not been already made by the Church therein of the past proceedings of the Church in the decision of one of the main points of Controversie which notwithstanding such former decision yet remains still called in question by the Reformed Namely whether in the Eucharist there is a Corporal Presence of Christ and a Substantial Conversion of the Elements of Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood This Corporal Presence and Substantial Conversion then to relate the proceedings about it as briefly as possibly I may long ago Berengarius and some Followers of his denied were complained of two Councils called one after another at Rome and at Vercelles Anno. Dom. 1050. Berengarius summoned and he not appearing his hetorodox Opinions condemned He according to the now Protestant Grounds thinking his a Doctrine of great consequence and the Decree of these two Councils a manifest Errour and that himself freed from the Obedience of silence or non-contradiction to these Councils and so he with his Followers publickly justified his old Tenent desiring a reversing by some new Council of the former Sentence against it Upon this reviv'd disturbance of the Church another Council five years after is assembled at Tours 1055. not far distant from Anger 's where he was Arch-Deacon Here himself with others of his party was present his Cause pleaded his Demonstrations considered and after all his Opinion again condemned himself recanting it The Council dismissed he finds yet other new Reasons or a greater strength in his former and falls again to the abetting maintaining and spreading abroad his old Doctrine A Fourth Council upon those new Troubles of the Church 1059. Four years after the last was called at Rome where himself also was present some say long Disputation there had his new Plea for it found too light and rejected and his Opinion opposing Substantial Conversion again condemned both by himself and by the Council consisting of 103. Bishops The third time this man revolts and publisheth a Writing answered by Lanfranck afterward Arch-Bishop of Canterbury wherein he complains that some particular Enemies of his swayed the former Council and had made him to swear contradictions These new Imputations occasioned a Fifth Council to be called at Rome A. D. 1078. In which were new Disputings his last Cavils censured and the Article of a Substantial Conversion further vindicated and his Error of the Substance of the Bread remaining again condemned by this Council and ultimately recanted by himself § 58 Such was the Sentence of five several Councils if we may believe D. Blondel ‖ Sur l' Eucharist c. 20 one reviewing another against Berengarius and his Party opposing a Corporal Presence these Persons being present in three of these Councils and pleading their Cause The same Arguments as will appear by the writers of those times Lanfranck Guitmond Algerus to any one that pleaseth to peruse them then refuted that are still urged the same Authorities out of Fathers then pressed as are still produced anew by the Reformed and with the same Answers repelled All these Councils if some of them in the Members thereof less numerous yet universally accepted by all the VVestern Churches where this Controversie was only agitated Not one single Bishop thereof that is known dissenting or siding with the Berengarians Look we for more satisfaction yet VVhen the Fervor of parties in this matter was much allayed and the Church had had sufficient leisure to consider and digest the former Conciliary Decrees above a hundred years after the last of the Councils fore-mentioned the great Lateran Council was assembled under Innocent the 3 d. in which were present the Patriarch of Constantinople and of Hierusalem in person and the Substitutes * of the Patriarch of Antioch then sick Episcopus Antheradensis and * of the Alexandrian Patriarch lying under the Sarazen yoke Germanus his Deacon T is true indeed as it is objected that some of these Patriarchs were then Latines because both Constantinople and Hierusalem being held in possession the one for near 60. the other for near 100. years by the Latines Latine Pariarchs were then elected as somtimes Greeks also by the power of the Emperors have bin Bishops of Rome but yet they were the Lawful and the only Patriarchs of those Sees in that time And present there were besides these a considerable number of other Eastern Bishops the whole Council consisting of 412 Bishops and 70 Archbishops Now this Council again in stead of reversing declared for a Substantial Conversion where also first i. e. in a Council was used the name of Transubstantiation Two hundred years after this again the Council of Florence declared likewise for the same in the Articles of Instruction to the Jacobines and Armenians in these words Ipsorum verborum Christi virtute substantia panis in Corpus Christi substantia vine in sanguinem convertuntur Which declaration though made after the departure of the Greeks whom the Turks Invasion hastned away yet it was fully agreeable to their doctrine Nor had the Latine and Greek Church then any difference concerning the Substantial Conversion of the Elements into Christs Body but only hy what words this mutation was effected For which thing see the plain Confession of Bishop Forbes ‖ De Euch. p. 412. See below Dises 3. §. 158. against Chemnitius and others of his own party And all these without any opposition or the Church-Catholick's assembling it self in any other Council in so many Centuries for to reverse such a Decree If there was let it be named § 59 Now if the Decree of so many Synods so often weighing the Adversaries reasons and evidences was not sufficient for setling such a point at least as to the obedience of future silence and non-contradiction and as to suffering the Church to enjoy her peace what can hereafter be sufficient Or can we ever hope that any controversie shall be finally determined or ended by any future Council if this is not by these forepast Can there be any ground here to question the integrity or lawful proceedings of so many Councils at such a distance
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
accordingly both in Councils their defining Matters of Religion and in the Church's acceptation of their Decrees the much Major part must conclude the whole and the opposing of their Definitions also be Heresie and separation from their Communion Schism if an Opposition to or separation from the whole be so § 27. n. 4 14. As for the Protestant Marks whereby in any Division to know these true Guides viz. A right teaching of God's Word and a right Administration of the Sacraments that these are things to be learned from these true Guides first known § 28 Chap. 4. An Application of the former Propositions in a search which of the opposite present Churches or of the dissenting Ecclesiastical Governors thereof is our true Guide § 30. Motives perswading that the Roman and the other Western Churches united with it and with the Head thereof S. Peter's Successor are this true Guide 1st Their being the very same Body with that which Protestants grant was 150 years ago the Christian 's true Guide and the other Body confessing themselves in external Communion departed from it § 33. 2ly Their being that Body to which if we follow the former Rule recited Prop. 12. we ought to submit § 35. 3ly Their being that Body that owns and adheres to the Definitions and Decrees of all the former Councils such as the Church of preceding Ages hath received as General or obliging as well those Councils since as those before the Sixth or Seventh Century which later the other Party rejects § 37. Chap. 5. The pretended Security of those Protestants who deny any certain living or Personal Guide infallible in Necessaries affirming 1. That all necessary Matters of Faith are even to the unlearned clear in the Scriptures and the Controversies in non-necessaries needlesse to be decided § 38. 2. That all Necessaries are clear in Scripture because God hath left no other certain Means Rule or Guide of the knowledge of them save the Scriptures § 39. n 1. Not any certain living Guide 1st Which is infallible as their Guide the Scriptures are § 39. n. 2. 2ly Which the unlearned in any Division can discern from the false Guides or know their Deerees better than the Scriptures 3ly From whom the Scriptures direct them to learn Necessaries or tell them what Church or Party they are to adhere to in any Schisme made In which infallible Guide if there were any such as being a thing of the greatest concernment the Scriptures would not have been silent Ibid. Reply 1. That Evidence of the Scriptures hath been the usual Plea of former Hereticks in their dissenting from the Church 2. That as to the main and principal Articles of the Christian Faith the sufficiency of the Rule of Scripture is not denied by Roman Catholicks but only the clearness thereof as to all mens capacities questioned And another Guide held necessary It is replied then I. Concerning the Clearnesse of Scripture 1. That some Controversies in Religion since the writing of the Scriptures have been concerning points necessary As those Controversies concerning the Trinity the Deity and Humanity of our Lord the necessity of God's Grace c. § 43. 2. That the more clear all Necessaries are in Scripture still with the more securitie may Christians relie for them on the Church's judgment from which also they receive these Scriptures § 41. 3. That there is no necessity that all Necessaries should be revealed in Scriptures as to all men clearly § 41. 1. Because it is sufficient if God hath left this one Point clear in Scriptures that we should in all difficulties and Obscurities of them follow the Directions and adhere to the Expositions and Doctrines of these Guides § 41. 2. Sufficient if God hath by other Apostolical Tradition at least clearly revealed to these Church-Guides all such necessary Truths to be successively communicated by them to his people § 44. 3. Sufficient if God hath by Tradition at least clearly revealed to these Church-Guides the sence of such Scriptures as are in points necessary any way obscure Ibid. 4. Sufficient if God in the Scripture hath clearly enough revealed all necessary Truths to the capacity of these Church Guides using due means though he hath not to the capacity of the unlearned for from those these may learn them § 45. II. Concerning a living Guide 1. That where the Scripture especially several Texts compared is ambiguous and in Controversy the Christians Guide to know the true sence cannot be the Scripture but either the Church's or their own judgment § 46. n. 1. 2. That it is not necessary that God in the Scriptures should direct Christians to what Guide they are to repair § 46. n. 2. Or to what Church-Prelates or Party in any Schism Christians for ever ought to adhere § 47. n. 2. 3. Yet that God hath given Christians a sufficient direction herein in his leaving a due subordination among these Governors whereby the Inferiors are subjected to the Superior and a part unto the whole § 47. n. 3. And that Christians may more clearly know the sence of their Definitions in matters controverted than the sence of the Scriptures § 48. THE SECOND DISCOURSE CHAP. I. Protestants assenting 1. That there is at this present an One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church § 1. 2. That the present Pastors and Governours thereof have Authority to decide Controversies § 2. 3. And that their Governors shall never err or mis-guide Christians at least in absolute Necessaries § 3. 4. And that they with the Church governed by them do stand always distinct from Heretical and Schismatical Congregations § 5. § 1 1st THat there is an One Holy Catholick Apostolick Church in this Age and at this present time All Proposition 1 I suppose grant § 2 2ly That this present Church that is in its Pastors Prop. 2. and Governors is appointed for a Guide to Christians and hath Authority to decide Controversies is unquestioned also among several learned Protestants ‖ See Disc 1. §. 3◠c. And I think is a part of the 20 th Article of the Church of England which Article saith The Church hath Authority in Controversies of Faith And what can it mean but for deciding them or who decide them but the Ecclesiastical Governors § 3 3ly That these present Governors in this present Age either * collectively taken as they are assembled in a Council Prop. 3. the Decrees whereof are universally accepted by those Governors of the Church diffusive that are absent from it or * disjunctively taken for some visible Society or other of them at least somtimes lesser somtimes greater shall never misguide Christians at least in absolute Necessaries to salvation is also acknowledged by learned Protestants ‖ See Disc 1. §. 25. c. And seems to be the clear sence of the 19 th Article of the Church of England which affirms ' The visible Church of Christ to be a Congregation of faithful men ‖ See Art
that they neither do nor can err in Fundamentals nor in declaring what is fundamental what is not fundamental and consequently to make any Church an infallible Guide in Fundamentals would be to make it infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed i. e. that she may require our Assent and Belief of all things by the device of her proposing them as necessary § 9 6 ly When the Church-Guides are said to be infallible in Necessaries Prop. 6. Catholicks contend That Necessaries * ought not to be taken here in so strict a sence as to be restrained and limited only to those few points of Faith that are so indispensably required to be of all men explicitly believed as that Salvation is not possibly consistible with the disbelief or ignorance of any of them which are thought by the Learned to be only some few Articles of the Apostles Creed Of which see Dr. Potter § 7. p. 242. c. But * ought to be understood in a sence more enlarged comprehending at least * all such Points as are so requisite and beneficial to Salvation as that there is some danger of a miscarriage therein either in respect of Faith or Manners either to Particulars or to the whole Society either to all or at least to some persons and conditions of men by the ignorance or disbelief of them * all such Points as corroborate Fundamentals by their near connexion to them or as serve to repel the malignant Influence of some Error that either directly or by some consequence at least undermines and corrupts or to use the Archbishop's words ‖ § 35. n 5.6 grates upon or miss-expounds some Fundamental either in the Christian Faith or Manners § 10 The Reason 1st Because our Saviour's promised assistance of his Church is not expresly limited to Necessaries in the first sence by any of those Texts that mention it nor can upon any account of the superfluousness or non-necessity of such assistance be denied to the Church in respect of the second where-ever any Error in such points though they be not Principles or Fundamentals but Deductions and Superstructions appears to be gross dangerous damnable blasphemous idololatrical grating the Foundation which sort of Errors Protestants grant there may be in non-fundamentals and by them are such Errors charged upon the Church of Rome ‖ Arch-bishop Lawd § â—7 n 5.6 Art of Rel. 31. Chill p. 119 but it seems unsutable to our Lord's Love and everlasting protection of his dearest Spouse that they should be also incident to the Church Catholick or its supreme Guides 2 ly Because the Practice of the generally-allowed Primitive Councils defining and under Anathema imposing the belief of many several points of Faith which fall not under the first notion of Necessaries doth shew that Church-tradition hath always understood Christ's Promises made to the Church as extending to Necessaries in the second acception Neither will infallible assistance in necessaries as they are taken in the first sense extend to the Church-definitions made in the points delivered in the Athanasian Creed which points yet the Church hath defined as necessary and infallible Again since it is affirmed by Protestants that a Lawful General Council 〈◊〉 Stillingf p. 330. accepted by the whole Catholick Church diffusive may err in non-necessaries for so say they may the whole Catholick Church dissusive err ‖ See Arch-bishop Lawd p 139 140 141. if then the Church-definitions found in the Athanasian Creed are also to be reckoned such i. e. non-necessaries upon what account can Protestants firmly believe them for true except so many as are able to demonstrate them out of the Scripture seeing they are deprived of any confidence of the Church's not erring therein as being points reckoned non-necessaries And the Promises thus restrained to Necessaries of the first kind what an hurtful liberty is there left to all Sects to question the Church's Infallibility in many principal Articles of her faith as for example to the Socianians to question it in the point of Consubstantiality under this pretence of the Churches possibility of erring in non-necessaries 3 ly Because I see not how the title of Holy continued for ever to the Church-Catholick by the Promise of our Lord can consist with all those errors that yet do oppugne Necessaries only as taken in the second not first notion called gross dangerous damnable blasphemous if as these are imputed promises to the Catholick If her doctrines and consequently practice be somtimes damnable blasphemous c. how She always Holy Because by the same divine assistance the Catholick Church is affirmed by Protestants never to fall into Heresie which thing also infers a divine assistance thereof beyond Necessaries in the first notion unless they will affirm the contradictories of several of the Church-definitions that are delivered in the Athanasian Creed or the first allowed G. Councils not to be heresies § 11 5 ly Because One reason which Protestants give why our Lords Promise of these Guides non-erring is to be restrained only to some and not enlarged to all Truths is * because they are by and unnecessary Truths to which her curiosity or weaknesse may carry her beyond her Rule c. ‖ Arch-Bishop Lawd p. 141. * because they are such points as may be variously held and disputed without hurt or prejudice to faith * because they are unprofitable curiosities and unnecessary subtilties for which the Promise was not made * because Deus non abundâ—t in superfluis ‖ Dr. Poâ—ter p. 5. p. 150 c As natare so God is not lavish in superfluities therefore what points though not Necessaries in the first kind yet are as far removed from superfluous or curiosities and are though not absolutely yet very necessary still thus far in these we may suppose our Lords assistance continued to his Church and preserving her from failing in them ‖ A second reason which Protestants also give why the Church cannot err in fundamentals is the perspicuity of Scriptures in these Points This power of not erring saith the Arch-bishop ‖ p. 140. is in the Church partly by the vertue of this Promise of Christ and partly by the watter which it teacheth which is the unerring Word of God so plainly and manifestly delivered to her as that it is not possible she should universally fall from it or teach against it in things absolutely necessary to salvation But doubtless many more points there are as plainly delivered in Scripture as those Necessaries of the first rank and therefore no reason to confine her un-erring verdict only to these And if more points then the primary fundamentals were not clear in Scripture how come Protestants in several of them on this account of their clearnesse in Scriptures to oppose and contradict the Supreme Guides of the Church 7ly Concerning the Church-Governours their exact distinguishing of Fundamentals § 12 or Necessaries from non-Necessaries 1st There setms no
greater necessity * that these Church-Governors should be enabled exactly to distinguish these Prop. 7. as to all particulars Or * that Catholicks should learn such distinction from their Governours than that Protestants should learn it from the Scriptures And the Answer which Protestant give for a non-necessity of this latter viz. Because who believes all the Scripture believes all Necessaries revealed in it they may take for a non-necessity of the other because who believeth all that the Church defineth believeth all Necessaries defined by it neither again can the Protestants justly require any certainty explicitness or distinction of faith concerning the Proposals of the Church which distinction c. themselves do not maintain or think necessary concerning the Proposals and sence of Scripture So if the Protestant Divines grant a sufficient certainty as they do ‖ See Mr. Chillingw p. 160. in a Christian's faith who believes all Fundamentals from the Authority of Scriptures * tho mean-while he knows not from the same Scriptures which or how many they are nor either the Protestant-Guides or their followers out of these Scriptures can make any certain catalogue of them and * though they also may in the sense of many Texts of Scripture err and mistake so that they only build a sufficiency of their faith upon this hypothetical certainty that if the point be necessary they using a due industry cannot err in the sense of such Scriptures because all necessaries God hath in these Scriptures clearly revealed Then they cannot deny the same sufficient certaînty of a Catholicks faith that believes all fundamentals from the Proposal of his Ecclesiastical Guides if these Guides be granted in these infallible tho' neither he nor these Guides should certainly know for all points which or how many these fundamentals be § 13 Very vain therefore seems that discourse of Mr. Chillingworth c. 3. § 57. so far as it is made use of to this purpose to shew upon the non-distinction of fundamentals or the supposed liability of Church-Guides to err in non-fundamentals the uncertainty or unsufficiency of a Catholicks faith As also ridiculous that arguing of his where when Catholicks say they are certain concerning every particular point proposed by the Church that if it be a fundamental she errs not in it i.e. errs not in what she determines concerning it or errs not in determining any thing against it He faith They say that they are certain that if it be a fundamental truth the Church doth not err in it i. e. in holding it which faith he is in plain English to say you are certain it is true if it be both true and necessary § 14 2ly Neither doth it follow from these Church-Guide's supposed inability exactly to distinguish Necessaries from non Necessaries that therefore they are or can be no infallible Guide in all Necessaries that is in teaching and prescribing them though they should not be so in distinguishing them and in their teaching nothing besides togesher with them Nor is that consequence of Mr. Chillingworth's ‖ p. 105 150 true That if there be a Society of men infallible in Fundamentals they must be so also in declaring what is Fundamental or necessary what not unlesse upon this supposition that the declaring thereof is also a thing Necessary as I suppose he meant it For I may be certainly by the divine goodness preserved from error in many truths which yet I do not certainly know that they are truths And again further may certainly know somthing to be a truth and teach it to others and yet not further know it to be a truth so absolutely necessary as perhaps it is To use Mr. Chillingworths simile ‖ p. 159. A Physicians in his using of a medicine consisting of twenty Ingredients of which medicine he is certain that the whole receit hath in it all things necessary to the cure of such a disease yet may not exactly know whether all the Ingredients thereof are absolutely necessary or only some of them necessary the rest only profitable and requisite ad melius esse or some only necessary some profitable and the rest superfluous yet not hurtful As also the Protestants grant that the Church in delivering the Scriptures delivers all necessary truths therein yet without punctually knowing what or how many they are § 15 3ly It seems most reasonable that a Guide of whose not erring in Necessaries 3. I am secure But neither I nor it can exactly distinguish such from non-Necessaries should be believed by me in all it proposeth though in some Proposals it should be liable to error I must add one exception indeed If that in no particular which it proposeth I am infallibly certain of the contrary for then in such I am sure that the Tenent of this Guide can be no fundamental Truth because not truth But first this Exception is unserviceable to all those which are the most as can plead no such infallible certainty for so many stand obliged still to the former belief 2ly such exception can rationally be made use of by none in the matters we speak of for who can presume himself thus certain in a matter of faith or in his own sense of Scripture though the literal expression be never so clear where so many learned and his Superiors comparing other texts c. understand it otherwise and are of a contrary judgment For it is the same as if in a matter of sense a dim-sighted person should professe himself certain that an object is white when a multitude of others the most clear-sighted that can be found having all the same means with him of a right sensation pronounce it black or of another colour § 16 Now this case only excepted I say such Guide ought to be believed by me in all it proposeth And this upon a triple account 1st because otherwise I expose my self to error in something necessary to which error in not following this Guide I am very liable for though I have besides this Guide a Rule infallible yet my sence thereof is not so in points that are controverted 2ly because this is such a Guide as learned Protestants grant that Gods Command doth oblige me to obey its judgment where I have no certain evidence of the contrary of its decrees ‖ See below §. 20. And also common reason obligeth me to follow a better judgment than my own especially when I do it as with due humility so with sufficient safety because thus it must be only a non-Necessary that I can err in and as I am certain if a fundamental that it is true what it delivers so not certain if it be no fundamental that then it is not true 3ly because though somthing superfluous may possibly be determined by this Guide yet considering the former notion of Necessaries ‖ §. 9. to which there seems good cause that the infallibility of this Guide be extended who will undertake to exclude any particular Church-definition
only the Patriarch of Alexandria in the fourth Session came in and submitted not only for their silence that would not serve the turn but assent But after these there were 11 Egyptian Bishops i. e. all that were present from the Patriarchy of Alexandria how Orthodox I cannot say that refused still to subscribe to the Councils decrees alledging the fear of a persecution upon their return into Egypt from their brethren at home these at home it seems being also of a contrary judgment to the Council yet the Council both established their decree without them and required upon excommunication their submission to it and to it put into the Confession of their Faith After this Council ended Timotheus the usurping Patriarch of Alexandria after Proterius who was placed there by the Council slain and his adherents continuing still to professe Dioscorism or a mitigated Eutychianism condemned the Acts of Chalcedon and much sollicited the Emperour by Letters to call a new Council and besides these a very great faction in Palestine did the same whose followers also continue the same division to this day not only the Egyptians but the Ethiopians or Abyssins Armenians Jacobites of Syria giving to the Adherents of the Council in those parts the name of Melchites or Royalists because they pretended the corruption of this Council by the Emperors faction yet the owning of this Council by S. Peters Chair and the acceptation thereof by much the greatest part of the Church Catholick was and still is not doubted to be a sufficient ratification of its Acts notwithstanding this storm in the Patriarchy of Alexandria against this fourth General Council much worse than that of Antioch against the third Before the seventh General Council the second Nicene §. 25. n. 5 a question being on foot concerning the lawful use and also relative veneration of Images a Council assembled of above a hundred Bishops under Constantinus Copronymus though indeed none of the Patriarchs joyned with them defined it negatively and for making good their Tradition for this produced several places out of the Fathers particularly out of Epiphanius Naziaâ—z Chrysostom Athanasius Eusebius Caesariensis and others See 2. Conc. Nic. Act. 6. Tom. 5. yet so soon as the Ghurch recovered her liberty by the death of this Emperour It in a fuller body the Patriarchs also present notwithstanding such a party preventing them declared their Faith contrary with an Anathema to all dissenters from their decree In the Council of Sardica the Oriental Arrian Bishops §. 26. n. 6. about 70. withdrew themselves from the Council to Philippopolis because it consisting of above 300 Western Bishops besides them they saw their number too small to invalidate the Acts of a party so much greater though indeed being condemned already for Hereticks by the Nicene Council they could have no just vote in any following Before all these Councils a great question arose in the Church about the validity of Hereticks baptism and whether the Tradition commonly practised of non-rebaptizing those converted from Heresie though Firmilian seems to plead also a contrary Tradition in those parts where he lived ‖ Ep 73. ad Cypr. Caeterum nos saith he veritati consuetudinem jungimus consuetudini Romanorum consuetudinem sed veritatis opponimus ab inìtio hoc tenentes quod à Christo ab Apostolo traditum est were Apostolical or no A part of the Church Catholick questioning it because another more certain Apostolical Tradition viz. the Scriptures seemed to them to declare plainly the contrary A difficult controversie this was accounted several Provincial Councils in divers parts were held about it above 80 Affrican Bishops assembled with their Primate S. Cyprian and likewise Firmilian and some fifty other Eastern Bishops with him judged it not Apostolical ‖ See Dionysii Alex. Ep. ad Xystum Euseb l. 7. c. 4. Yet afterward a General Council proceeded to decide it and their definition was esteemed valid and obliging and those who continued in their former opinion which in Affrick was no small number in S. Austins time above 150 Bishops ‖ See the Conference with the Donatists Baron A.D. 411. were from that time accounted Hereticks 'T is true that this General Council ‖ Are latense 1. was held some 50 years after the other Provincial ones and that before this several of the Affrican Bishops had corrected their former opinion But I suppose none will say that a General Council if assembled at the same time with those Provincial could not justly have defined it against them as Stephanus his Council at the same time did and justly have required their Obedience as being though a considerable number yet a much smaller part compared with the rest of the Bishops of the Christian world and their Suffrage invalid Contra tot millia Episcoporum quibus tunc error in toto Orbe displicuit to use S. Austin's words contra Cresconium l 3. c. 3. Who elsewhere also ‖ De Baptismo l. 1. c. 7. speaks thus on this matter Quaestionis hujus Obscuritas prioribus Ecclesiae temporibus ante Schisma Donati magnos viros magnâ charitate praedites Patres Episcopos ita inter se compulit salvâ pace disceptare atque fluctuare ut diù Conciliorum in suis quibuscunque Regionibus diversa statuta nutaverint So contra Cresconium l. 1. c. 33. he saith Similiter inter Apostolos de Circumcisione quaestio sicut postea de Baptismo inter Episcopos non parva difficultate nutabat donec plenario totius orbis concilio quod saluberrimè sentiebatur etiam remotis dubitationibus firmaretur By the Acts of these Councils I think it appears §. 25. n. 7. that Points of former dispute and such where the contrary to some of them have been defended by a numerous Party in the Church yet have been afterward defined and declared as matter of Faith and that such opposition of a number though in it self considerable yet in respect of the whole much smaller hath been thought insufficient to debilitate the authority and decisions of the rest confirmed by the judgment of the Bishop of Rome and the Chair of S. Peter and that the Church may cut off from her Body for the safety of the whole if such part happen to be gangred or putrified not only a little Finger or Toe but an Arm or a Leg. But yet I would not have this so understood as if that the Church's Councils in this matter of the very greatest concernment do at any time proceed to declare as matter of Faith any Propositions save * such as to disengaged judgments carry great evidence in them flowing either from express former Tradition or the present clear deduction and * such as are admitted and allowed by much the greatest part of the Church Catholick And in particular the late Council of Trent very prudently considering the great distraction and dissatisfaction of those times and their proneness to Schism is said
if we may believe Soave ‖ Hist l. 6 p 576. to have entertained this Maxim That to establish a Decree of Reformation a major part of Voices was sufficient but that a Decree of Faith could not be made if a considerable part did contradict But this considerable part must always be understood of such as are Catholick i. e. by no formerly condemned Heresie rendered uncapable of voting in the Church's Councils And lastly if a Contest arises what a part may be called considerable to whom the judgment of this can be left save to the same major part whether in or out of the Council where-ever all are not agreed I see not This concerning the necessity and the ancient practice of a much major part at least we keeping still within the bounds of the Church Catholick its concluding the whole Where it is also worth the noting concerning times past §. 26. n. 1. that though we set aside here how necessary the Confirmation of Councils is by the always-esteemed most supream Authority Ecclesiastical on Earth the Bishop of Rome yet never any Heresie now universally so accounted hitherto can be shewed in any age to have been confirmed in any Council or accepted after it by the Major part of Christianity or of the Church-Governors thereof such especially as have Right to vote in Councils because guilty of no Heresie that hath been declared such by a former Council And for the Future likewise Before that any grievous and pernicious Error should spread so far as to infect a major part of the Ecclesiastical Governors and so be past all cure from this supream Court the Church's Vigilancy from our Lord 's promised perpetual assistance and favour may be presumed to be such as that her Councils either distributed in several Provincial ones or united in a General will condemn it And then after such censure though its Patrons should grow to a major part of Christianity yet do they now to all clearly appear I say not a less but no part of the Church Catholick But yet all those Texts of Scripture Prophecies and Promises there pressed by S. Austin against the Donatists and the many Arguments he drew from them seem to evince the contrary that never any such Sect shall be I mean of one Denomination or conspiring in any one Heresie at any time that shall for the multitude of its Followers and Latitude of its Extent exceed or match the Catholick As for Hereticks or Schismaticks of many different Tenents and Communions dissenting from one another what Magnitude or Bulk the whole Mass of them put together may amount to or whether not transcend the Catholick it much matters not For the Catholick Church being according to our Creed always but One and a Body united in a due subordination of its Governors in its Service Doctrine Discipline c. so far as these model them it is sufficiently for its magnitude and extent discerned from all the rest if of any one Society or Church that hath the former coherence in its Members the Catholick is the greatest and the most diffused Of which thus S. Austin observes ‖ De Pastoribus c. 8. Non omnes Haeretici per totam faciem terrae sed tamen Haeretici per totam faciem terrae alii hîc alii ibi Alia Secta in Africâ alia Haeresis in Oriente alia in Egypto alia in Mesopotamiâ Diversis locis sunt diversae sed una Mater Superbia genuit sicut una mater nostra Catholica omnes Christianos fideles toto Orbe diffusos Est in Africâ pars Donati Eunomiani non sunt in Africa sed cum parte Donati est hî Catholica Sunt in Oriente Eunomiani ibi autem non est pars Donati sed cum Eunomianis ibi est Catholica The summe is the Catholick Church is every where and every where Heresie but the Catholick every where one the other diverse the Greatest but many may be Heresies the Greatest that is one must be the Catholick There are two General Councils by Protestants frequently urged for decreeing §. 25. n. 2. or confirming Heresie the second of Ephesus and that of Ariminum But 1st For that of Ephesus Both the whole West out of the Council then the greater and more dignified part of the Church Catholick and the Pope's Legates and likewise many eminent Eastern Bishops in the Council suffering much persecution for it from the present secular power dissented from the Acts thereof and the main Body of Bishops also that in the Council subscribed to them complained in the following Council of Chalcedon of force used And 2 For that of Ariminum 1st Though the major part of it had been Arrians yet these having been declared Hereticks already by the Council of Nice and so now no true Members of the Church Catholick ‖ See before Prop. 4. could rightly have no Vote therein though the then Arrian Emperor forced upon the Council an admittance of them So that if the major part of the Church-Governors generally taken of that age had maintained an Heretical Tenent yet this was after that the major part of Christianity in a former Council and in a General acceptation thereof had condemned this Tenent for Heretical and so thence Christians might clearly discern the Maintainers of it to be no more Members of the Church Catholick nor their present Guâ—des Especially the rest preserving a Communion separated from them But 2ly He §. 26. n. 3 that pleaseth to examine the History of this Council and of these times I think will find no ground to affirm Arrianisme at any time to have infected or possessed a major part of Christianity Which because it is a thing much insisted on by Protestants labouring thereby to prove for some time a defection of the major part of the Church Catholick from one of the greatest Articles of the Christian Faith I suppose it worth my pains though stepping aside a little from my present Design to give you a brief Narrative thereof In which if already satisfied you may omitting it pass on to § 27. n 4. If we review the Changes that were made in the Church before the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia 1st For the East Though several eminent Catholick Bishops by Constantius his power favouring the Semi-Arrians were expelled from their Seats upon several particular false Criminations and among others the pretence of their maintaining Sobellianisme or confounding the Persons of Trinity yet was nothing then declared against the Nicene Creed And after this Expulsion there were in a Council held under him at Antioch A. D. 341 of 99 Bishops assembled only 36 Arrian the rest Orthodox ‖ See Baron A. D. 341. though the Arrian party indeed more powerful with the Emperor and the substance of the Form of Faith drawn up there was though diminutive to the Nicene yet Catholick and such saith Sozomen ‖ l. 3. c. 5. ut neque Arriani neque Concilii Niceni
the priviledges of an undisturbed Ecclesiastical Government and which seems by reason of its numerous Clergy and populacy and extent of the arms of this body propagation of its faith into all the other quarters of the world to be the greatest part of Christianity that which hath bin alwais the most dignified by reason of S. Peters Chair From which for any of the Western Body to make an appeal out of these bounds to the present Eastern Churches now hindred by the great oppressor of Christianity there disturbed in the Exercise of any such Judicature and also much divided among themselves and who have not met in any Council for this eight hundred years save by sending at several times their delegates into the West For any I say to make an appeal from a Church flourishing in Government and discipline in learning and records of Antiquity the City still on a Hill and Candle on a Candlestick to seek for Votes among the Jacobites Maronites Caphtites Armenians Abyssines or Greek Churches c. several of them being suspected of ancient Heresies and if Hereticks no members of the Catholick Church appears nothing else but the refusal of a trial and avoiding the sentence of any such Guide and judge as Gods Providence hath afforded us and besides this is an Appeal where could those Churches now freely deliver their sentence and were now set on the Bench as this present Judge the Appealants can have no hopes of any success to their cause For that these Churches or at least the greatest Body of them as is shewed elsewhere ‖ Disc 3. §. 158. appear to keep as great a distance from the reformed as the major part of the Western Body doth § 37 3ly If the Councils that are extant and reputed for General since the first six or seven hundred years to the times of Luther's reformation shall be by any acknowledged either for General 3. or for the most universal that could well be convened or at least that are found actually to have bin convened a thing which I think though the testimony the present Church gives to them be made no use of the common veracity of History will clear to us besides that none hath any other Councils of an equal authority in these times to nominate and set up against them and those who demolish them do it without erecting or discovering to us any better or any besides I say if any think meet to relie on the judgment of these past Councils in the present matter these also will sufficiently evidence to us that the first of these Bodies fore-named is our present rightful Guide and Judge For since the Acts and Laws of such Councils are not only of force and obligatory to those present times wherein they sit but to all future Ages with the execution of which Acts and Decrees the succeeding Pastors and chief Governors of the Church in their several stations and residences in all following times stand charged till these are by an equal authority reversed It seems clear that in any division hapning afterward of these Pastors those are to be acknowledged our right Guides who own adhere to and propagate the Definitions and Laws of these former Councils Now this we see the first of these two Bodies doth as the latter renounceth them yet renounceth them without the producing of the patronage of any Councils at all in their stead pulling down as it were all the Church's Castles and Forts if I may call her Councils so against the incursions of errours and heresies that have bin built in several Ages for near a thousand years and yet shewing none other at all for Christians in the many points that have been disputed to repair to but leaving the sad Spectators of these their demolitions quite disheartned as diffiding in the Churches judgment so much decried for error and having yet more reason to distrust their own and so not knowing in this case whither to betake themselves for the setling of their Religion and conscience For surely this unerringness which the late Reformers have denied to those great Bodies of the Church they cannot in reason assume to those lesser Conventions of their own CHAP. V. The Pretended security of those Protestants who deny any certain living or personal Guide infallible in Necessaries Affirming That all necessary matters of Faith are even to the unlearned clear in Scripture and the Controversies in non Necessaries needless to be decided § 38. Necessaries clear in Scripture Because God hath left no other certain means or Guides for the knowledge of them § 39. n. 1. 1 No Guide which is infallible 2 Which the unlearned in any Division can discern from false or know and understand their decrees better than the Scriptures 3 Or which the Scriptures direct them to for learning Necessaries § 39. n. 2. The Reply 2. That Evidence of the Scriptures hath been the usual Plea of former Hereticks in their dâ—ssenting from the Church § 40. n. 1. 2. That as to the main and principal Articles of the Christian Faith the sufficiency of the Rule of Scripture is not denied by Roman Catholicks But only the clearness thereof as to all mens capacities questioned and another Guide held necessary § 40. n. 2. It is replied then 1. * Concerning the clearnesse of Scripture 1 That some of the Controversies in Religion since the Scriptures written have bin concerning Points necessary § 41. 2 That the more clear all Necessaries are in Scripture the more security Christians have in the Churches judgement § 42. 3 That there is no necessity that all Necessaries be revealed in Scripture clearly to all 1 Because it is sufficient If the Scriptures for the things doubtful therein direct to these Guides § 43. 2 Sufficient if such things be cleared to these Guides by other Apostolical Tradition § 44. 3 Or if the true sence of the Scriptures touching these matters be cleared to them by Tradition § ib. 4 Or if such sence be clear in the Scriptures themselves well examined and compared to them though not to all § 45. 2 y Concerning the Guide 1 That Scripture in what it is ambiguous cannot be a Guide § 49. n. 1. 2 That it is not necessary that Christians be in or by the Scriptures directed to another Guide ib. n. 2. 3 Yet that thâ—y are in the Scriptures so directed § 47. n. 3. 4 And may in many points more easily understand the sence of their decisions than of the Scriptures § 48. § 38 THe usual security that some of them give their followers α. is this α That all Controversies that arise in matters of Faith or in matters very profitable ‖ Chillingw p. 54. are so clearly decided or determined in Scripture that none learned or unlearned using that industry which humane prudence and ordinary discretion his condition considered adviseth him to can err in them ‖ See Chiling p 115.92 19.58 59. Pref. §. 30. c.
Archbishop Lawd p. 196. n. 3. Sillingst p. 149. Whitby p. 441. Tillois Rule of Faith p. 20.86 where the unlearned seem also to be put in lest these at least for their ignorance should be referred from the Scripture to a Guide for the ending of their doubts and using ordinary industry added lest private men jealous of not using their utmost industry to understand aright the Scriptures should upon this account be perswaded that it is safest for them to repair and adhere to a Guide Next That for all other Controversies that arise in non-Necessaries neither is it necessary that they should be ended So that as one briefly states the case ‖ Chillingw p. 59. Those places of Scripture which contain things necessary and wherein error were dangerous need no infallible Judge or Interpreter or rather cannot but have every one an infallible Interpreter upon supposition of a due diligence used be-because they are plain and those that are obscure need none because they contain not things necessary neither is errour in them dangerous Or as another ‖ Tillots p. 86. Of the true sence of plain texts every one may be certain and for the obscure ones it is not necessary every one should And thus having no living Judg to decide controversies they make those controversies so much the fewer that need deciding And if we here further question §. 39. n. 1. why all controversies in necessaries are affirmed to be clearly decided in Scripture or yet more why so clearly decided there as that even the unlearned cannot mistake in them Mr. Chillingworth answers they are so because the Scripture must be to all sufficiently perfect and sufficiently intelligible in all things necessary And my reason hereof saith he is convincing p. 92. and demonstrative because nothing is necessary to be believed but what is plainly revealed Which is granted him But he must add plainly revealed in Scripture and plainly there to the unlearned also otherwise it will not serve his purpose This Proposition therefore they also maintain that all points necessary to salvation must be plainly revealed in Scripture to learned and unlearned and ground it on this reason because God who requires from all Christians even the unlearned belief of such necessaries yet hath left them no other certain means of the knowledg thereof save only the Scriptures ‖ See Chillingw p. 71. Whitby p. 441. And if it be replied here That God hath appointed and referred them to a perpetual living Guide the Church for the expounding and declaring to them the true sense of ambiguous Scriptures Many things they object against it §. 39. n. 2. 1st they earnestly dispute that this Guide the Church that they are referred to is not infallible but that their's the Scripture is so γ. γ â—ly they ask many questions about such Guide as they conceive unanswerable How in a division of these living Guides ξ See Mr. Stillingft p. 101.508 c Chillingw p. 93. Whitby p. 430. c. the unlearned may com to know which are the right and which is the true Church Or this found how to know what are her definitions and decrees what the sence of these decrees c see many of them collected in 3 Disc § 86. contending that the unlearned in any such division of Guides have no certain means to know the true from the false nor the sence of their definitions more easily than the sence of the Scriptures δ. 3. δ Lastly they say ‖ See Mr. Chillingw p 61 104 171. That if God had left Christians in all Ages to learn Necessaries from their other Guides he would at least in the Scriptures have directed Christians to repair to these Guides for learning of them ε. ε And again for the divisions hapning among these Guides well fore-seen by him he would have told them in the Scriptures what party in such a case they ought to follow and adhere to as that they should always adhere to the Church of Rome or to the Vicar of Christ or to the most General Councils and in dissenting votes here to the major part thereof c. And indeed this assertion that God hath left no other certain or sufficient means to any sort of Christians since the Apostles times whereby to attain the knowledge of necessaries to salvation save only the Scriptures seems to be the main pillar on which Mr. Chillingworth and his followers sustain the Protestant Religion and the Reformation ‖ See Chillingw pref Before I return an answer to these ‖ 30. c. comp c. 2. §. 155.156 I have two things to note to you 1st That the devolving the decision of Controversies not upon the sufficiency only but upon the clearnesse §. 40. n. 1. of the rule of Scripture 1. and declining any constant adhesion to the Churches judgment in the Exposition of it seems not a little prejudicial to the Protestants cause in that this is observed of old by Tertullian Austin Vincentius Lirinensis and other Fathers ‖ Tertull. De pâ—aescriptione adversns Haeretic S. Aust Ep. â—22 contr a Maximinum l. 1. Vincent Lir. c. 35. to have bin the way that all former heresies have taken declining the Church and its Tradition and pretending the Scriptures as the support of their Doctrines Of the old Hereticks thus Vincentius Lirinensis Sive apud suos sive alienos c. nihil unquam penè de suis proferunt quod non etiam Scripturae verbis adumbrare conentâ—r Lege Pauli Samozateni opuscula Priscilliani Eunomâ—i Joviniani reliquarumque pestium cernas infinitam Exemplorum congeriom prope nullam omitti pag nam quae non novi aut veteris testamenti sententâ—i fucata colorata sit Then enquiring in this case ‖ Contra Haereses c. 35. quonian modo in Scripturis sanctis â—atholici homines veritatem â falsitate discernent He answers ‖ c. 38. Hoc scilicet facere magnopere curabunt ut divinum Canonem secundum universalis Ecclesiae Traditiones juxta Catholici dogmatis regulas interpretentur And the same thing is also observable in that new-revived most dangerous Heresie of Socinianism which draws up for it self against Church-authority much-what the same Plea as is here above made by these Protestants some of which that you may compare them I have transcribed you here out of Volkelius De vera Religione l. 5. c 7. a little contracted There then he saith Quae de fido in Christum statuenda sunt ex sacris literis patere Chaâ—itatem quo que in sacris literis ita descriptam esse ut quicunque eam ex animo colere mentemque advertere velit ignorare non possit quid sibi sit in omnibus vitae partibus sequendum praesertim si sapientiam a Deo petat quam ille nemini denegat Again Deum qui religionem Christianam usque admundi finem vigere voluit curasse etiam tale aliquid perpetuo
extare unde ea quatenus omnino ad salutem est necessarium cognosci indubitatò possit At nihil tale extare praeter sacras literas Nam si dicas Ecclesiam esse unde ea cognitio semper peti possit primum statuendum tibi erit Deum etiam decrevisse ut Ecclesia vera falsa enim ad eam rem inepta est semper usque ad mundi finem extet Sed ut Ecclesia vera extet à quâ omnes salutaris vâ—ritâ—tis notitiam indubitatè pevere queant requiritur ut homines complures coetum aliquem qui in omnium â—oulos incurrat constituant At non est quod quis certam aliquam Ecclesiam hoc privilegio a Deo donatam esse contendat ut fide excidere nequeat Deinde non posse Ecclesiam veram certo cognosci nisi prius cognoscatur quae sit salutaris Christi doctrina praeterea indipsum saltem debuisse alicubi in sacris literis clarè ac perspicuè scriptum extaâ—e debere ab Ecclesia peti omnia quae ad salutem scitu sunt necessaria quaenam ea sit Ecclesia ac unde debeat cognosci clare describi ne quis in câ cognoscenda facile errare posset Nam si quippiam scriptu fuisset necessarium hoc sane fuisset sine quo reliqua omnia quae cripta sunt nihil aut parum admodum prodessent Denique eam Ecclesiam quam isti Pontificii perpetuo extitisse volunt constare multis in rebus atque adeo in iis quoquâ— quâ— ad salutem sunt necessariae gravissime errare Things usually pleaded by Mr. Chillingw and his followers but whether borrowed from these I can say nothing ‖ See below § 47. n. Thus the Socinians lay the platform of their Religion and when the Protestants for confuting their errour urge Fathers and Church-authority against them they reply That they have learnt this from them to receive nothing besides Scripture and to neglect the Fathers ‖ See Simlerus de Filio Dei S. Spiritu Prafat Mean-while Appeals of the Fathers in Controversies of Religion to the trial of the Holy Scriptures I acknowledge frequent and that also somtimes waving Church-authority ‖ See S. Austin contra Maximinum l. 3. c. 14. but never made in opposition to it former or present Their great humility which also kept them Orthodox hindred them from presuming this and had any of them done it posterity would not have stiled him a Father The second thing is §. 40. n. 2. that as to the sufficiency or intirenesse of the Scriptures 2 for the containing all those points of faith that are simply necessary of all persons to be believed for attaining salvation Roman Catholicks deny it not but only deny such a clearness of Scripture in some of those as Christians cannot mistake or pervert Catholicks contend indeed that there are several things necessary to be believed by Christians according as the Church out of Apostolical Tradition hath or shall declare and propose them as touching the Government of the Church several Functions of the Clergy Administration of the Sacraments and some other sacred Ceremonies and particularly concerning the Canon of the Scriptures which are not contained in the Scriptures at least as to the clear mention therein of all those appertinents which yet have bin ever observed in the Church And touching the obligation of believing and due observing of several of these Traditions as descending from the Apostles learned Protestants also agree with them ‖ See Dr. Field of the Church l. 4. c. 20. Dr. Tailor Episcopacy asserted § 19. Reasons of the University of Oxford against the Covenant 1647. p. 9. and in particular concerning the believing of the Canon of Scripture though it be a thing not contained in Scripture See Mr. Chillingworths Concession p. 55. ‖ See also p. 114 where he saith That when Protestants affirm against Papists that Scripture is a perfect Rule of faith their meaning is not that by Scripture all things absolutely may be proved which are to be believed For it can never be proved by Scripture to a Gain-sayer that there is a God or that the Book called Scripture is the Word of God For he that will deny these Assertions when they are spoken will believe them never a whit the more because you can shew them written But their meaning is that the Scripture to them that presuppose it divine and a Rule of faith as Papists and Protestants do containes all the material objects of faith is a compleat and total and not only an imperfect and a partial Rule Where in saying all material objects of faith he means only all other after these he names presupposed and pre-believed But though I say Catholicks maintain several Credends that are not expressed in Scriptures necessary to be believed and observed by Christians after the Churches Proposal of them as Tradition Apostolical amongst which the Canon of Scripture Yet they willingly concede that all such points of faith as are simply necessary for attaining salvation and as ought explicitly by all men to be known in order thereto either raâ—ione medii or pracepti as the doctrines collected in the three Creeds the common Precepts of manners and of the more necessary Sacraments c. are contained in the Scriptures contained therein either in the Conclusion it self or in the principles from whence it is necessarily deduced ‖ Bellarmin de verbo Dei non scripto lib 4. cap. 11. Illa omnia scippta sunt ab Apostolis quae sunt omnibus simpliciter necessaria ad salutem Stapleton Relect Princip Doctrinae fidei Controver 5. q. 5. art 1 Doctrinam fidei ab omnibus fingulis explicitè credendam omnem aut ferè omnem scripto commendarunt Apostoli The main and substantial Points of our faith saith F. Fisher in Bishop White pag 12. are believed to be â—postolical because they are written in cripture S. Thom 22. q. 1. art 9. primus ad primum art 10. ad primum In Doctrina Christi Apostolorum he means câ—pâ—a weritas fidei est sufficienter explicata sed quia pervesi homines Scripturas peâ—vertunt ideo necessaria fuit temporibus proceâ—encibus explicatio fides contra insurgentes errores Therefore the Church from time to time defining any thing concerning such points defines it out of the Revelations made in Scripture And the chief Tradition the necessity and benefit of which is pretended by the Church is not the delivering of any additional doctrines descended from the Apostles times extra Scripturas i. e. such as have not their foundation at least in Scripture but is the preserving and delivering of the primitive sence and Church-explication of that which is written in the Scriptures but many times not there written so clearly which traditive sence of the Church you may find made use of against Arianisme in the first Council of Nice ‖ See Theod. Hist l. 1 c. 8. Or
as Dr. Field It is that forme of Christian doctrine and Explication of the several parts thereof ‖ Of the Ch. P. 375. which the first Christians receiving of the same Apostles that delivered to them the Scriptures commended to posterity Thus he This then being the Tradition that is chiefly vindicated by the Roman Church it is not the deficiency of Scripture as to all the main and prime and universally necessary-to-be-known Articles of faith as if there were any necessity that these be supplied and compleated with other not written traditional Doctrines of Faith that Catholicks do question but the non-clearness of Scriptures for several of these points such as that they may be miss-understood which non-câ—earness of them infers a necessity of making use of the Church's tradition for a true exposition and sence is the thing that they assert and wonder that after the appearance of so many grievous Heresies and should deny For as to the Scriptures containing all the chief and material Points of a Christian's belief what Article of Faith is there except that concerning the Canon of Scripture which Protestants also grant cannot be learnt out of Scripture and excepting those Practicals wherein the Church only requiring a Belief of the Lawfulness of them it is enough if they cannot be shewed to be against Scripture I say what Speculative Article of Faith is there for which Catholicks rest meerly on unwritten Tradition and do not for it alledge Scripture I mean even that Canon of Scripture which Protestants allow A thing observed also by Dr. Field ‖ l. 4. c. 20. but too much extended This is so clear saith he That there is no matter of Faith 't is granted no principal point thereof delivered by bare and only Tradition that therein the Romanists contrary themselves endeavouring to prove by Scripture the same things they pretend to hold by Tradition as we shall find if we run through the things questioned between them and us they contrary not themselves in their holding several things to be delivered clearly by Tradition which are also but obscurely or more evadably contained in the words of Scripture Again ‖ Ib. p. 377. So that for matters of Faith saith he we may conclude according to the judgment of the best and most learned of our Adversaries themselves that there is nothing to be believed which is not either expresly contained in Scripture or at least by necessary consequence from thence and by other things evident in the light of Nature or in the matter of Fact to be concluded Thus he I say then not this whether the main or if you will the entire body of the Christian Faith as to all points necessary by all to be explicitly believed be contained there but this whether so clearly that the unlearned using a right diligence cannot therein mistake or do not need therein another Guide is the thing here contested § 41 For a particular Reply then to what is here said To α 1st I ask if all Necessaries be clearly revealed R. to α and all necessary Controversies clearly decided in Scripture even to the unlearned how have Controversies in Necessaries as concerning the Trinity our Lord's Deity and Humanity c. in several Ages arose and gained many Followers Here will they say that such Controversies are not in Necessaries How then came the first General Councils extolled by Protestants to put them in the Creed or to exact Assent to them upon Anathema which Councils they affirm in non-necessaries fallible and in what they are fallible unjustly imposing Assent Or will they say that they are in Necessaries and that the unlearned may easily discern and decide them and that not by Tradition but only Scripture How happened it then that heretofore so many learned unlearned when forsaking the Church's guidance erred in them But if they say this hapned for want of a due diligence in the search of the Scriptures thus they leave men in great perplexity when the Scripture is plain and only obscure to them through their negligent search and so when the point perhaps may be necessary Thus an illiterate Christian not discerning from clear Scripture whether Sociniansme or Anti-Socinianisme be the Catholick Faith which he is very sollicitous to live and die in and consulting them concerning it they tell him there is no other director left him besides Scripture whose Judgment he may securely follow the judgment of the Church or Councils here being waved by them because this judgment allowed or authorized will infer the Belief of some other points which they approve not Only this satisfaction they seem to leave him that if neither side be clear to him in Scripture neither much matters it which side he holds for truth For God say they hath there clearly revealed all necessaries But he enquiring further whether they do not firmly believe Anti-Socinianism and also ground their Faith of this upon the Clearness of Scripture in it And then it appearing to them clear in Scripture how they know but that it may be a necessary truth and so his salvation ruined if he believe the contrary Here what they can answer that will not more perplex him I see not Since so long as he may possibly fail in a due diligence though only required according to his condition he cannot be satisfied whether the point to every due Searcher be not clear in Scripture and also be not a Necessary Nor yet will they allow him any other certain Director in it but the same Scripture which appears to him ambiguous Hear what Mr. Stillingfleet interposeth in this matter It seems reasonable saith he ‖ Ration account p. 58. that because Art and Subtilty may be used by such who seek to pervert the Catholick Doctrine and to wrest the plain places of Scripture which deliver it so far from their proper meaning that very few ordinary capacities may be able to clear themselves to such Mists as are cast before their eyes the sence of the Catholick Church in succeeding ages may be a very useful way But why not a necessary way I pray upon the former supposa for us to embrace the true sence of Scripture especially in the great Articles of the Christian Faith As for instance in the Doctrine of the Deity of Christ or the Trinity Therefore you see in the greatest Articles Scriptures confessed not so plain especially to the unlearned and ordinary capacities § 42 2 ly If all Necessaries so clearly revealed in Scripture may we not so much the more securely and certainly rely on the judgment of our Ecclesiastical Guides and Teachers in them to whom they must needs be as or more plain than to us especially on their Judgment when assembled in a General Council on it for these Necessaries at least It seems no and that the case is now altered Even now Necessaries were so plain in Scripture as the unlearned using ordinary diligence could not mistake in them Now Necessaries are
not so plain in Scripture but that a General Council as to the major part of them the highest Authority by which the Church Catholick can direct us at least if not in their sence universally accepted for this Exception is put in by the more moderate ‖ See Disc 1. §. 32. c. may mistake in them so far as that the unlearned have even for these Necessaries no security to rely on their judgment I must tell you saith Mr. Chillingworth to F. Knot ‖ p. 150. you are too bold in taking that which no man grants you that the Church is an infallible Director in Fundamentals or Necessaries Now this also he was considering his Engagement forced to say and gives the reason that made him say so I suppose for satisfying his own Party rather than his Adversary in the words following For saith he if she were so then must we not only learn Fundamentals of her but also learn of her what is fundamental and take all for fundamental which she delivers to be such And what harm in it say I if you did But this he well saw would have destroyed the Reformation which was contrary to the Doctrines which the publick Director that was then in being delivered But. if these Necessaries at the last are not so few or so plain in Scripture but that the judgment of the Church-Guides even when met in their supreamest Consults may err in them will he allow us then to follow some other's judgment that is in these points fallible If so why not to follow theirs still But if not so whose judgment will he direct us to that shall less err than these Guides or that shall certainly not err in the undrstanding of these plain Scriptures wherein these Guides mistake Methinks he should * forbear here to name to us our own Judgment even when we unlearned too and yet none else can he name And * much more forbear here to alledge Passion Faction Interest c as great Blinders of this publick judgment unless he could first shew the private not at all or less liable to them which corrupters of a clear understanding seem indeed more incident to persons of a lower rank and that have much relation to and dependance on others and therefore what more common than for avoiding those to make Appeals from inferior to a more general judgment as expecting in the most general the most impartial dealing And what private person can we produce thot doth not range himself with some party and that hath not in matters controverted a strong secular Interest for one side to be truth rather than the other according to the Church and State he lives in § 43 But 3ly As it is necessary that God some way or other do clearly reveal to all even the unlearned using their due Industry that which he requires necessarily to be believed by them so it is not consequent at all that God should do this as to every thing necessary in the Scriptures First Because God cannot be said to have been deficient in a competent revelation of Necessaries to all men if he hath left as indeed he hath sufficient evidence and clearness in the Scriptures that are first generally agreed on to be his Word to every man rightly using his private judgment or common reason as to one point only viz. this That it is his divine Will that private men for all those Scriptures the sence whereof is any way dubicus or controverted should constanâ—ly be guided by and adhere to the judgment of those spiritual Superiors that he hath set over them and in any division of these should still hold to the Superiors among these Superiors according to the Subordinations by him established amongst them For thus we see after a Christian's private judgment or common reason used only in one point for all other points private judgment is now discharged and in stead thereof obedience to Authority takes place so far as its stating of any point thinks fit to restrain therein other mens Liberty of Opinion The testimony of which Church-authority as a thing clearly demonstrated and ratified by the Scriptures S. Austin in more difficult matters of Controversie often appealed to See Disc 3. § 82. n. 4. Puto saith he si aliquis Sapiens extitisset cui Dominus Jesus Christus testimonium perhibet that we should be directed by his judgment de hac quaestione consuleretur à nobis nullo modo dubitare deberemus id facere quod ille dixisset ne non tam ipsi quam Domino Jesu Christo cujus testimonio commendatur repugnare judicaremur Perhibet autem testimonium Christus Ecclesiae suae And by this which is so often retorted by Protestants that Catholicks also are forced to allow to Christians the necessary use of their private Judgment will be verified only in this one point The Choice or the discerning of their Guide whereas the Protestants make it necessary for all Points and who sees not a vast difference between these two for the hazard which a Christian incurs therein 1 The being in all controverted matters of Religion and sence of Scriptures meerly cast upon his own reason and skill to steer himself aright therein And 2 The being left to it only in one matter and that one as Catholicks contend in the Scriptures very clear after which examined and judged by him all the rest wherein he may want a resolution are without his further solicitude to be judged for him by another So there is a great difference when a person falls sick between his being left to the use of his private judgment in making choice of a Physitian according to certain Rules prescribed unto him by a wise and experienced man in that behalf and then this once done submitting himself afterward to this Physitian in all things that he shall prescribe for his cure and between this sick person's undertaking by Hippocrates his Aphorisms or other Physick Books to prescribe all particular Remedies to himself upon this reasoning that if his private judgment serves for directing in the one making choice of a Physitian why not in all the other fit Medicines for his Disease Which Argument is only good where all the Objects about which our judgment is exercised are equally easie and clear to it And therefore unconsequently seems that Question to be asked ‖ Stillingf R. Ac. p. 7. If the Scripture may and must decide one Point that of the Church why may it not as well all the rest If the Scripture be not in all other Points equally clear and not-mistakable This then is one way of sufficient Revelation besides Mr Chillingworth's way I mean that of all necessary Truths being clearly revealed in Scripture viz. a sufficient Revelation of one point in Scripture concerning that Guide from whom we may securely learn all the other points not clear to us in Scripture § 44 2 ly Because God besides and before the New-Testament Scriptures left
these doctrines sufficiently revealed to the then-appointed Ecclesiastical Guides from whom both the present people and the future successors of these Guides both were and might rationally know they were to learn them and so had there bin no Scriptures might by meer Tradition have learned them sufficiently to this day for their Salvation This is a second way then of sufficient Revelation besides or without that in Scripture viz. All necessary Truth since the penning of the Scriptures only so manifested clearly to and so delivered clearly by the Church-Guides as they were manifested to them before Scripture 3ly Because as all the Christian Doctrines might before so the true meaning of some part of the same Scripture might after the writing allo of the New-Testament-Scriptures have bin clearly enough delivered by Tradition and by the first Scripture-Expositors to the Christian people that were then and so to Posterity though mean-while the Letter of such Scripture doth not so necessarily enforce this traditive sence as not to be possibly or somtimes probably capable of another This is a third way of sufficient Revelation viz. by the clear descending Tradition of the sence of those Scriptures which are in their Letter ambiguous § 45 But 4 ly Supposing it needful that all such Necessaries must be clearly revealed in the Letter of Scripture yet is this sufficient to save God's proceedings from tyranny if that they be with sufficient clearness revealed therein to the Church Guides alone and to the Learned that diligently read and compare the Scriptures together and use the helps of the comparings and comments of others and if that the illiterate people be remitted by God in all ages to learn these Necessaries from their Guides This is a fourth way of sufficient Revelation of Necessaries i. e. a revelation of them in Scripture such as must be clear to the Church-Guides in stead of that other revelation there of Mr. Chillingworth's such as must be clear to all To I answer §. 46. n. 1. that where the sence of the Scripture is ambiguous R. to β. and in Controversie which sence and not the Letter only is God's Word here their Guide to know this true sence of Scripture cannot be this by all allowed infallible Scripture which Protestants pretend but must be either the Church's judgment which they say is fallible or their own which all reasonable men I should think will say is more fallible To γ. See many of their Questions solved R. to γ. Disc 3. § 86. and concerning our understanding the sence of the Church's Definition better than the sence of Scriptures See below § 48. c. To δ. 1st It is not necessary §. 46. n. 2. R. to δ. that God should direct Christians in this matter by the Scriptures since they were sufficiently directed herein also before the Scriptures I mean before the writing of those of the New-Testament and since they might be sufficiently assured from those who were sent by our Lord to teach them Christianity in this point also that they were sent to teach them But 2ly It is maintained that God in the Scriptures hath done this §. 46. n. 3. and * hath told us ‖ Eph. 4.11 c. That he hath set these Guides in the Church for the edifying and perfecting thereof and for this in particular that the Church should not be tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of Doctrine with which Winds of contrary Doctrines the Subjects of the Church as Experience shews from age to age would have bin grievously shaken and dissipated but that these Governors from time to time by stating her Doctrines have preserved her Children from it And * hath told us again ‖ 2 Pet. 3.16 That the unlearned wrest some of the Scriptures that are plain it seems to the Learned in that these wresters are the unlearned to their own damnation therefore these are such Scriptures also as speak concerning Necessaries And * hath therefore given us a charge to obey these guides to whom is committed the Care of our Souls and to follow their faith ‖ Heb. 13.7 17. * And declared that he that heareth them heareth him ‖ Luke 10. add that he will be with them to the end of the world especicially when gaehered together ‖ Mat. 18.17 20. and would have the refractory to them excommunicated ‖ Mat. 18.17 And accordingly to this Warrant in Scripture and out of it in primitive Tradition the Church-Guides from age to age have met together setled the Churchches Doctrines exacted Conformity excommunicated Dissenters c Next to ε. Where they say That God foreseeing §. 47. n. 1. that Divisions would happen among these Guides R. to ε. would have told us in the Scriptures which in such case among the several Parties of them we ought always to follow and adhere to As that we should adhere to the Church of Rome to the Vicar of Christ to the most General Councils and in dissenting Votes to the Major part thereof c. To which purpose are those words of Mr. Chillingworth ‖ p. 61. If our Saviour the King of Heaven had intended that all Controversies in Religion should be by some visible Judge finally determined who can doubt but in plain terms he would have expressed himself about this matter He would have said plainly The Bishop of Rome I have appointed to decide all emergent Controversies For that our Saviour designed the Bishop of Rome I add or a General Counci to this Office and yet would not say so nor cause it to be written ad rei memoriam by any of the Evangelists or Apostles so much as once but leave it to be drawn out of uncertain Principles by 13 or 14. more uncertain Consequences He that can believe it let him And p. 104. He saith It would have been infinitely beneficial to the Church perhaps as much as all the rest of the Bible that in some Book of Scripture which was to be undoubtedly received this one Proposition had been set down in terms The Bishops of Rome with their Adherents shall always be the Guides of Faith c. And p. 171. he argues thus Seeing God doth nothing in vain and seeing it had been in vain to appoint a Judge of Controversies and not to tell us so plainly who it is and seeing lastly he hath not told us plainly no not at all who it is is it not evident he hath appointed none See the same thing urged by Mr. Stillingfleet Rat. Account p. 465. And see all this as it were translated only out of the Socinian Books before § 40. n. 1. To this 1st I answer §. 47. n. 2. That negative argning from Scripture 1. such as this a thing of so great concernment to all Christians if it were true would have bin clearly expressed in the Scripture but this is not found clearly expressed rherein therefore it is not true as
again he using the ordinary care of persons desiring instruction cannot but come to know its Councils and their definitions its doctrines and Laws which we find as the Leaders of all Sects do theirs so those of the Church Catholick are studious to divulge and publish so far as they are by him considering his condition necessary to be known and the profession or practice thereof required of him For Example In the Church of England who is there using the ordinary care necessary in matters of his salvation that first cannot easily discern this Church from the several other later and unheaded sects that are in this Kingdom and this Church known who may not easily attain therein to a knowledg also of its Articles of Religion and Canons its Synods or Convocations delivered by the common Tradition and by the Church-Guides and publick Writings daily inculcated so far as the understanding of them is to him necessary The same evidence therefore in these things must be allowed not to be wanting to those who have once found among the many Societies of Christians that Church which is their right Guide § 49 And litle reason have the reformed to affirm a necessity that all Necessaries should be made most evident even to the unlearned in the Scriptures if asserted on this account because such people have no means of attaining any certain knowledge of them from the Ministry of the Church And with litle reareason seem Mr. Stillingfleet and others to affirm which yet is used by many late Protestant-Writers as a main ground of evacuating the authority of the Church * that it is no easier a thing to know what the Church defines than what Scripture determines and That the same Arts that can evade the texts of Scripture will equally elude the Definitions of Councils Tillots Rule of saith p. 21. as if all writings were equally plain or equally obscure or if none free from therefore all equally liable to cavils Again * That the Argument of the willingness of all Protestants to submit their judgments to Scripture will hold as well or better for their unity as that of the readiness of all those of the Church of Rome to submit their judgments to the sence and determination of the Church will hold for their unity And this unity to be effected by the Scriptures he speaks of as to those matters wherein the sence of the same Scriptures is controverted amongst Christians for in such only it is that Christians for their unity seek to the decisions of the Church As if they undertook to defend this That a living Judge set up for the expounding of the dubious places of the Law to the sentence of which Judg all are agreed to assent yet is no more effective for ending controversies about the sense of the Laws and for uniting parties than the Laws themselves are without such Judge Mr. Stillingfleets words are ‖ p 101. Your great Argument for the unity of your party because whatever the private opinions of men are they are ready to submit their judgments to the censure and determination of the Church if it be good will hold as well or better for our unity as yours because all men are willing to submit their judgments to Scripture which is agreed on all sides to be infallible If you say that it cannot be known what Scripture determines but it may be easily what the Church defines It is easily answered that the event shews it to be far otherwise for how many disputes are there concerning the power of determining matters of faith c concluding thus so that upon the whole it appears setting aside force and fraud which are excellent principles of Christian unity we are upon as fair termes of union as you are among your selves Where doth he not say this in effect that the true Church being known and its authority granted infallible as that of the Roman Church is by its subjects Yet we can no more know what this Church defines suppose what the Church of Rome or of England defines concerning Transubstantiation St-Invocation Sacrifice of the Mass c. than what Scripture determines concerning these points and that Canons Catechisms c. authorized by a Church can no further clear any point to us than Scripture did formerly and that only the Church is so unfortunate in her publick interpretations of Scriptures that her Expositions are no plainer than the Texts and that only force or fraud unites her subjects in their opinions And if so what fault hath the Council of Trent made in its new definitions if after these it seems ‖ Stillingf p. 102. there is as much division and then liberty also of opinions as was before them Why do they accuse its decrees as plain enough but erroneous and not invalidate them rather as dubious and uncertain Why dispute they not whether these we have now extant be its genuine Acts Would it not be advantageous to the reformed to shew that this Council makes nothing against them In such unreasonable Contests hath Mr. Chillingworth by inventing many captious questions to weaken Church-authority engaged his followers As if though Catholicks allow several things in Councils obscurely delivered some proceedings in some things unjust the legality of some Councils disputed c yet there could not remain still enough clear and unquestionable both of Councils and their Canons both * to establish the most illiterate subjects of the Catholick Church in all such as is thought necessary faith whose obligation is not to believe all things defined but all things sufficiently proposed to them to be so and * to overthrow the past Reformation THE THIRD DISCOURSE CHAP. I. Roman-Catholicks and Protestants agreed 1. That the Scriptures are God's Word § 1. 2. That in these Scriptures agreed on it is clearly declared that the Church in no age shall err in Necessaries § 2. 3. That the Church-Catholick is contra-distinct to Heretical and Schismatical Churches § 4. 4. That Christ hath left in this Church Pastors and Teachers to keep it from being tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of Doctrine § 5. § 1 1st BOth Roman Catholicks and Protestants are agreed That there is sufficient certainty in the General Tradition of the Catholick Church descending to the present Age that the Bible or Holy Scriptures are the Word of God 2ly They are agreed That it is clearly declared in these Scriptures that the Catholick Church § 2 in no age shall err in Credends or Practicals necessary for obtaining Salvation From which Christians seem to be secured That in their approving § 3 and conforming to what is granted generally to be held by the Church-Catholick of any age whatsoever they shall incur no Error or Practice destructive of Salvation Whereas a hazard herein may be in their departing from the Doctrine or Practice of the Church-Catholick or of all the particular Churches of any age all or some of which must be the Catholick § 4 3ly
Promise that they shall not err or misguide the Churches subjects in Necessaries § 6 7 I mean Necessaries taken in the sence above explained 2 Disc § 9. And next because what or how much is to be accounted thus necessary the judgement of this belongs also to these Church-Governors not their subjects as is shewed before 2. Disc § 6 7. CHAP. III. R. Catholicks proceeding to affirm 11. That all persons dissenting from and opposing any known Definition of the Church in a matter of Faith are Hereticks § 16. 12. All persons separating on what pretence soever from the external Communion of the Church-Catholick Schismaticks § 20. But yet that difference of Opinions or Practices between co-ordinate Churches may be without Heresie or Schisme on any side where no obligation to these lying on both from their common Superiors or from the whole § 23. § 16 11ly TOuching the two great Crimes of Heresie and Schisme dividing such persons or Churches as are guilty thereof from the Catholick Church and Communion See before Prop. 3. § 4. 1st For Heresie the Catholicks affirm That any particular Person or Church that maintains or holds the contrary to any to him made-known Definition passed in a matter of faith of any lawful General Council i. e. of those Councils that are accepted by the Church-Catholick in the sence mentioned before ‖ See §. 12. as such is Heretical Not medling here whether some others also besides these for the opposing some Doctrines clearly contained in Scripture or generally received by the Church and such as are by all explicitly to be belived may be called so 2ly They affirm That those may become Hereticks in holding an error in the faith after the Churches Definition of such a Point who were not so before § 17 Where The Reason why the certain judgement of Heresie is made not from the testimony of Scripture but of the Church and why all holding of the contrary to such definition known is pronounced Heresie though sometimes the same error before it was not so is because no Error in Faith can be judged Heresie but where there appears some Obstinacy and Contumacy joyned thereto Neither can such Obstinacy and Contumacy appear especially as to some Points of Faith from the Scriptures because the sence of Scripture as to some matter of Faith may be as to some persons ambiguous and not clear But the sence of the Church or her General Councils which is appointed by God the Supreme Expositor and Interpreter of the sence of the Scriptures that are any way doubtful and disputed is so clear as that any rational or disinteressed person to whom it and the authority delivering it and the divine assistance of that authority are proposed according to the evidence producible for them can neither deny her just authority over him nor her veracity and her Exposition of Scripture clearly against him who yet cannot see or at least hath not the same cogent evidence to acknowledge the Scripture in such point to be so and so such person will thenceforth become in this sence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and self-convinced and if others happen by their contracted fault not to be so their guilt in general at least is not lessened but aggravated thereby Tit. 3.10 Therefore the Apostle writes to Bishop Titus that after a second Admonition he should reject a man Heretical or still adhering to his own Opinion knowing that such a one sinneth being self-condemned viz. that he disobeyeth the doctrine of the Church concerning which Church he either hath or might have sufficient evidence that he ought to believe Her And our Lord commands that he who in matters controverted refuseth to hear the Church should be withdrawn from by the Christian as a Heathen or Publican was by the Jew Thus it seems by these Texts is Heresie known and Hereticks to be rejected § 18 And the Fathers also are frequent in declaring those to be Hereticks who after the Church Definition continue to retain an opinion contrary thereto whereas themselves or others in holding the same Opinion before such Definition were not so Thus St. Austin ‖ De Civ Dei l. 18. c. 51. Qui in Ecclesiâ Christi morbidum aliquid pravumque sapiunt si correpti i by the Church ut sanum rectumque sapiant resistunt contumaciter suaque mortifera pestifera dogmata emendare nolunt sed defensare persistunt haeretici fiunt It seems one holding dogma pestiferum mortiferum before the Churches corrâ—ption may be no Heretick who yet is so after it And elsewhere of the Donatists he saith ‖ De Haeresibus Post causam cum eo Caeciliano dictam atque finitam falsitatis rei deprehensi pertinaci dissentione firmatâ in haeresim schisma verterunt tanquam Ecclesia Christi propter crimina Caeciliani detoto terrarum orbe perierit Audent etiam rebaptizare Catholicos ubi se amplius Haereticos esse firmarunt cum Ecclesiae Catholicae universae placuerit nec in ipsis haereticis baptisma commune rescindere Where observe that they are charged by this Father for Heresie which Hereticalness of theirs Protestants would fain divert to other matters in the point of rebaptization and that because this point now setled by the Church And so Vincent Lirinen ‖ c. 11. O rerum mira conversio Auctores ejusdem opinionis Catholici consectatores vero haeretici judicantur absolvuntur magistri condemnantur discipuli c. the wonder here is that in holding the self same opinion the one are not Hereticks the other are i. e. after a General Council had condemned the Tenent Again St. Austin ‖ D. Haeresibus gives Quod-vult-Deus for avoiding Heresies this General Rule Scire sufficit Ecclesiam contra aliquid sentire ut illud non recipiamus in fidem It seems this was a Principle with the Father Nihil recipiendum in fidem or credendam contra quod sentit Ecclesia And we know what follows Credendum quod sentit Where the contraries are immediate sublato uno ponitur alterum But this latter also is expresly said by him ‖ Epist 118. Si quid horum per orbem frequentat Ecclesia hoc quin ita faciendum sit disputare insolentissimae insaniae est This concerning doing and then it holds also for believing the Church's Faith being if either more sure than her practise But for believing too he saith ‖ De Bapt. l. 1. c. 18. Restat ut hoc credamus quod universa Ecclesia a Sacrilegio schismatis remota custodit And Quod in hac re sentiendum est plenioris Concilii sententiâ totius Ecclesiae consensio confirmat Therefore after the Churches definition he saith One in holding the contrary then first becomes an Heretick when he knows or by his fault is ignorant that the Church hath defined it See de Baptism contra Donat. l. 4. c. 16. Constituamus ergo saith he duos aliquos isto modo unum eorum
is so great and considerable as to invalidate the ratification of the rest when not Nor see I how it can be reasonably defided yet a thing of greatest consequence unless herein the minor will be content to follow the judgment of the much major part concerning what Councils stand thus admitted or rejected which rule were it observed then both in a valid acceptance of the Councils held in the Western Church in latter ages Protestants will be cast and by the determinations of those Councils several of their Disputes ended Mean while upon these and other pretences so it is that of 16. Councils or thereabouts reckoned up by the Cardinal ‖ De Council l. 1. c 5. whose Decrees all the Western Churches wherein several of these Councils the most General that those times could afford were called for ending of some Controversies that both a rose in and troubled only the West of 16. Councils I say which the Western Parts generally accepted when Luther appeared and which all the rest of the Western Churches except these Reformers continue still to approve they allow none of them that have handled matters of Controversie wherein the present times are concerned after the four first or the 5 th and 6 th but then cutting off here the Canons made in Trullo even those wherein both East and West consented and so do allow none of any note that have been held in the Church for near this 1000 years there being none of the more famous of them and the acts whereof are exstant wherein something hath not been passed that is contrary to the present Protestant Tenents ‖ See 1 Disc §. 50. n. 2. § 38 9ly To the Decrees of these General Council also when universally acknowledged such which yet when so they say may err in non necessaries they grant indeed an obedience due by all Inferiors Persons or Churches And consequently to those Decrees in which they hold such Councils unerrable i. e. in necessaries if all these necessaries were certainly distinguishable from all other points that are not so they must allow due an obedience of assent § 39 But 10ly They allow not absolutely This obedience of assent to their decrees ‖ Stillingf p. 506. but onely where inferiors see just cause of dissenting as sometimes they say they may since all these Councils are liable to error in non-fundamentals which also it is not known how far they do extend that of silence and non-publick contradiction § 40 The Church of England indeed professeth her Assent to the Definitions of the first four General Councils and Mr. Stillingfleet I know not on what Protestant ground saith ‖ P. 375. It is her duty to keep their Decrees and be guided by the sence of Scripture as interpreted by them But you may observe that this assent is not yeilded to those Councils because lawfully general and so presumed to be assisted by our Lord in the right defining and delivery of all necessary Faith for they say lawful General Councils not universally accepted in their sence may err in Fundamentals and those Councils that are universally accepted may err in Non-fundamentals but because the matter defined by them the Church of England being for Her self judge hereof ought to be assented to as being agreeable to the Scriptures and the Assent * is not yeilded for the Authority defining as infallibly assisted in necessaries but for the seeming evidence of the thing defined or at least for the non-appearing evidence of the contrary * is not yeilded because that particular persons or Churches are to take that for the true sence of Scripture which these Councils may possibly give of it but because those Councils gave in their Definitions that sence of Scripture which such particular Persons or Churches judge the true so that the reason which they give for their Assent to these General Councils obligeth as much their Assent to them had they been Provincial And upon the same terms as one person or Church assents to these Councils because they judge their Decrees consonant to Gods Word another without withdrawing any due obedience may dissent who judgeth the contrary and the authority or decision laies on Christians no ground of obligation as to belief save the reasonableness or non-appearing unreasonableness of the Councils Doctrines and submission of judgement is held not lawfully yeilded by any to whom the contrary seems evident and by all others is to be only conditional viz. until the contrary shall appear evident To this purpose §. 41. n. 1. see the 21 Article of the Church of England General Councils may err wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation have neither strength nor authority unless it may be declared that they were taken out of holy Scripture See the Act of Parliament 1 Elizabethae c. 1. wherein the determing or adjudging any thing Heresie by any Council is thus limited If in such Council the same is declared Heresie by the express and plain words of the Canonical Scriptures The words are Provided that such persons c. shall not have authority to determine any matters to be Heresie but only such as heretofore have been determined ordered or adjudged to be Heresie by the authority of the Canonical Scriptures or by the first four General Councils or any of them or by any other General Councils wherein the same was declared Heresie by the Express and plain words of the said Canonical Scriptures And see in Soave p. 344. 366. the exceptions taken by Protestants at the safe-conduct of the Council of Trent for not adding to the authority of Councils and Fathers fundantesse veraciter in Scriptura as it run formerly in the safe-conduct of Basil That the Councils Fathers c. conformable to the Scripture should be Judges by which means the Protestants reserved this retreat when Councils appeared against them that yet they were not obliged by them because these Councils went also against the Scriptures See Dr. Fern Consid p. 19. To all the determinations of the Church we owe submission by Assent and belief conditional with reservation for evidence out of Gods Word and In matters of Faith saith he we cannot submit to any company of men by resignation of our judgement and belief or standing bound to receive for faith and worship all that they shall define and impose for such for such resignation gives to man what is due to God See Arch-bishop Laud p. 245. General Councils lawfully called c. cannot err keeping themselves to Gods Rule And p. 239. In all truth necessary to Salvation saith he I shall easily grant a General Council cannot err if suffering it self to be led by the Spirit of Truth in the Scripture and not taking upon it to lead both the Scripture and the Spirit See Dr. Field p. 666. It is not necessary for us expresly to believe whatsoever the Council hath concluded though it be true unless by some other means it appear unto us
to be true and we be convinced of it in some other sort than by the bare determination of the Council only But it sufficeth that we be ready expresly to believe it if it shall be made to appear unto us See Dr. Hammond of Heresie p. 96. ' It is hence manifest also what is the ground of that reverence that is by all sober Christians deemed due and paid to the first four General Councils Because 1st They set down and convinced the Truth of their Doctrine out of the Scripture 2ly Because they were so near the Apostles times when the sence of the Apostles might more easily be fetched from those Men and Churches to whom they had committed it Thus he though besides that the first of these Councils was almost at 300. years distance the reason of obedience to Church Governors given by Doctor Hammond elsewhere ‖ Of Fundamentals p. 903. viz. ' Because Christ speaks to us in those Governors as his immediate successors in the Prophetick Pastoral Episcopal office infers that the Churches authority in all ages is equally valid and so voids this reason He goes on 3dly Because the great Fundamental Doctrines of Christianity were the matter of their definitions yet he saith see Disc 1. § 6. that General Councils are no infallible Guide in Fundamentals and ‖ Of Heresy p. 115. that it is the matter of the Decrees and the Apostolicalness of them and the force of the testification whereby they are approved and acknowledged to be such which gives the authority to the Council and nothing else is sufficient where that is not to be found See Mr. Chillingw p. 118. Dr. Potter §. 41. n. 2. together with the Article of the Church of England attributeth to the Church nay to particular Churches and I subscribe to his opinion an authority of determining Controversies of faith according to plain and evident Scripture and universal Tradition and infallibility whilst they proceed according to this Rule And p. 200. The Fathers of the Church saith he in after-times i. e. after the Apostles might have just cause to declare their judgment touching the sence of some General Article of the Creed but to oblige others to receive their Declarations under pain of damnation what warrant they had I know not He that can shew either that the Church of all Ages was to have this authority or that it continued in the Church for some Ages and then expired He that can shew either of these things let him for my part I cannot Yet I willingly confess the judgement of a Council though not infallible is yet so far directive and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to afford it an outward submission for publick peace sake See Mr. Whitby p. 92. We do appeal to the four first General Councils not because we believe them infallible but because we conceive them to agree with Scripture which is infallible so that we make them secondary not primary Guides we resolve not our belief of their decrees into their authority but into their agreement with Scripture we do not say we must believe this or that because any one of the first four General Councils hath defined it but because what the Council hath defined is evident in Scripture therefore do we believe it And if we should finde that in any Article they dissented from Scripture we should in that as much oppose them as we do you and p. 451. I answer with Dr Taylor that either these Councils are tyed to the Rule of Gods Word or not if the first then are they to be examined by it and to be followed no further than they adhere to this vnerring rule examined He means by those persons whom yet these Councils are to teach the sence of Scripture and p. 15. We generally acknowledge that no authority on earth obligeth to internal Assent This the firm ground i. e. his own judgement what Conciliary Decrees agree or disagree with Scripture that this young man builds on for the confuting of Mr. Cressies book See Mr. Stillingfleet p. 58. 59 133 154 252. and 375.517 compared There he saith on one side p. 375. That the Church of England looks on it as her duty to keep to the Decrees of the four General Councils And We profess saith he to be guided by the sence of Scripture as interpreted by the unanimous consent of the Fathers and the four first General Councils And p. 56. he saith That the Church of England admits not any thing to be delivered as the sence of Scripture which is contrary to the consent of the Catholick Church in the four first ages Here he seems to acknowledge a submission of Protestants to the consent of the Catholick Church in the four first ages and to the four first General Councils as their Guide for what is the sence of Scripture which seems to me no way to consist with a profession of submitting to the same Church or her Councils only when or as far as they agree in their Decrees with the sence of Scripture which last implies that I learn the sence of Scripture not from them but another and assent to them where they conform to that judgement of which I learn it Ibid He hath these two Propositions 2 That it is a sufficient prescription against any thing that can be alledged out of Scripture that it ought not to be looked on as the true meaning of the Scripture if it appears contrary to the sence of the Catholick Church from the beginning And this 2 That such Doctrines may well be judged destructive to the Rule of Faith which were so unanimously condemned by the Catholick Church within that time Where he allows not Christians to try and so assent to or dissent from the Decrees of Councils by what appears to them the sence of Scripture but refers them to learn the sence of Scripture from the Decrees of these first Councils But yet on the other side he contends how consistently I leave to the Readers judgement That the sence of the Catholick Church is not pretended to be any infallible Rule of interpreting Scripture in all things which concern the Rule of Faith And p. 17. concerning the necessity of believing the Articles of the Athanasian Creed he saith It is very unreasonable to imagine that the Chcurch of England doth own that necessity purely on the account of the Church's Definition of those things therein which are not Fundamental it being Directly contrary to her sence in her 19th and 20th Articles And that hence the supposed necessity of the belief of the Articles of this Creed must acccording to the sence of the Church of England be resolved either into the necessity of the matters or into that necessity which supposeth clear convictions that the things therein contained are of Divine Revelation And p. 133. He describes the Catholick Church a society of such persons who all
firmly believe that Doctrine infallible which Christ delivered but yet judge themselves all fallible and dare not usurp that royal prerogative of Heaven in prescribing infallibly in matters questioned but leave all men to judge according to the Pandects of the divine Laws because each member of this Society is bound to take care of his soul and of all things that tend thereto Thus he And generally Protestants hold that the Church-Catholick diffusive of all ages and therefore the Catholick Church of the four first and therefore also the General Councils of the four first ages though universally accepted may err in non necessaries which is as much as to say may give a wrong sence of Scripture in them notwithstanding that the Church of England obligeth Her self to the sence of this ancient Church and this also whilst she doth not know the necessaries from the other points that are not so and so neither knoweth in what this ancient Church is not liable to errour § 42 From these Quotations I think it appears that whatever fair professions are made yet no Assent is given by them to the first four Councils on this account that they could not err in their Definitions Nor yet because they are their Soveraign Judge from whose sentence they may not dissent if they be perswaded that it is repugnant to the Scriptures And yet of this repugnancy how they should come to any certain knowledge I see no means Certain I grant they may be that the Scriptures are the Word of God and again certain of that which the Scripture delivers where the sence thereof is by all pronounced clear and not ambiguous But then In a matter where Scripture by several and these in great numbers and on both sides learned is taken in a several sence and the true sence thereof is the thing in question as it is granted by Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ P. 58. to have been even in some of the greatest Articles of the Christian Faith and yet further ‖ See Stillingf p. 59. where it seems the Scripture may be so doubtful that the sence of the Catholick Church or its lawful General Councils they say ‖ Ib. can be to them no certain or infallible Interpreter of it and lastly where the judgment or common Reason of a lawful General Council thinks it self so certain of the contrary as to anathematize dissenters On what grounds here any particular Person or Church can assure themselves of their own sence of Scripture to be the true they having left that of the Church's Councils and of a major part of Christianity who also judge their sence false I understand not Surely they will not say they have this certainty from the Scripture because the true sence thereof is the thing so mainly questioned the certainty or infallibility of the traditive sence of the Church they renounce and then which only is left their own judgement or their own which I see not how they rightly call common Reason when that of a General Council or major part of Christianity differs from it one would think should be a more fallible ground to them than the judgment or common Reason of the Church This of the Obedience of Assent denied and that of silence or non-contradiction only allowed by them to the Definitions of Councils § 43 But 11ly This obedience also of silence and non contradiction they allow not 1 as due to be yeilded absolutely to all Decrees of such Councils For if they would but stand to this the Church's peace were kept safe enough for so there could never be any reformation or publick teaching of the contrary of such Decrees as are once concluded by a General Council but by a following General Council 2 Nor yet as due to be yeilded to all Decrees of such Councils that do not err manifestly against some Fundamental verity The Arch-bishop ‖ P. 226. said this once repeated by Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ P. 534. in these words When private men know it if the errour of a lawful General Council be not manifestly against Fundamental verity in which case a General Council cannot easily err I would have A.C. and all wise men consider whether external obedience be not then to be yeilded For if Controversies arise in the Church some end they must have or they will tear all asunder This he said once but did not hold constant to it for after in the same Section ‖ P. 227. he saith Vnless it err manifestly and intollerably and if the errour be neither Fundamental then he adds nor in it self manifest it is safer to agree c. For were non-contradiction thus far yeilded seeing that neither the Catholick Church before Luther nor her Councils have been held to have erred manifestly against any Fundamental verity for so it would have lost the very essence of a Church therefore all her subjects whatever would have stood obliged to her and to her Councils in the external obedience of silence at least and thus her peace been always secure and undisturbed But only this silence to be yeilded to such Decrees wherein the errour of the Council is not manifest or intolerable Or as Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ Still p. 560. expresseth it where the errour is not such as overweighs the peace of the Church Now they affirm that many errours that are not in Fundamentals or necessaries strictly taken may be such For the Catholick or if you will the Roman Church that was immediately before Luther they hold erred not in Fundamentals and yet they made a Reformation from it as mean while erring many errors manifest and intolerable and they see it necessary to add these manifest errors to the other Fundamental errors so to justifie the Protestant's former proceeding § 44 But here again if a contradiction and breach of external obedience or of silence in respect of such imagined manifest and intolerable errors were only allowed so far as to the making a peaceable complaint and representation thereof to their Ecclesiastical Superiors in present Being for the assembling of another Council of equal authority to reverse it which is also mentioned by the Archbishop ‖ P. 227. and Mr. Stillingfleet †537. and then that if these Superiors see no force in their Reasons these Plaintiffs should here acquiesce and return to their obedience of silence thus also the peace of the Church would be still continued And this seems still the more equitable because the Protestant Writers ‖ A p. Lawd p. 245. Hooker prefat p. 29. For preventing the exorbitances as they say and capricious humours of fantastical Spirits †Still p. 540. and for the shutting out the whirl-winds of private Spirits from ruffling the Church ‖ A p Lawd p. 245. do oblige those who thus break silence to bring demonstration against such errours and then for the shutting out pretended demonstrations also of which the world is full define this demonstration to
even in necessaries if it be not universally accepted or in non-necessaries though it be so it followes that such errours may be by private men discovered and new evidences out of the Scripture or new demonstration may appear against them and so upon the former terms must be admitted a new complaint and a new appeal to another future Council For such resting of a former person in the conclusion of the Council after his evidences heard and disallowed inferrs not an acquiescence of all other persons whatever or yet of the same person whenever any other evidence or demonstration may appear to them either against any other Definition of that Council or even against that which others upon mistaken grounds questioned causlesly for why may not one bring a true evidence or demonstration against a point and so ought to be heard after that another or the same person hath brought a false and so is silenced Thus is the freeing men from the Laws of their Superiors like the breaking out of waters by no device afterward to be stopped where or when we please So many evidences and demonstrations against a corporeal Presence being long ago presented to several Councils rejected as false yet still new ones or indeed the same are pretended to keep the controversie on foot and bring it to another trial where the Judge may be better informed § 48 After the Arch-bishop Mr. Stillingfleet speaks to the same matter on this manner If you ask saith he ‖ p. 539. how it should be known when errors are manifest and intolerable and when not We here appeal to Scripture interpreted by the concurrent sence of the Primitive Church the common reason of mankind supposing the Scripture to be the Rule of Faith the consent of wise and learned men which certainly will prevent the exorbitances and capricious humours of fantastical spirits which may cry out That the most received Truths ever since Christianity was in the world are intolerable errors If you are resolved farther to ask Who shall be judge what necessary reason or demonstration is His Lordship tells you I think plain enough from Hooker what is understood by it viz. such as being proposed to any man and understood the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent unto it And do you require any other Judge but a mans own judgement and reason in this case But you say Others call their Arguments Demonstrations But let them submit to this way of tryal and they may soon be convinced that they are not Still you say They will not be convinced but will break the peace of the Church supposing they have sufficient evidence for what they do But if men will be unreasonble who can help it Thus Mr. Stillingfleet I have set the place down at large that you may better consider what it amounts to Here then you see he restrains this particular person's or Church's judgment of the intolerableness of such Councils error so That this judgment be guided or made 1 According to the interpretation of Scripture by the concurrent sence of the Primitive Church 2 According to the common Reason of mankind supposing Scripture the rule of Faith 3 According to the consent of Wise and learned men But first methinks it is a very presumptuous thing for Inferiors to judge by any of these three ways against a General Council As if for the first these Councils did not Guide themselves by the concurrent sence of the Primitive Churches several of which Councils are reprehended by Protestants for joyning Church-Tradition with Scripture it self as a Rule of their Proceeding And again as if the concurrent sence of the Primitive Church did either for what is found to be generally held by it or what is found not to be so condemned by it according to the Protestants or Mr. Stillingfleet's Principles certainly clear any thing from being an intolerable error when as they hold such concurrent sence may err in Non-fundamentals and again hold that amongst these not Fundamentals may be intolerable-errors See before § 25. Next as if for the 2 d. General Councils did not use the same common Reason of mankind and the same Rule of Faith as a private man doth for discerning errors Or as if he by his common Reason Paramount could discern where their common Reason mistakes and that manifestly and intolerably Or as if for the 3 d. in these Councils were not a consent of wise and learned men Or he knew other men more learned than they or knew learned men better than they § 49 But to let these things pass Yet since the exorbitant and capricious humours of some phantastical men may pretend any of these Antiquity common Reason of Mankind grounded on Scripture or the Learned on his side against a General Council most falsely and sillily of which who seeth not many Examples Therefore here it will not be enough for any to say this but they are in all reason to shew some Evidence or Demonstration that these 3. or any of them are for them And then the same Question returns again on Mr. Stillingfleet who shall judge of this pretended Evidence or Demonstration of theirs And he both takes notice of it here and answers it if I understand Him aright thus That that man 's own Reason that pretends them is also to be judge of them For if a Demonstration be such as being proposed to any man and understood the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent to it then his mind also that proposeth it is thus convinced by it and so knows it to be a Demonstration And Do you require saith he any other Judge but a Man 's own Judgment and Reason in this case But such collection is very faulty Because if it be true that Demonstrations such as can be made in Divine matters do always convince the mind or effect its full assent Yet it is not so that Demonstrations only do this but so also do many other false though specious Arguments I mean so convince the mind of some as to produce a full assent free from doubting though not from erring But to warrant any thing a right Demonstration according to the former Definition of it not one but all mens Reasons that hear it must assent to it and then amongst these the reason also of our Superiors and then any one mans reason as to a Demonstration is sufficiently disproved whenever all other reasonable men to whom it is related judge not the same with him But if some mens reason when at any time opposing the more common may be pretended a sufficient judge of Demonstrations Then we stick still at our former Question How will this prevent the exorbitances and capricious humours of phantastical Spirits And how will not some break the peace of the Church still supposing that they have sufficient evidence for what they say when they have not Therefore after many windings his utmost answer is If men will be unreasonable who can help it And so Mr.
time and 3 persons Yet 1 doth he so expound this universal Testimony ‖ See ib. n. 2.8.10 as to signifie only the consent of the most in most places in all or most times For else saith he †§. 5. n. 2. there would be no Hereticks at any time in the World Viz. If those only should be held such necessary Articles of our saith which all none excepted in all times do hold And again 2 he makes use of the Churches Councils for convincing Heresies against this faith Viz. of the four 1st General Councils saying That all the parts of this faith are compleatly comprehended in the Scriptures as explained by the Writers of the three first ages and definitions of the â—our first Councils so that in sum he who imbraceth all the Traditional Doctrines proposed by them embraceth all the necessary faith thus universally delivered which cannot come to the fifth age c. but through the fourth and third and so can be no Heretick See 7. § 6 7 8. n. His words there n. 7. are Of the Scriptures of the Creed and of those four Councils as the Repositories of all true Apostolical Tradition I suppose it very regular to affirm that the intire Body of the Catholick Faith is to be established and all Heresies convinced or else that there is no just reason that any Doctrine should be condemned as such And see what is cited out of him concerning these Councils before § 19. and of Heresie § 14. n. 10. But here since he admits Councils for convincing Heresie why rests he in the four first and why admits he not all Councils in whatever age that are of equal authority for the same discovery since many new errors against tradicive Faith may arise after the four first and the Church's later Councils accordingly may testifie and declare the same Faith as occasions are administred against them If it be said that what is traditive in any latter age wherein some later Council is held was so in the third or fourth and so all Heresie is sufficiently convinced by those ages then so were the Definitions of the four first Councils traditive in the first second or third age And therefore what need hath Dr. Hammond to add for conviction of Heresie these four first Councils which were held after the three first Centuries The sum is For convincing Heresie either the testification of all lawful General Councils is authentical or not that of the four first But if the Doctor allow all lawful General Councils to be so as something seems said by him to this purpose Here 's § 14. n. 1.2 Catholicks are at accord with him herein concerning the Nature and Trial of Heresie and the dispute only remains whether any of those Councils that have heretofore defined or testified any such Point of Faith traditive which is opposed by Protestants be such a lawful General Council Concerning which see in 1 Disc § 36. n. 3. c. § 50. n. 2. § 57. c. Thus Dr. Hammond restraining conviction of all Heresie within the time of the first Councils But Bishop Branhall ‖ In Reply to Bp. Chalced. c. 2. p. 102. seems to be yet more free I acknowledge saith he that a General Council may make that revealed Truth necessary to be believed by a Christian as a point of Faith which formerly was not necessary to be believed that is whensoever the Reasons and grounds produced by the Council or the authority of the Council which is and always ought to be very great with all sober discreet Christians do convince a man in his conscience of the truth of the Council's definition And in vindication of the Church of England p. 26. When inferiour Questions not Fundamental are once defined by a lawful General Council all Christians though they cannot assent in their judgements are obliged to passive obedience to possess their souls in Patience And they who shall oppose the authority and disturbe the peace of the Church deserve to be punished as Hereticks Here though the Bishop makes not the opposers of the Councills definition for the reason of opposing it Hereticks because he holds that no error but that which some way overthrowes a fundamental Truth can be Heretical and though in his holding that Councils may not prescribe what things are fundamental nor oblige any to assent to their judgment in what they do define further than their reasons convince them He as the rest leaves Hereticks undiscoverable yet he grants that all are to submit for non-contradiction to the determinations of L. G. Councils even in all inferiour points not fundamental and that the opposers deserve to be punished as Hereticks which if observed by Protestants would sufficiently keep the Churches peace and then concerning the past definitions of such Councils see what is argued with him in 1 Disc § 36. n. 3. c. This for Heresie § 55 12ly For Schism Neither do they enlarge it so far as Catholicks That any separation upon what cause soever from the external Communion of all particular former Churches or of our lawful Ecclesiastical Superiors or of the whole Church Catholick is schism but restrain it to a separation culpable or causless ‖ Chillingw p. 271. holding that some separation from them may not be so § 56 But they leave us here again in uncertainty between these Superiors and Inferiors which of them shall judge when such separation is causeless when otherwise and so uncertain of Schism or also they affirm that the Inferiors are to judge when their Superiors require unjust things as conditions of their Communion and so when a separation from them is lawful or culpable Of which thus Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ p. 292. Nothing can be more unreasonable than that the society imposing certain conditions of Communion should be judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no And the same thing may thus be produced from other Protestant-Tenents For they hold that the whole Church is infallible only in absolute Necessaries or Fundamentals errable in other matters of faith that its Governors collected in their supâ—emest Councils may also enjoyne such errors as conditions of their Communion that these errors at least some of them may be certainly and demonstratively discernable by Inferiors and these complained of and not amended by Superiors that they may lawfully separate in the sence explained before § 20. from such Communion wherein these are imposed Here therefore inferiors judge when the separation is just when causless and upon this account surely no separation will ever be I do not say Schism but discovered to be Schism if the separatist is to Judge when it is so But if the Superiors are to Judge when a separation from them and from their definitions imposed is culpable or causeless it will either be always judged such which is the Catholicks Doctrine or such a granted-just cause will be removed by these Superiours and so there will be no
Church we believe in our Creed 2 ly Since both these Eastern and Western required the very same conditions of Communion as they do now before Luthers dayes it followes that then they were also no less than now Schismaticall and so falne from Catholick for this that all people that are their Subjects conform to such conditions or some not conform alters not their guilt who then imposed such things or if it do it seems then the greater when all do conform and are misled by them and upon this again it followes that there was then the Protestant Church not yet born no Catholick Church at all contrary to the Articles of our Creed the whole being involved in Schisme if all then conformed Of which conformity the Arch-bishop saith ‖ p. 296.297 and Mr. Stillingfleet the same ‖ p. 618 That he that believes as that Church believed speaking of the Roman and so may all those be presumed to believe that live in the Roman Church with a resolution to live and die in it is guilty more or less of the Schisme which that Church first caused by her corruptions and now continues by them and her power together and of all other damnable opinions too in point of misbelief and of all other sins also which the doctrine and misbelief of that Church leads him into And afterward That he who lives in a Shismatical Church and communicates with it in the Schisme and in all the Superstitions and Corruptions which that Church teacheth nay lives and dyes in them if he be of capacity enough and understand it he must needs be a formal Schismatick or an involved one if he understand it not Thus he Or if some then did not conforme to what these Guides required yet it followes at least that there were then no known Ecclesiasticall Governours and leaders no Bishops in or of that Church Catholick that then was for we know of none such that in the age before Luther opposed such a conformity and that it was made up of Laicks and Inferiours i. e. made up only of some Sheep that were departed and strangled from their sheepheards or rather the sheepheards from them absurdities that need be no further aggravated But 2 ly to what is said It is answered 1. That neither can the supreme Guides of the Church Catholick in an approved Council at any time require unjust conditions of their Communion of which see before § 21. §. 63. n. 2. And what St. Austin ‖ Epist 118. saith of general Church practices is as or more true of her doctrines Si quid horum per orbem frequent at or cred it Ecclesia hoc quin it a faciendum or credendum sit disputare insolentissimae insaniae est 2. Nor though this should be granted and also that they excommunicate those that refuse to conforme can they thereby become guilty of Schism For 1 Schisme I mean such as separates and divides from the Catholick Church can never be of a much major and more dignified part in respect of a less and Inferiour subject to it i. e. the main body be a Schismatick from some single member thereof for this main body in any division is rightly taken for that whole see 2 d. Disc § 25. from which a separation is Schisme and to which every member ought to adhere as to the body and the head here upon earth to which it belongs The sin of Schisme I say is of a member departing from the Body not of the Body separating from a member or separating a member from it to which each member ought to conforme otherwise a division in the Church indeed may be seen but on what side the crime of Schisme is cannot by any certain Index of it be known And St. Austin's ‖ De unitat Ecclae c. 4. mark of Schismaticks Quorum communio non est cum toto sed in aliquâ parte separatâ will be fallacious and nothing worth Meanewhile it is not here denyed that the dividing of one or several Superiours from an Inferiour part if it be for any thing wherein such part not they doth agree with the whole may be Schisme but then that which makes this Schisme is the departure of such Superiours from their Superiours or from the whole with which this part coheres and when any Superiour makes any such division from his Subjects he is no longer their lawfull Suâ—eriour but that larger body and those Superiours of his to which his Subjects are joyned and from which he divided 2 Again since Schisme is alwaies a relinquishing of and departure from the external and visible Communion of the Church these Governours cannot be said to depart from that Communion which they still retaine in the same manner as formerly and which is the only visible Communion of the Church at the time of such excommunication External members of the Church therefore they still remaine and so no Schismaticks though all the same persons or many of them by some other mortall sin may be at the same time no internal members of it 3. And as they cannot be rightly called Schismaticks or persons divided from the Church-Catholick §. 63. n. 3. So neither can such Superiours by imposing some error on mens belief or by inflicting an unjust Excommunication be therefore said to be the cause of a Schism or an actual separation in others as they are often charged ‖ Ap. Laud P. 133.142 unless to be excommunicated be such for the Church concurs to no other separation If any so Excommunicated doth not quietly submit thereto and acquiesce therein with patience but proceed so much further as to set up or joyn himself with a Communion diverse from that of the former Church which he is expelled from or presumeth to exercise out of the Church those Ecclesiastical Functions which she hath though wrongfully suspended here indeed begins a faulty separation and a Schisme but by the fault of the excommunicated not of the Church that unjustly Excommunicates him but doth not thereby necessitate him to any such further removal or discession from it Had he rested in the place where the Church left him the Church had been faulty indeed he innocent but on no hand a Schisme and if he will not stay here but set up an Anti-communion and fall on acting against the Church that expelled him here he cannot defend the doing a wrong because he hath suffered one or justly disburden on the Church that fault of his to which no fault of theirs necessitated him Saepe sinit divina providentia saith St. Austin ‖ De verâ Religione c. 6. expelli de congregatione Christianâ etiam bonos viros Quam contumeliam vel injuriam suam cum patientissime pro Ecclesiae pace tulerint neque ullas novitates vel Shismatis vel Haeresis moliti fuerint docebunt homines quantâ sinceritate charitatis Deo serviendum sit c. Neque ullas novitates vel Schismatis Therefore
* 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
at last converted whether it I say now after a 150 years continuance hath made any progress sutable to such an effect as is the reducing of all Nations to its Profession or rather whether after it had made a sudden increase at 1 st as new things take most and infancy grows fastest it doth not seem already long ago to be past its full growth and now rather declining and withering and loosing ground in many places where it was formerly well rooted whilst that Antichrist which it promiseth to destroy acquires more strength and daily enlargeth his Dominions to which I may add * whether since protestancy is divided into so many Sects severed under so many differing secular Heads the Nations at length converted by them if they should be brought by some to the purity yet would not still in general want the Vnity of the Christian Faith But to return All this authority we find one present Body using now as the Catholick Church did anciently and among other things this Body also entitling it self the present Catholick Church So that if there be a Catholick Church still which stands invested with that authority that our Lord bestowed on it and which the former Church practised then seeing that all other Christian societies do renounce and not pretend at all to such an authority I mean the requiring from their Subjects an assent and submission of judgment to their decrees as infallible in all necessary faith declaring Hereticks those that oppose their Doctrines and Schismaticks that relinquish their Communion and question this other Church also for using it it follows that either this must be the sole Church-Catholick that thus bears witness to it self that it is so or that what ever Church besides pretends it self Catholick doth not exercise or own that just power and those priviledges with which our Lord hath endowed it We find further this present Church very vigilant and zealous in vindicating the honour and authority the customs the decrees of former Church and pretending what ever in truth it doth most strictly to follow its footsteps extolling the Fathers numbring allowing and challenging the Councils as if it thought them most advantagious on its side and carrying its self to this old Mother with such expressions of affection as if it only were her true daughter Therefore conjoyning the tradition of former Church interpreting Scripture together with the Text thereof for the steady guide of its proceedings in establishing truth and convincing Heresies And professing to handle things controverted ‖ Concil Trident Sess 18. Salv. Conduct Secundum sacram Scripturam Apostolorum traditiones probata Concilia Ecclesiae Catholicae consensum sanctorum Patrum authoritates We find it with the same Zeal celebrating an honourable Memory of the Fathers ancient Martyrs Confessors and Doctors in its publick Liturgies inserting therein both their Traditionary Comments on the Text of Scripture and an abridgement of their holy Lives there praising God for their pious Examples and provoking her present children to an emulation of their vertues whilst another Party in its pretending a Reformation to the Doctrine and Manners of the Primitive Church yet in its new Service expunged both the Lections taken out of these Fathers and the Narrative of their Lives We find it * retaining the same publick service of the Mass with the Catholick Church of former ages as its adversaries confess ‖ D◠Field p. 188. Chemnit Exam. Conc. Trid. part 2. de Canone Missae for this 1000. years i.e. from the times of S. Gregory if not without some small additions of something new yet without change of what was the former And * much resembling the visage of the ancient Church especially that after Constantine when by the more copious Writings of those flourishing times we come better to discern that Churches complexion in its Altars and a quotidian Sacrifice in its frequency of publick Assemblies and Devotions Solemn observance of Feasts Vigils and Fasts Gravity and Magnificence of its Ceremonies In its pretention of Miracles and extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Spirit in several of its Members in its high Veneration of the Celestial Favourites who stand in the presence of God and daily Communication by Commemorating the Saints departed with the Church triumphant and in the honour done to their Holy Relicks in its charitable Offices performed for those other more imperfect faithful Souls whose condition in the next world it conceives betterable by its prayers and oblations In its distinction of sins and use of its keys toward greater offenders In retirements from the world for a nearer converse with God and the freer exercise of Meditation and Devotion In its variety of Religious Orders Votaries and Fraternities In its advancing the observance of the Evangelical Councils its high esteem * of voluntary poverty i. e. relinquishing all particular propriety and enjoying only necessaries in Common * of virginity and continency and * of yeilding an undisputing obedience in licitis to all the Laws and commands of a Superiour In the single lives and sequestration from worldly incombrances of its Clergy obliged to a daily task of long Devotions and purity of conscience and corporal abstinence suitable to their attendance on the Altar and there daily or very frequently offering the Commemorative Sacrifice of our Lords all satisfactory Passion and comunicating his most precious Body and Blood In the like relations with those of all past ages concerning the eminent vertue shining in and divine favours bestowed on those holy persons who have lived in its Communion their great austerities and mortifications Exstafies Visions Predictions Miracles c. Which stories if they be all supposed lies and fictions and hypocrisies all I say or most of them for that some counterfeits will mingle themselves among truth there is no question yet such lyes are also found in all ages even from the Apostolical Times nor is the present age more guilty of them than the precedent as may be seen by comparing the Stories related by S. Austin ‖ De Civ Dei l. 22. c. 8. the Saints lives written by S. Jerome Gregory Nyssen Theodoret Severus Paulinus Palladius Gregory the Great Gregory of Tours Bede Bonaventure Bernard and other ancient Authors with the modern whilst all other Religions meanwhile have such a disparity to antiquity that in them no such things are at least fained But indeed did not many of these Stories contain a certain truth it cannot be imagined that so many persons reputed of great Sanctity and Devotion and several of them contemporary to those whose lives they recorded should have written them with so full a testimony to many things not as heard of others but seen by themselves Of the Roman Church and its adherents So persevering in the steps of Antiquity thus Grotius in the Preface to his Votum pro Pace giving account there of his studies in reading the Fathers Collegi saith he quae essent illa quae veterum testimonio
own understanding and industry to find out his own way to Heaven because he can securely trust no living guide on Earth besides through all the thorny controversies of the present age grown as Dr. Field saith in number so many and in matter so intricate which require vast pains throughly to examine and an excellent judgment aright to determine and which much eloquence and long smoothing of them the interposing of humane reason in divine matters and the varying records of former ages have rendred on all sides so far plausible and resembling truth that a little interest serves the turne to blind a man in his choice and make him embrace an errour for truth let him I say humbly resigne his wearied and distracted judgment wholly to her direction § 80 For as Sir Edwyn Sandys in his Relation of the Western Religions ‖ p 29. speaks methinks very pertinently though in the person of a Romanist pleading his own cause Seeing Christianity is a Doctrine of Faith a Doctrine whereof all men even children are capable as being gross and to be believed in general by all Seeing the high vertue of Faith is in the humility of the understanding and the merit thereof in the readiness of Obedience to embrace it and seeing the outward proofs thereof are no other than probable and of all probable proofs the Church-testimony is most probable So he which I propose rather thus Seeing of outward proofs of our Faith where the true sense of Scripture is the thing disputed the Church's testimony whether for declaring to us the sense of Scripture or judgment of the Ancients is a proof of most weight What madness were it for any man to tire out his soul and to wast away his spirits in tracing out all the thorny paths of the controversies of these days wherein to err is no less easy than dangerous what through forgery of authors abusing him what through sophistry transporting him and not rather to betake himself to the right path of truth whereunto God and nature reason and experience do all give witness and that is to associate himself to that Church whereunto the custody of this heavenly and supernatural truth hath been from heaven it self committed to weigh discreetly which is the true Church and that being once found to receive faithfully and obediently without doubt or discussion whatsoever it delivereth § 81 And then further If in this disquisition of his to make use here of that plea which the same Author in the following words hath very fairly drawn up ‖ Relation of Western Religious p. 30. for the Church of Rome and her adherents without giving us any counter-defence or shewing any more powerful attractives of the Churches reformed what ever he intended If besides the Roman and those Churches unitted with it he finds all other Churches to have had their end or decay long since I mean the Sects and Religions that have been formerly in the Western World Hussites Lollards Waldenses Albigenses Berengarians which some Protestants make much pretence to or their beginning but of late if This being founded by the Prince of the Apostles with promise to him by Christ that Hell gates should not prevaile against it but that himself will be assistant to it till the Consummation of the World hath continued on now till the end of a 1600. years with an honourable and certain line of near 240. Popes Successors of St. Peter both tyrants and traytors pagans and hereticks in vain wresting raging and undermining If all the lawful General Councils that ever were in the world have from time to time approved and honoured it if God hath so miraculously blessed it from above as that so many sage Doctors should enrich it with their writings such armies of Saints with their holiness of Martyrs with their Blood of Virgins with their purity should sanstifie and embellish it If even at this day in such difficulties of unjust rebellions and unnatural revolts of her nearest children yet she stretcheth out her arms to the utmost corners of the world newly embracing whole Nations into her bosome If Lastly in all other opposite Churches there be found inward dissentions and contrariety change of opinions uncertainty of resolutions with robbing of Churches rebelling against governours things much more experienced since this authors death in the late Presbiterian wars confusion of order invading of Episcopacy yea and Presbytery too whereas contrariwise in this Church the unity undivided the resolutions unalterable the most heavenly order reaching from the height of all power to the lowest of all subjection all with admirable harmony and undefective correspondence bending the same way to the effecting of the same work do promise no other than continual increase and victory let no man doubt to submit himself to this glorious spouse of God c. This then being accorded to be the true Church of God it follows that she be reverently obeyed in all things without further inquisition she having the warrant that he that heareth her heareth Christ and whosoever heareth her not hath no better place with God than a publican or a pagan And what folly were it to receive the Scriptures upon credit of her authority the authority of the Church that was before Luthers time and not to receive the interpretation of them upon her authority also and credit And if God should not alway protect his Church from errour i. e. dangerous to or distructive of Salvation and yet peremptorily commanded men always to obey her then had he made but very slender provision for the salvation of Mankind which conceit concerning God whose care of us even in all things touching this transitory life is so plain and eminent were ungrateful and impious And hard were the case and mean had his regard been of the vulgar people whose wants and difficulties in this life will not permit whose capacity will not suffice to sound the deep and hidden mysteries of Divinity and to search out the truth of intricate controversies if there were not others whose authority they might safely rely on Blessed are they who believe and have not seen Though they do not see reason always for that they believe save only that reason of their Belief drawn from authority the merit of whose Religious humility and obedience doth exceed perhaps in honour and acceptation before God the subtil and profound knowledge of many others Thus that Author pleads the cause of the Roman and its adherent Churches without a Reply To which perhaps it will not be amiss to joyn the like Plea §. 82. n. 1. for this Church drawn up by another eminent person ‖ Dr. Taylor liberty of prophecying §. 20. p. 249. in a treatise writ concerning the unreasonableness of prescribing to other mens Faith wherein he indeavoured to represent several Sects of Christianity in their fairest colours in order to a charitable toleration These considerations then he there proposeth concerning the Roman Church Which saith he may very
easily perswade persons of much reason and more piety to retain that which they know to have been the Religion of their Fore-fathers which had actual possession and seizure of mens understandings before the opposite profession had a name These are first It s Doctrine's having had a long continuance and possession of the Church which therefore cannot easily be supposed in the present Professors to be a design for covetous ambitious and other unlawful ends of which yet Protestants frequently accuse them since they have received it from so many ages and it is not likely that all ages should have the same purposes or that the same doctrine should serve the several ends of diverse ages It s long prescription which is such a prejudice as cannot with many arguments be retrench'd as relying upon these grounds that truth is more ancient than falshood that God would not for so many ages forsake his Church and leave her in an error I add not in such gross errors as are imputed especially not in Idolatry so manifold in respect of the Eucharist of the Cross of Angels and Saints of Relicks of Images c. Again The beauty and splendour of that Church their pompous service in a friendlier expression their service full of religious Ceremony and external Veneration The stateliness and solemnity of the Hierarchy their name of Catholick which they suppose and claim as their own due and to concern no other Sect of Christians The Antiquity of many of their Doctrines the continual succession of their Bishops their immediate derivation from the Apostles their title to succeed St. Peter and in this regard chiefly honoured and submitted to by Antiquity the supposal and pretence of his personal prerogatives much spoken of by the Fathers the flattering expressions of minor Bishops in modester language the honourable expressions concerning this Church from many eminent Bishops of other inferior Sees which by being old Records have obtained Credibility The multitude and variety of people which are of their perswasion apparent consent with some elder Ages in many matters doctrinal the advantage which is derived to them by entertaining some personal opinions of Fathers which they with infinite clamours cry up to be a doctrine of the Church of that time or trulier thus entertaining the Doctrine of the Church of the ancient times which Protestants cry down as only the personal opinions of the Fathers The great consent of one part with another in that which most of them affirm to be de fide the great differences which are commenced among their adversaries abusing the liberty of prophecying unto a very great licentiousness their happiness of being instruments in converting diverse Nations the advantage of Monarchical Goverment the benefit of which they daily do enjoy the piety and the austerity of their Religious Orders of men and women the single life of their Priests and Bishops the Riches of their Church the severity of their fasts and their exteriour observances the great Reputation of their Bishops for Faith and Sanctity the known holiness of some of those persons whose Institutes the Religious persons pretend to imitate their Miracles false or true substantial or imaginary or trulier several of which though none affirms all or perhaps the most of those pretended are confirmed by such clear Testimonies as if any Faith may be had to any humane Testimony or to any History they cannot be false or imaginary The casualties and accidents that have hapned to their adversaries the oblique acts and indirect proceedings of some of those who departed from them and among many other things the names of Heretick and Schismatick which they with infinit pertinacy fasten upon all that disagree from them or trulier which this Church with a venerable and paternal authority and correction as the Catholick Church in all ages hath done and none other Church in this age except this presumeth to do pronounceth on all others who depart from her Faith or Communion as also in former ages the same names have been fastned on all those who have so departed On Berengarius Wicliff Waldeneses c. These Persuasives Dr. Taylor hath there collected As inducing persons of much reason and more piety to retain the Religion of â—heir Fore-fathers Now let any if they can gather out of him â—he counter-perswasives that over-poise these and may induce â—ersons of much reason and equal piety to renounce the Religion of their Fore-fathers and harkning to some Negative Arguments â—rom Scripture or for some points perhaps also from the Writers of the three first ages commit themselves to the conduct of the new Reformers at the first a few of the lowest ranck of Clergy lying under the Ecclesiastical censures assisted against their spiritual Superiours by some secular powers when both they and these were Subjects as to the judgement of all Spiritual matters to that Ecclesiastical Hierarchy which they opposed Now to confirm what hath been said above §. 82. n. 2. In the last place I will set you down some passages of S. Austine representing the Catholick Church 1. as an united and distinct Body 2. easily discernable from Sects 3. and where Scriptures are controverted to be obeyed and adhered to 4. though this not always for any other present reason or proof given us of what she holds save only that of her Authority which passages of this the most eminent Father of the Church I also seriously commend to his Meditation who is in an humble quest after this Guide 1st Concerning the Catholick Church That it where any division is made from Superiours as was made by the Donatists from a General Council is only one of these Churches and not both St. Austine ‖ De Baptismo l. 1 c. 10. mentions this proposition as agreed on both by the Donatists and Catholicks Vnam oportet esse Ecclesâ—am †Cap 10. and Vna est Ecclesia quaeeunque illa sit de quâ dictum est ‖ Cantic 6. c. Vna est columba mea una est matri suae nec possunt tot esse Ecclesiae quot Schismata ‖ De Baptismo 1. 1. c. 11. And so he allows the Donatists arguing Si nostra est Ecclesia Christi non est Ecclesia Christi vestra Communio This Tenent of theirs he passeth for truth and only opposeth this other that theirs and not that from which they separated was it and there proveth the contrary viz. That the Anti-Donatist was that una Ecclesia quae sola Catholica nominatur and that the Donatist was Communio a suâ unitate separata ‖ Ib. Cap. 10. 2. Again Concerning this one Catholick Church that it is easie to be known and discerned from others §. 82. n. 3. he saith in his book De unitate Ecclesiae against the same Donatists ‖ Cap. 20. Non est obscura quaestio in quâ vos fallunt quos ipse Dominus praedixit futuros atque dicturos Ecce hic est Christus
of assent or belief due thereto as was exacted by the former Church and her Councils of which matter see what is said before § 39. c. I think fit before I proceed to the 2 d. thing proposed ‖ §. 66. the answering the many difficulties and objections urged against any Infallible Church Authority to search here first more particularly whether this liberty which Protestants claime in respect of an authority superiour the Councils and former Church yet be not denyed by them to their Subjects at least by the Church of England if we may informe our selves out of the most obvious sence of several of those Canons made in the late National Synods thereof 1. That then the National Synods of the Church of England notwithstanding their heavy accusations of the Council of Trent for the like practices do exact the Obedience of Assent to their Decrees and that under pain of Excommunication or of such persons being out off from the Unity of the Church and so if the Excommunication be just of such person if impenitent being cut off from the Body of Christ and taken of the whole multitude of the Faithful as an Heathen and Publican ‖ Ar. of Church of England 33. See 1 st the Synod held under K. James 1603. the 4 th anon whereof runs thus Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that the forme of Gods Worship established by Law and contained in the Book of Common Prayer containeth any thing in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures let him be Excommunicated ipso facto and not restored but after his Repentance and publick Revocation of such his wicked Errors Again thus Can. 5. Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that any of the 39. Articles agreed upon by the whole Clergy in the Convocation held 1562. for the avoiding diversities of opinions and for the establishing of consent touching true Religion are in any part erroneous or such as he may not with a good Conscience subscribe unto let him be Excommunicated ipso facto and not restored but after his Repentance and publick revocation of such his wicked errours To which may be added * the title Prefixed to the 39. Articles which saith that these Articles were drawn up for the avoiding diversities of opinions for the establishing of consent touching true Religion And * those words in the Preface to the same Articles Requiring all the Subjects of this Church to continue in the uniforme profession thereof and prohibiting the lest difference from the said Articles Here then 1 st the Church of England in the Title and the 5 th Canon declares that these Articles were drawn up for the avoiding of diversities of opinions and for the establishing of Consent But how doth the drawing-up or also the imposing of these Articles effect the avoiding diversities of opinions if the Church by this act layes no restraint at all upon opinions nor the Subscription required to them imply any assent to or belief of them or how effect the establishing of consent if all the obedience the Church requires to them be only a non-contradiction 2. Again here in the preface to the Articles not only silence and non-renouncing but professing of them is required but none are tied to profess any thing but what they also are tied either to believe or to profess though against their Conscience 3. Again In the 5 th Canon the words Erroneous or such as he may not with a good Conscience subscribe do imply that he cannot with a good Conscience subscribe to them who thinks them erroneous but any may subscribe to them with a good conscience though they be erroneous if the subscription only oblige to non-contradiction for none are bound in conscience to contradict every thing that they hold an errour 4 ly Here in the 4 th and 5 th Canon the Church of England Excommunicates them that affirme such and such things not till they repent of and publickly revoke their unpeaceful or turbulent contradiction of her decree but till they repent of and revoke their wicked errours and see Can 12 revoke their Anabaptistical errours where Annabaptisticall joyned to Errour clearly applies the word Errour not to the act of contradicting but to the matter wherein such a one contradicts Now Excommunication here till one revokes his Errours is till one changeth or at least professeth that he changeth his opinion for one may revoke or Repent of his Contradiction who doth not at all of his Errours which contradiction is not an Errour of the understanding but a fault of manners which also we easily rectifie without repenting of or revoking any former opinion and consequently without revoking our Errour But here the Excommunication extends to this latter Where if by any ones publickly revoking his wicked Errours be meant only the revoking of the divulging of his wicked Errour then would such a recantation as this be sufficient to restore such an excommunicated person to the Churche 's Communion I hold indeed my former tenent still but heartily repend and am sorry that I have divulged it nor will I for the future do the like But such reconciliative recantations we know are never accepted amongst the Reformed unless such persons condemn also their former Doctrines as false and acknowledge for true and Orthodox those of the Church Again In this matter I aske If any one when required by the Church to declare his opinion doth affirm such a wicked Errour to the affirmers whereof the Church hath denounced Excommunication for Example affirms the King not to be Supreme in Ecclesiastical matters against the 2d Canon whether is he not in such a case by that Canon liable to Excommunication If he be them it is not because he declareth what he holdeth for how can the Church Excommunicate him for doing that which she requireth of him i. e. for declaring what he holdeth upon her interrogation but because he holdeth that which he ought not i. e. for his opinion for his wicked Errour as she there calls it And doth not the Church of England likewise allow of the King 's requiring in the Oath of Supremacy touching this point not only a non-affirmation of the contrary or a non-contradicting of such a truth but a sincere acknowledgment in his conscience and a believing of it I do utterly testify and declare in my conscience c. So also the Parliament 13 Elizab. 12. requireth That every one that hath an Ecclesiastical living declare his assent and subscribe to the 39. Articles of Religion And that no person be admitted to any Benefice with cure except he shall first have subscribed the same Articles with declaration of his unfeigned assent in the same Here you see the subscription interpreted assent Now will the Church deny the lawfulness of the Act of the State passed by the Lords Spiritual as well as Temporal Or may not a Church though fallible enjoyn or require as much acknowledgement as much assent in a matter of Faith as the said Church
the days of Edward the Sixth Expedit quidem saith he prospicere desultoriis Ingeniis quae sibi nimium licere volunt claudenda est etiam janua curiosis doctrinis Ratio autem expedita ad eam rem una est Si exstet nempe summa quaedam doctriâ—ae ab omnibus recepta quam inter praedicandum sequantur omnes ad quam etiam observandam omnes Episcopi Parochi jurejurando adstringantur ut nemo ad munus Ecclaesiasticum admittatur nisi spondeat sibi illum doctrinae consensum inviolatum futurum Quod ad formulam precum rituum Ecclaesiasticorum valde probo ut certa illa extet a qua Pastoribus discedere in functione sua non liceat ut obviam eatur desultoriae quorundam levitati qui novationes quasdam affectant Here I understand him to require the Clergy to be obliged by Oath to receive and Preach such a certain forme of Doctrine and to practice such Ecclesiastical Rites as shall be agreed upon by their Governours In which thing if He speaks reason what can more justify the proceedings of the Church-Catholick in restraining not only her Subjects tongues but tenents and opinions in matters which she judgeth of necessary belief Notwithstanding these evidences cited above §. 84. n. 1. implying assent required to the Articles of the Church of England yet her Divines when charged therewith by Roman Catholicks do return many answers and Apologies whereby they seem either to deny any such thing or at least do pretend a moderation therein very different from the Roman Tiranny 1 rst Then they say α That they require not any oath but a Subscription only to these their Articles ‖ Bishop Bramhal Reply to Chal. p. 264. 2. β Require subscription only from their own not from strangers See Bishop Bramhall vindic p. 155. And This Church prescribes only to her own Children whereas the Church of Rome severely imposeth her Doctrine upon the whole World saith Bishop Lawd ‖ P. 52. 3. γ Nor yet require it of all their own but only of those who seek to be initiated into holy Orders or are to be admitted to some Ecclesiastical preferment ‖ Bishop Brambal vind p. 156. 4. δ These Articles not penned with Anathemas or curses against all those even of their own who do not receive them 5 ly ε Subscription not required to them as Articles of their Faith or at least as all of them Articles Fundamental of their Faith as belief is required to all hers as such by the Church of Rome but only required to them as Theo ogical veritie ‖ Bâ—amh Reply p. 350. and Inferiour truths †Stillingfleet p. 54. To this purpose Bishop Bramhall Reply p. 350. We do use to subscribe unto them indeed not as Articles of Faith but as Thelogical verities for the preservation of unity among our selves Again ‖ Ib. p. 277. Though perhaps some of our negatives were reveald truths and consequently were as necessary to be believed when they are known as affirmatives yet they do not therefore become such necessary truths or Articles of Religion as make up the rule of Faith which rule of Faith he saith there consists of such supernatural truths as are necessary to be known of every Christian not only necessitate praecepti because God hath commanded us to believe them ‖ See Schism guarded p. 396 but also necessitate medii because without the knowledge of them in some tolerable degree according to the measure of our capacities we cannot in an ordinary way attain to Salvation And ‖ Reply p. 264. We do not saith he hold our 39. Articles to be such necessary truths extra quas non est â—alus nor enjoyn Ecclesiastick persons to swear unto them but only to subscribe them as Theological truths And thus the Arch Bishop ‖ p. 51. All points are made Fundamental and that to all mens belief if that Church the Roman hath once determined them whereas the Church of England never declared that every one of her Articles are Fundamental in the Faith To which they add ζ That as for those of these Articles that are positive doctrines and Articles of their Faith they are such as are grounded in Scripture and General Truths about which there is no controversy ‖ Bramh. vindic p. 159. and such saith Mr. Stillingfleet †p. 54. as have the testimony and approbation of the whole Christian World of all ages and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self η And then as for the rest of those Articles they are only negative as the Arch Bishop ‖ p. 52. refuting there where the thing affirmed by the roman-Roman-Church is not affirmed by Scripture nor directly to be concluded out of it Or as Bishop Bramhall ‖ Vindic. p. 159 They are no new articles or innovations obtruded upon any but negations only of humane controverted Traditions †Reply p. 279. and Refutations of the Roman suppositious principles ‖ Ib. p. 277. And though some of them were revealed truths c. as before yet do they not therfore make up the rule of Faith ‖ i. e. as this Rule is before explained θ 6 ly That such subscription whether of positives or negatives is required by the Church of England to a few in comparison of that multitude of Articles made on the other side Though the Church of England saith the Aâ—chb ‖ p. 51. denounce Excommunication as is before expressed yet she comes far shoâ—t of the Church of Romes severity whos 's Anathema's are not only for 39. Articles but fer very many more about one hundred in matter of Doctrine 7 ly ξ Concerning the just importance and extent of such subscription several expressions I find that the Subscribers do not stand obliged thereby * to believe these Articles § 84. n. 2 and the reason given because the Church is fallible but only * not to oppose not to contradict them To this purpose We do not look saith Bishop Bramhall ‖ Bishop Bramh. Schism garded p. 190 Stillingf p. 55. upon the Articles of the Church of England as Essentials of saving Faith or Legacies of Christ and his Apostles but in a mean as pious opinions fitted for the preservation of unity neither do we oblige any man to believe them but only not to contradict them And Si quis diversum dixerit we question him Si quis diversum senserit if any man think otherwise in his private opinion and trouble not the peace of the Church we question him not ‖ Vindic. p. 156. Again λ Never any son of the Church of England was punished for dissenting from the Articles in his judgement so he did not publish it by word or writing After the same manner speaks Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ P. 104. The Church of England excommunicates such as openly oppose her Doctrine supposing her fallible the Roman Church excommunicates all who will not believe
relinquishing the Roman communion and that in which she is chiefly charged to have violated the Unity of the Catholick Church ‖ Sâ—â—llin p. 55. that it came forth many years after the Protestants discession from this Church whether we look at Luther's or that under King Edward or the last under Queen Elisabeth and many years too after the birth of their XXXIX Articles made against the Roman Faith both after those composed under Edward VI. A. D. 1549 and reconfirmed under Queen Elisabeth 1562. This Bull not being made till 1564. So that herein they seem to take their chiefest excuse for their discession from that Church from a thing that hapned long after it as if they departed from it out of the foresight of an offense which though it then was not yet would be given them by it The 4th thing I have to observe to you touched before is §. 85. n. 7. Obs 4 that though the Church of England in her Synod affixeth not particular Anathemaes to her Articles as the Roman-Catholick doth in that of Trent with a Si quis dixerit c. Anathema sit yet the forementioned 5th Canon of this Church pronounceth in general an Excommunication to a Si quis affirmaverit that any of these Articles is in any part erroneous The weighty value of which Excommunication also you may learn out of their Art 33. These things premised §. 85. n. 8. now to speak briefly to the former Protestant-Defence made Resp to α. § 84. n. 1. c. To α I answer that by the instances in the Canons c. produced before § 83. n. 1. and some of the expressions § 84. n. 3. the Church-Governours intention in requiring this Subscription seems to be Assent To β That as the Church of England requires submission to her Articles onely from her own Children or Subjects So doth the Council of Trent whose Subjects if it be a general one ‖ Or which see Consid on Coun of Trent § 15 c. is all Christianity if a Patriarchal ‖ Of which see Ib § 43. all the Western Churches and amongst the rest that of England To γ That as subscription to the Articles in the Church of England is only required from those who are to be initiated into holy Orders or admitted to Ecclesiastical Preferments so is Pius's oath to the Canons only exacted from those who enter into sacred Orders or Religions But as the Anathemaes in the Council of Trent extend to all persons so doth the Excommunication of the Church of England Can. 5. To δ That though these are not penned with a particular Anathema yet they are with a general Excommunication Can. 5. To ε That as not by them to their Articles so neither by the Church of Rome to her Canons is subscription required as to Articles of her Faith or Articles Fundamental if Faith or Fundamental be understood in such a sense as the Protestant quotations above explain them This hath been shewed § 85. n. 5 6. To ξ By this it is confessed that of the 39 Articles no more are Articles of the Church of England's Faith than those only wherein Rome doth agree with her and then if to the rest of her Articles no assent be exacted of any as is contended above § 84. one in all things believing and being of the same perswasion with the Church of Rome is freely admitted into the Church of Englands Communion nay may without violation of her constitutions lawfully enter into her holy Orders and Ecclesiastical preferments and there remain without any engagement to defend the Church of England's Doctrine or teach and instruct the people against the Roman Errors To n That her Negative Articles involve Affirmatives and those too pretended divine Revelations see before § 85. n. 3. which are the objects of Faith and do bind so strictly on one side as the Roman Canons do on the other and supposing assent required to them do admit as little latitude of opinion and at Luther's appearance the matter of these Roman Canons being in possession as to the common belief and practice of the Church these Negatives of them of the two will prove the Innovations Lastly In what sense Protestants say these Negatives are no Articles of their Faith i. e. faith necessary ratione medii to salvation in the same sense the Roman Church saith neither are her Positives that contradict them To θ Of the many Canons in the Council of Trent made in opposition to them Luthers many errors and innovations of Doctrine which were daily collected and brought into the Council were the cause And as to the main Points that are in debate between the Church of Rome and of England the Negatives in the English Articles equal the Affirmatives in the Canons of Trent To χ Whether assent to the Articles be required in subscription or only non contradiction as to any uniform accord in their later Writers I see nothing clear and the later seems more agreeable with their Principles but in the former instances out of some Canons c. assent seems as strictly required in this Church and that upon Excommunication as in the Roman upon Anathemaes and the Act of Parliament Elisabeth 13. recited before § 83. n. 1. an Act passed not only by the Lords Temporal but Spiritual i. e. the Governours of this Church is most express for it Review it ‖ § 83. n 1. To λ § 85. n. 9. It is true also in the Roman Church that thought is free and Ecclesia non judicat de occultis or peccatis merè internis i. e. no way discovered but true also that the Ecclesiastical Magistrate may lawfully inquire into mens thoughts and beliefs and question a person herein for this is done in Baptism and that not only words are punishable as faults by this Magistrate but thoughts if any one shall reveal that he thinks so i. e. thoughts when they are any way discovered as any one upon examination manifesting any blasphemous thoughts or tenents of his may be lawfully excommunicated and in such a case is excommunicated not for the revealing them in word but for the holding them so who defignes a treason and afterward reveals it is justly punished not for the revealing but designing thereof and this the Church of Rome doth and if the Church of England extend not her Inquisition or censures thus far especially as to those persons she admits into the Clergy she may expect a Babel of Religions and dissenting judgements in points of greatest consequence under the mask of one external Communion To μ §. 85. n. 10. Only a conditional Assent required seems to signifie little for establishing unity of Faith or consent in Religion which tyes none so but that of two Subscribers one may absolutely assent another dissent the same person assent to day dissent to morrow And a Socinian confident of his opinion as freely subscribe as any other of the Reformed a Presbyterian
consenting shall never err in necessaries And then in the last place if perhaps some smaller number of them do dissent from the rest since the Catholick Church is alwayes but one and is a Government at peace within it self and constituted in a due subordination of its members in respect of one another and also in respect of the whole here also it rationally follows that the greater and more dignified body of this Clergy in any division of some members from it must be of these two that Guide whom Christians are obliged to follow and the lesser and inferior part obliged to conform to and therefore this of the two the Guide unerring See before Disc 2. § 23. c. Disc 1. § 18. Here then ariseth a sufficient certainty in reason from the principles conceded by Protestants of the unerring of a lawfully general Council in necessaries without shewing the Decree of any Council for it § 89 3ly Setting aside any declaration of Scripture in this matter of infallibility and supposing the Gospel had not been writ yet both the Teachers of the Gospel for ever in their general Council at least must have been infallible in necessaries else from whom or by what other means no Scriptures being exstant could people have learnt the way to salvation And also this their infallible guidance must have been made sufficiently credible to the world by the tradition constantly descending from the testimony of our Lord and his Apostles who confirmed this their first testimony by Miracles else the Christian would have been no rational Religion By which testimony also it was that those first Teachers substituted by the Apostles had full credit with and did beget infallible and saving faith in their Gentile-Auditors before that the Holy Scriptures were delivered unto these Gentiles and therefore it appears that these Teachers might have been also to this day with sufficient certainty relyed on in their propagating and preserving the Christian faith among their Converts had there been no Scriptures at all to have taught the same things with them and to have born witness to their Doctrine Neither may it rationally be said that the Church's possession of these Scriptures hath disinherited them of any part of that Authority and belief which it is agreed that they might have challenged had there been no Scripture but that the present Church ought still in the same manner to be believed by her children to be infallible in all necessary truth as the Apostles were believed to be so by those who heard them and only from sufficiently credible witnesses had heard of but had not seen any of their miracles And then supposing first this their infallibility in necessaries to be thus made credible to us by sufficient evidence in point of reason †See Stillingf p. 559. we are to believe them also when in their Councils they tell us that they are infallible in all necessaries if this be a truth necessary to be known upon this account because they tell us so As he that once believes that whatever is said in Gods Word is true is to believe also that Gods Word is true because this Word saith so Here then you see that there would have been a sufficient certainty or assurance to Christians descending by Tradition of their being truly and infallibly guided by the Substitutes of our Lord to the end of the world without the decree of any Council presupposed and had there been no holy Scriptures extant The same infallible guidance therefore is now had and known sufficiently from them though we putting also the Scriptures § 90 4ly By primitive Tradition the Catholick Church in her General Councils hath alwayes thought her self authorized to define matters of faith upon Anathema to dissenters and to put them as thought fit in the Church's Creeds with an obligation laid on all to believe them Now either this will imply the infallibility of these Councils as they conceived in such points or if this be thought to argue something less let but the same priviledge still be continued to the present Church Catholick in her Councils and the same obedience yielded by her subjects to her present definitions and a sufficient certainty hereof granted viz. that such authority she hath and such duty they owe and any further extent of infallibility I suppose will not be claimed Here again we see that tradition in the practice of Councils without any their Decree shews a sufficient certainty of such an infallibility of Councils as is challenged Thus much in answer to this first Query Where the taking this for a Principle of Catholicks that none can have a sufficient certainty of any thing either from Scripture or Church-Tradition grounded at first on Miracles antecedent to the Church's authority defining it in a general Council causeth in some Protestants much misarguing in this and several other points But now if we return a like Query upon themselves who profess also a sufficient certainty in their faith even of those points that are in controversie or it sufficeth if they profess so much concerning any one such point and ask whence they have such certainty I see not what rationally they can reply For 1st They cannot build such a certainty on any Church-authority since they deny any infallibility or sufficient certainty as to such points in the Declarations or Doctrines of this Authority even in the supremest Collection thereof the Councils General present or past Nor yet 2ly on the Scriptures because the true sence of them in these points is not only disputed which is here urged by them as sufficient to null a certainty but by the much major part of Christendom and that after the Protestants manifesting to the world all the grounds of their persuasion said to be clear against their new pretensions But 3ly Since the Gospel was dispersed in the world by Christs Substitutes and Ministers and a multitude of souls saved thereby before the penning or publishing of the New Testament or Gospel-Scriptures and therefore possibly might in the same manner have continued to have been dispersed to the end of the world or for a much longer time then it was so this Query will still sorer press them what certainty in such a case they I mean the world learning their faith from Teachers without Scripture could have had of their faith Or whence Or whether no certainty in such case to be had § 91 2ly Again it is asked ‖ See Archb Lawd p. 228 239 Stillingf p. 515 516 513. from whence General Councils should derive this their infallibility Because 1st The divine promises of infallibility if made to any are made only to the diffusive Body of the Catholick Church Neither can she bequeath or delegate this infallibility to her assignes in a General Council if no such power of devolution be contained in the original Grant nor it can be shewed that the maker of the promises did either appoint a General Council to represent the
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
judge and from verse 20. When two or three are gathered together in my name i. e. by my authority for Judicature as appears by the context vers 18. their binding and loosing from which the Council of Chalced. †In their Epistle to Leo c. See Celestins Epist ad Concil Ephesin gathers a minori ad majus the authority of more general assemblies and from 1 Cor. 5.14 15. When ye are gathered together i. e. the Clergy chiefly Excommunication being an Act only of the Clergy of Corinth And also * from the Example in the Acts where upon the first great controversie a Council was called to consider it in which though there was much disputing †Act 15 6 7. as useth to be in other Councils yet the conclusion made therein was injoyned to the whole Church not only by or in the name of the Apostles but of the whole Council and was injoyned by these as assisted by that infallible holy Ghost vers 28. by which holy Ghost also they are said to be constitued Governors of the Church Act. 20.28 And S. Paul afterward every where in his perambulations delivered the decrees of this Council to be observed Act. 16.4 And lastly * from the pattern established by God Deut. 17. of the former Church under the Old Testament which pattern that of the Gospel generally followeth whose chiefest Court for deciding Controversies was a Consisttory or Council which also we find in the four Gospels and in the Acts to be called upon all greater occasions § 95 4ly That in this meeting though all these Governors I mean the Bishops who succeeded the Apostles in the chief ruling of the Church have right and also are obliged in duty to their Superiors summoning them greater inconveniencies not hindering to be present yet the Churches of God having perpetual need of the residency of several of them Hence it is that as some of these successors of the Apostles personally sit in the Council and act there upon no other delegated authority save their own held from Christ so others are only there represented by their fellows who are many times deputed also by them in their necessary absence to declare their sentiments and vote in matters of present debate in their stead In respect of these absent Prelats then it is as to any power of deciding truths or making Laws that this Body is called a representative and not in respect of the multitude that is subject to their Orders and obliged to receive their commands And called a Representative of these absent Church-Colleagues not so as if this Body residing in the Council had no authority but held from them the authority of both being equal or as if they needed for their own Session there any Commission or warrant from the rest when as indeed the absents need rather a Dispensation from them where all being lawfully summoned by their spiritual Superiors out of the duty they owe to them ought to be present and for absence are liable to their mulcts but only as is said for that several of them are deputed by these absents to present their vote and judgement in the things consulted on which necessary occasions hinder them from delivering there themselves § 96 5ly That seeing this Collection of Prelats especially in later times if we take the greatest that hath or morally can be amounteth but to a small number in comparison of the whole Body of Prelats of the whole Vniverse therefore the resolutions of the absent concerning matters to be defined are declared either in Provincial or other lesser meetings before such Council or the things defined which gives less trouble are afterward by them ratified and accepted at least so far as to a tacit consent or non-contradiction of the Acts of such Council of them conven'd whereby those Acts become most firm and universally obliging Where it is also to be noted * That the prudence of the Bishops residing in such Councils though they have not antecedently the formal consent of their Brethren remaining in the Provinces for every thing they define yet doth usually take care to regulate their definitions according to the common clear known Tradition of the Church Doctors both of former and present times present and former Tradition as well for the sence of Scriptures as for other things not mentioned in Scripture being the great director of their proceedings according the ancient Rule of Pope Steven nihil innovetur Tradition I say either of the Conclusion it self that is decided or of the Principles whence it is clearly deduced and * that they do abstain from determining any thing wherein they know Catholick Divines are much divided where any doubt is of a concurrence therein of either all or most of their absent Colleagues This division of judgments hinting to them both that there is more obscurity and uncertainty of the Truth of such Point and less necessity of its being known and they generally apprehend themselves only to be Guardians of the current Tradition not discoverers of any new Science And such a proceeding Mr. Stillingfleet observes in the Fathers of the Council of Trent where he transforming their Christian wisdom into humane subtilty and guilty fear saith †p. 512. That by this Council much care was taken in many of its decrees to pass them in such general terms that each party might find their sence in them and that they were fearful of declaring themselves for fear of disobliging a particular party Thus he Which drawn in fairer colours is only to say That this Council without descending to a compliance with particular opinions in its decrees established only those doctrines which were generally delivered and agreed on by the learned of those Churches which they there represented § 97 6ly Yet that this ratification of absent Ecclesiastical Governors is not held necessary as to all particular persons or Churches for neither had all these absents been present in the Council is the vote of every one there necessary for passing an Act or further than a moderately major part of them To which major part joyned with the See Apostolick as in the Council so by the same reason out of the Council the rest of Prelats and Churches are obliged to conform in their judgment and in the Idem sapientes idipsum sentientes in eâdem permanentes regulâ non prudentes apud semetipsos which is so often inculcated by the Apostle †Philip. 2.3.3.16 Râ—m 12 16. that there may be no Schism but eternal unity and peace in this Catholick Body as for the remainder of the Church diffusive the Laity or also some degrees of inferior clergy as they have no authority to sit here as members so neither have they to confirm or refuse the acts of this supreme Court but are tyed with an obedite subjacere praepositis Heb. 13.17 to submit to their decrees and obey their injunctions to such a degree as they are required And thus do
vanish those fancies ◠Of every General Council's receiving a Commission to make its meeting authentick from some formal act or tacit consent of the Church diffusive of the assistance of infallibility if any had to be made over to it by assignment from the Church diffusive of its acting not by any divine right but only humane delegation and of the several parts of the Church being obliged to its decrees by their choice and consent only not upon necessity 3ly Again It is asked how such an Ecclesiastical infallibility as is placed in a General Council Q. 3. can be said to be serviceable or at least necessary to the Church which subsisted § 98 for the first 300. years without any such infallible Guide And it is asked also by what infallible Guide in the long intervals of these Councils Christians are secured § 99 To the first I answer That this infallibility is to be supposed to accompany this Body of the Clergy taken collectively not only when met in a General Council but out of it whenever and however they shall manifest a concurrence in their judgment and agreement in their doctrines whether by several Provincial Councils assembled or some one Provincial Council assembled confirmed by the See Apostolick and allowed by other co-ordinate Churches or by communicatory letters of Churches to one another in the intervals of greater meetings and thus was infallibility resident and preserved in the Guides of the Church for the first 300. years Of this matter thus Mr. Thorndike †Epilog 1 l c. 8 p. 54. speaking of the times before Constantine The daily intercourse intelligence and correspondence between Churches without those Assemblies of Representatives we call Councils was a thing so visibly practised by the Catholick Church from the beginning that thereupon I conceive it may be called a standing Council in regard of the continual setling of troubles arising in some part and tending to question the peace of the whole by the consent of other Churches concerned which setlement was had and obtained by means of this mutual intelligence and correspondence The holding of Councils being a way of far greater dispatch but the express consent of Churches obtained upon the place being a more certain foundation of peace c. Thus he And see what is said before Disc 1. § 18. To the second That in the intervals of Councils if any new error dangerous to the faith and condemned by no former General Council doth molest the Church she by some of the forenamed wayes wherein she is unerrable if there be no convenience of assembling a General Council suppresseth it but if an error formerly condemned and crushed by a general Council begin to exalt it self and grow again that there needeth no more to quiet it than that the present Church Governours do put in execution the former unerring decrees of those Councils 4ly Again it is asked Q. 4. How lawful General Councils can be maintained all unerring § 100 which Councils experience hath shewed to have contradicted one another To which I answer That he who saith so either takes some Council to be a lawful General one that is not so in the judgment of the present Church Catholick as stated before § 11 12. 2. Disc § 23. c. Or takes some of their definitions to contradict which do not so in the judgment of the present Church Catholick Or urgeth things in some ages commonly received or practised in which there is a great latitude as things then defined But if the judgment of the Church in these ought to be preferred before some private members thereof she denies such contradiction in matters of faith to be in any of the General Councils that she receives 5ly Again it is asked Q. 5. If a General Council should err in the defining of something not necessary and again § 101 if it can be proved that no exact distinction can be made of such from necessaries how any Christian can be secure for any particular point of his faith that both such Council and himself do not err in it I answer 1st That if what is supposed should be granted yet still is such Christian as believes all the Council proposeth secure that his faith is deficient in nothing necessary And that Protestants think the like security sufficient in their own faith For they holding the sence of Scripture clear even to the unlearned in all necessaries and believing all the Scripture saith though they cannot exactly distinguish necessary points therein from others yet affirm their faith to be secure because actually not erring in any point clear and so also not in any point necessary 2ly That as to the Principal points of faith called necessary they are both by Councils sufficiently discerned from non-necessaries and proposed as necessaries and so by Christians believed as such In these particulars therefore they are certain of their not erring and as to other points of their faith that it is sufficient for Christians to know that if necesiary they do not err in them though which in particular are necessary and so certainly not erred in they know not But meanwhile do those who urge thus an uncertainty in the faith of Catholicks in attaching their judgment to Councils which in not necessaries are supyosed liable to error make themselves any better provision for the Protestants faith in remitting them from Councils unto their own judgments which in necessaries also they grant are liable to error at least upon their not using due industry their being swayed by passion interest c. which every humble man surely will suspect himself of sooner than a Council 6ly Again It is much pressed That upon the pretence Q. 6. that a General Council is infallible § 102 no error of such Council can ever be corrected or remedied neither by a particular person or Church or yet by another Council General I answer If the Council be as it is pretended infallible no need of correcting an error where is none If it be fallible yet if so only in non-necessaries no great harm if Christians in such a point be misled but great if private men throwing off the Guide upon such pretence they should so come in some necessary point to miscarry But indeed for General Councils to be fallible in necessaries also this I grant would be a thing most mischeivous to the Church but that they shall never thus err see what is said before § 6. Disc 1. § 7.14 And indeed the objection here i. e. the ruine which such error would bring upon Christianity considering the obedience commanded to these Councils is a sufficient Argument that thus they never err nor consequently need reformation § 103 But meanwhile those who urge this that the error of a General Council in an universal obligation of belief to it can never be rectified or reformed consider not That on the other side in admitting a reformation of any its supposed errors no truth
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
to some dissenting parties Thus they argue as if they should say If the Law cannot be understood much less the Judge that is appointed to explain it for also we have many Comments on the Law none on his Sentence or as if the sence of those many Canons of Councils that are urged against Protestants were not granted by them both sufficiently clear and accused by them as evidently erroneous Lastly * whether their decrees have been confirmed by the Pope And then for this it must be known also whether the Pope confirming them was a lawful Pope * whether not Simonically elected which but once hapning there follows from it the illegality of all his Successors because these chosen by some Cardinals that were created by him who are no legitimate Electors and upon this account saith Mr. Stillingfleet †p. 125. there hath been no legal Pope since Sixtus the Fifth And here again return all these questions concerning the Pope's Baptism Ordination c. with a right intention of the Priest in doing them which were asked formerly concerning the Bishops These and many more such like Queries are made by persons studying acuteness in throwing down the Pillars of a former setled faith to make way for introducing a more free and unconfined i. e. a more sceptical and arbitrary or latitudinarian Religion And since from any of these Queries a quarrel may be made against a Council as not lawful there will never want for any past Council some pretence or other of disallowing it when stating Doctrines or giving Laws contrary to our inclination or interest and how easie were it for a Socinian from several of these to quarrel with that of Nice See below Disc 4. § 18. c. To all which I return this answer 1st That a rational not-possibly-fallible § 115 certainty or assurance of the lawfulness of any Council or of the forementioned particulars whereby this lawfulness may be known is by no side affirmed necessary 2ly That as for a non-morally fallible certainty in respect of several of the particulars such as these whether all the Bishops that sate in the Council of Nice were truly and lawfully baptized ordained c. none simoniacally elected none come to the Council with prejudice none corrupted or over-awed in giving his vote c. this is sufficient that where any of these do fail the cognizance of Tradition yet any Christian in general may be rationally assured I mean as to the much major part of such Council for more needs not that that divine providence and assistance which is supposed to preserve the Church's lawful General Councils from not erring in necessaries doth consequently either preserve such Councils as are taken by this Church for lawfully general from all such defects as do render them not capable of his promise of not erring Or if any forepassed Councils reputed lawfulâ—y General have had such defects doth continue the same priviledge of not erring also to these Councils because such their defects are undiscernable to the Church Otherwise the Church's error in not discerning lawful Councils would render the divine favour in assisting lawful Councils useless and unbeneficial unto her § 116 And this answer is no more than is thought reasonable and given by Protestants in other cases So Mr. Chillingworth †p. 78. up a doubt proposed whether a Penitent doing his own best indeavours when absolved of his sins by one that goes for but really is no Priest or by a Priest but without an intention of absolving him receives any benefit thereby thinks this a good answer That God's goodness will supply all such defects as to humane indeavours were unavoidable And therefore though his Priest were indeed no Priest yet to him he should be as if he were one and if he gave absolution without intention yet in doing so he should hurt himself only not his Penitent And Protestants upon supposition that God hath by no other way clearly revealed the points necessary to salvation do from the same goodness of God prove their fundamental Doctrine that all necessaries to salvation are clearly revealed in Scripture where as I conceive the supposition to fail so the arguing good upon the common Principle that Deus non deficit in necessariis § 117 3. So far as the former questions are moved concerning a sufficient certainty I suppose Protestants will affirm that they have a sufficient certainty concerning some Councils that they were lawfully General as concerning the four first whose Definitions also they retain in their Creed what ground therefore of their certainty of these Councils that they were lawfully General they will return to a Socinian asking the former questions of them whether this ground be a General Church-Tradition or any thing else the same may be returned to the same questions concerning the rest that have been held lawfully General by the common Tradition of later times since the sitting of such Councils Add to this that notwithstanding in general they allow some obedience due to lawful General Councils yet if they deny a sufficient certainty of knowing any such this is in effect to release all Christian obedience to any Council in particular § 118 4ly I answer That for solution of the former questions such as are more material as touching the sufficiency of the representative the lawfulness of their proceedings their Confirmation by the See Apostolick acceptation by the Church diffusive such as â—s necessary c. private Christians have sufficient certainty from the testimony that after the sitting of such Councils the continued Tradition of the Church Catholick or of its Governors taken in the sence explained before § 8.12 Disc 2 § 23. or also met in later Councils delivers thereof in which tradition he may securely rest and supersede that quest for satisfaction of the former doubts with which others must needs be much perplexed who have not the humility to acquiesce in the resolutions of their forefathers § 119 5ly Since the Church Catholick or its Governors as stated before †§. 2.6 of all ages and therefore that of the present age is an infallible Guide in necessaries therefore whatever former Councils and their definitions the present Church or its Governors do accept and own Christians may be assured from this that such Councils have not erred in necessaries and either were lawfully general and obliging or at least by this acceptation of the present Church are rendred equivalent thereto the act of this Church her allowing their decrees being of the same strength and vigor as is her new decreeing them And thus for such Councils the former inquiries become frustrated Note that I understand the acceptation of the present Church Catholick or its Governors in the sence explained before § 11. c. Disc 1. § 38. 6. But lastly though a sufficient certainty by these wayes a Christian may have concerning what or how many have been lawful General Councils or equivalent thereto and so concerning their
notitiam fidei sicut fidem ipsam certitudinem habet ex lumine divinae scientiae quae decipi non potest And Biel †In 3. sent 23 d. q. 2. A. 1. Hoc autem ita intelligendum est ut scientia certior sit certitudine evidentiae Fides verò certior firmitate adhaesionis Majus lumen in scientiâ majus robur in fide Et hoc quia in fide ad fidem Actus imperatus voluntatis concurrit Credere enim est actus intellectus vero assentientis productus ex voluntatis imperio Again p. 86. Faith saith he is an evidence as well as knowledge and the belief is firmer than any knowledge can be because it rests upon divine authority which cannot deceive whereas knowledge or at least he that thinks he knows is not ever certain in deductions from Principles And if there be any that should deny such a Divine or infused faith wrought in Christians by God's Spirit besides and beyond the evidence which a moral certainty rationally affords let them declare how a Christians faith is necessarily a Grace of the Holy Spirit where there is no effect in it that is ascribed to the Spirit but all that they attribute to it is necessarily consequent to another humane and rational evidence and no other ground of their faith of the Divine truths alledged by them than of the being of a Julius Caesar viz. a credible and morally-certain Tradition § 125 4ly Therefore concerning any certainty or assurance that Christians are necessarily to have of this their faith that it is true and infallible which certitude all true believers have not alike †Mat. 14.31 S. Thom. 22. q. 5 a. 4. Here also I think all are agreed That such a certainty one may have from the inward light and operation of God's Holy Spirit though he should have neither any internal scientifical demonstration thereof which if he hath it is not faith nor extrinsecal infallible motive testimony or proponent thereof whatever but though only he hath that which is in it self truly a Divine Revelation for the object thereof § 126 5ly Since the Church may be considered either * as a Society already manifested by divine Testimony and Revelation whether this written the Scriptures or unwritten Apostolical Tradition to be by the holy Ghost for ever assisted and guided in all necessary truths Or before any such divine Testimony known * as a multitude of men famous in wisdom innocency of life sufferings c. things prudentially moving us to credit all their Traditions Both Churches here agree That humane Testimony or Church-Tradition taken in the later sence in its making known to us what are these Divine Revelations or this Word of God is only introductive to this divine faith which relies on and adheres to the Revelations hemselves as its formal object Scripture is the ground of our faith Tradition the Key that lets us in saith Arch-Bp Lawd †p. 86. Divine Revelation written or unwritten is the formal Object or ultimate divine motive into which we resolve our faith and the Churches Tradition testifying or manifesting to us these matters revealed is a condition and prerequisite or introductive for the application of our faith unto those Divine Revelations on which we exercise it say the Catholicks § 127 6ly Catholicks further affirm That as the Church is considered in the former of the two acceptions formentioned the infallible authority and testimony thereof is not only an introductive into but one of the Articles of this divine faith as being grounded on Divine Revelation and that so many as believe the Church's infallibility in this sence may safely resolve their divine Faith of other Articles of their belief into its delivering them as such But then they hold That the Church's infallibility thus believed is not necessarily the ultimate Principle into which this divine Faith of other Articles is resolved but that Word of God written or unwritten by which this Church-infallibility is manifested to them And again That whatever this infallible authority of the Church be it is not necessary that every one for attaining a divine authority and saving faith be infallibly certain of this infallible Church-authority Or it is not necessary That for attaining a divine faith of the Articles of the Christian belief he have some extrinsecal motive or proponent whether it be of the Church or any other save the prime verity of which he is infallibly certain that it is infallible Which thing is copiously proved by many learned Catholicks a few of whose testimonies I have here inserted which the Reader may pass over if in this matter satisfied § 128 Concerning this thus Cardinal Lugo a Spanish Jesuit speaking of divine faith †Tom. de virtute fideidisp 1. §. 12. p. 247. Probatur facilè quia hoc ipsum Ecclesiam habere authoritatem infallibilem ex assistentia Spiritus sancti creditur fid◠divinâ quae docet in Ecclesiâ esse hujusmodi authoritatem ergo ante ipsius fidei assensum non potest requiri cognitio hujus infallibilis authoritatis Et experientia docet non omnes pueros vel adultos qui de novo ad fidem accedunt concipere muchless infallibiliter scire in Ecclesiâ hanc infallibilem authoritatem assistentiam Spiritus sancti antequam ullum alium articulum credant Credunt enim Articulos in ordine quo proponuntur Hunc autem Articulum authoritatis Ecclesiasticae contingit credi postquam alios plures crediderunt Solum ergo potest ad summum praerequiri cognoscere res fidei proponi ab Ecclesia concipiendo in Ecclesiâ secundum se authoritatem maximam humanam quae reperitur in universâ fidelium congregatione n. 252. In lege naturae plures credebant ex solâ doctrinâ parentum fine aliâ Ecclesiae propositione Deinde in lege scriptô plures crediderunt Moysi aliis Prophetis antequam eorum Prophetiae ab Ecclesia reciperentur I add or before they saw their miracles or the fulfilling of their Prophecies § 129 Thus Estius †In. 3. sent 23. d. 13. §. speaking also of this divine and salvifical faith Fidei impertinens est quo medio Deus utatur ad conferendum homini donum fidei i. e. divinae quamvis enim nunc ordinarium medium sit Ecclesiae testificatio doctrina constat tamen aliis viis seu mediis fidem collatam fuisse aliquando adhuc conferri c. Nam antiqui multi ut Abraham Melchizedech Job ex speciali revelatione Apostoli ex Christi miraculis sermone yet these having no other formal or ultimate motive of their faith than we have rursus ex Apostolorum praedicatione miraculis I add and some without and before seeing their miracles and others by a credible relation only not sight of their miracles yet all these mens faith of the same nature and efficiency alii fidem conceperunt alii denique aliis modis crediderant cùm nondùm de
that all contained in S. Matthew's Gospel is true because the Church tells me it is so and then believe that the Church telleth me true because God hath revealed in some one part of his Word that the Church in this shall not err here my faith is ultimately resolved again not into the Church's authority but the Divine Revelation concerning the Church But if 3ly I believe S. Matthew's Gospel true because the Church tells me so and again believe the Church's veracity in what it saith only from the forementioned prudential motives †§. 121. inducing me to believe so here I resolve my faith into these credible motives and this is no infused or divine but an humane and acquisite faith and the assent to the thing believed can rationally be no firmer or stronger then it is to these credible proofs thereof Thus then when the authority of the Relator is the same yet the things related are diversly believed by me according to the varying of those Grounds or that authority which the Relator urgeth to make them credible When a very credible person relates to me several things which he hath heard of two other persons of whom I have a very different esteem the one accounted by me very skilful and learned in his Art the other not so here I give an assent or belief to the words of these two persons though both related to me with the same fidelity very different much stronger to the related words of him whom I esteem as it were infallible in his skill much weaker to the others and I give a third assent different from both these to the veracity of the Relator or to the credibility of the person relating these things to me concerning them This being said of a divine faith in the several assertions precedent § 135 That it is produced in us by the operation of the Holy Ghost and grounded still on divine Revelation But that it is not necessary †§. 127 c. that such faith alwayes should have an external rationally-infallible ground or motive thereto whether Church-authority or any other on his part that so believes Yet 7ly It is also affirmed That there are morally-certain or infallible grounds or motives producible both for the Christian Religion and faith in General and for all the Articles thereof as they are believed in the Catholick Church which grounds or any equal to them no other Religion besides Christianity nor in Christianity no other Sect or seducing private Spirit out of the Catholick Church can possibly plead or pretend to So that though many seducing spirits as it were in emulation of the Holy One do use to pretend and set up themselves for assurers of a divine Faith and many times do effect so firm an adherence to most false Revelations as that from this persuasion many have exposed themselves even to suffer death in defence of their errors yet this ever remains a constant way of distinguishing to the world and to all mens reason a true divine faith wrought by God's holy Spirit from these counterfeit ones wrought by the evil Spirit that Catholicks for this divine faith which the Holy Ghost only works in them as to such a supernatural powerful and vivifical efficacy thereof yet alwayes have besides this many extrinsecal motives and assurances to render it I say not Divine which such motives cannot do but in reason credible and acceptable to themselves and others which no false Religion no false faith can produce or lay claim to I mean still the former Motives which whenas the internal plerophory of this faith wrought by the Spirit is not publickly conspicuous or manifestive abroad are a standing rational evidence of the verity of Christianity against all other Sects of Religion and against all Hereticks c. Only of these motives it is affirmed That without the operation of God's Spirit they are never able to found a divine faith And. That by the holy Spirit many times a divine faith is produced without the concurrence of them Concerning this see the former quotations § 133. And here first a rational certainty or morally infallible ground of a Christians faith for this point § 136 that the Scriptures I mean as to the main body of them those few books set aside which the Protestants call Apocryphal are the Word of God and consequently whatever is contained therein and all the Articles of the Christian faith that are grounded thereon infallible is affirmed by Protestants as well as Catholicks And 1st This certainty Protestants do affirm to arise from that plenary Church-Tradition which is found to have delivered these to be God's Word and Divine Revelation throughout all ages from the Apostles times which Apostles confirmed them with miracles Of which thus the Arch-Bp †p. 124. If you speak saith he to A. C. of assurance only in general and not of that by divine faith I must then make bold to tell you and it is the greatest advantage which the Church of Christ hath against Infidels a man may be assured nay infallibly assured by Ecclesiastical and humane proof Men that never saw Rome may be sure and infallibly believe that such a City there is by Historical and acquired faith And if consent of humane story can assure me this why should not consent of Church story assure me the other That Christ and his Apostles delivered this Body of Scripture as the Oracles of God And again Certain it is saith he that by humane authority consent and proof a man may be assured infallibly that the Scripture is the Word of God by an acquired habit of faith out non subest falsum i. e. speaking of an usual and constant moral certainty and non-falsity of things but he cannot be assured infallibly by Divine faith cui subesse non potest falsum i.e. speaking of an absolute possibility of falsity or mistake of things especially by the divine power interposing in which sence nothing is free from deception save Divine Revelation but by a divine testimony § 137 And Mr. Stillingfleet saith of the same tradition †p. 205 211 That the moral certainty that is therein ‖ p. 207. yields us a sufficient assurance that the matter delivered to us to be believed is infallibly true and considering the nature of moral things is a certainty as great and begetting as firm an assent as any certainty Mathematical or Physical the greatest Physical certainty saith he being as liable to question as moral there being as great a possibility of deception in that as a suspicion of doubt in this and oftentimes greater Though his discourse there †p. 207. That where God obligeth us to believe we have the greatest assurance that the matter to be believed is infallibly true because God cannot oblige men to believe a lye from whence he would prove that we have a sufficient assurance that Christian Religion is infallibly true only from a moral certainty thereof If he
Tradition namely that both of Christians and Mahometans than this that the Bible is God's Word and yet this later carries with it a sufficient evidence and Protestants themselves †See Disc 2. §. 40. n. 2. do both allow and practise several Traditions as Apostolical which yet have not the same fulness of Tradition as the Scriptures nor indeed more than several of those points have whereof yet they deny a sufficient Tradition 2. Again the Tradition of a smaller number of persons if eminent in sanctity and miracles and other forenamed †§. 121. motives of credit may be as or more credible than that of a greater number not so qualified Of several other Traditions then what or how many in particular carry a sufficient fulness and evidence in them though all do not the same to beget a rational belief this after the Church's authority once established by Scripture and Tradition private men may safely learn from the same Church § 140 But 8ly This certainty of Tradition allowed by Protestants for Scripture's being God's Word and whatever is contained in it infallible seeming unsufficient to assure to Christians their faith in several Articles thereof because wherever the sence of these Scriptures is ambiguous it will still be uncertain whether such Articles of our faith be grounded on the true sence which only is God's Word or on the mistaken sence which is not so Next therefore Catholicks proceed farther yet And both from the same Scriptures thus established and from other constant Tradition descending from the Apostles for which see the proofs given before Disc 1. § 7. Disc 2. § 17. Disc 3. § 7. 87. c. do also gather and firmly believe an infallibility in the Church or its Governours for all necessaries from a promised perpetual assistance of the holy Ghost And this Article of the infallibility of the Church thus established becomes to them a new ground of their faith from which they do most firmly believe and adhere to all the rest of those Articles of their faith wherein the Divine Revelation either of Scriptures or Tradition is not so perspicuous and clear to them as it is in this other of the Churches infallibility And from this infallibility of the Church believed all the definitions of the same Church that are made in points where the true-sence of Scriptures is in controversie and that are delivered by her as infallible and Divine Revelations are straight believed as such and among others these points also when the Church defines them in any doubtful case what belongs to the Canon of Scriptures or what are Traditions Apostolical § 141 Thus if I first receive and believe the Church-infallibility from a clear Apostolical Tradition afterward from this Church-infallibility defining it I may become straight assured of the Canon of Scripture Or 2ly If I receive and believe some part of the Canon of Scripture from clear Apostolical Tradition and out of this received Canon become assured of Church-infallibility afterward from this infallibility defining it I may certainly come to know other parts of the same Canon that are more questioned Again when I have already learned the Church-infallibility from the Scriptures afterward I may become from its definitions setled in the belief of all those Articles of faith wherein the expressions of the same Scriptures though believed by me before the Churches infallibility yet being ambiguous in their sence which sence properly and not the words is the Divine Revelation can beget no certain and firm faith in me until they are expounded by the Church infallibly relating from God's Spirit assisting it the traditive sence of them to me So that though I believe the infallibility of Scripture's as well as the Church yet in so many points wherein the meaning of the Scriptures is not clear to me I receive the firmness of my faith in them not from the infallibility of the Scriptures expression of that which is God's Word but of the Church expounding them If then the Scripture or Tradition-Apostolick be clearer for this of Church-infallibility than for some other points of faith that person must necessarily be conceded to have a firmer ground of his faith for so many points who believes the Church infallible than another who believes only Scripture so and such person also is preserved in a right faith in these points when the other not only may err in his Faith but become heretical in his error by opposing the definition of the Church So had the Arrians and Nestorians believed the Church infallible this Article of their faith firm and stedfast had preserved them from Heresie in some others § 142 Here then appears a great firmness and stability of the Catholicks Faith by reason of this Church-infallibility for many points wherein the Protestants faith fluctuates and varies For whilst the Protestant only extends and makes use of the certitude of the Church Tradition as to one of these points the delivery of the Scriptures and acknowledgeth no further certitude of the same Church-Tradition written in the Scriptures or unwritten for the other point the infallibility of the Church divinely assisted in the exposition of the same Scriptures and in the discerning of true Traditions And again while the sence of these Scriptures in many weighty points as experience shews hath been and is controverted the Protestant here for so many of these points as are upon such misinterpretation of Scripture defined by the Church in the definition of which Church assisted as he believes by the holy Ghost the Catholick remains secure hath no rational Anchor nor ground of confidence in his faith but that which rests upon the certainty of his own judgment concerning the sence of God's Word and truth of Tradition and that judgment of his too for several points of his faith going against the judgment and exposition of the major part of the present Church and against his Superiors Where the last refuge Protestants betake themselves to ordinarily is this that they say In all things necessary the sence of Scripture is not ambiguous but clear enough to the unlearned and that in points not necessary there is no necessity of a right faith or of any decision of controversies and so no need of an infallible Church or any unerring Guide save Scripture which defence hath been examined in Disc 2. § 38. c. § 143 The sum of what hath been said here is this 1st I take it as a principle agreed on That a divine is such a faith as quatenus divine ultimately resolves it self into Divine Revelation § 144 2ly There must be some particular ultimate Divine Revelation assigned by every Christian which may be not to all the same but to some one to some another beyond which he can resolve his divine faith no further and for proving or confirming which Revelation he can produce no other divine Revelation but there must end unless a process be made in infinitum or a running
only heareth them and not the Saints God only is properly invocated as the only fountain and doner of all we petition for say also Roman Catholicks and the Saints only are sued to as Comprecators that what follows is misrelated see before § 161. This is opposed to Dr. Fields account how rightly is left to your judgment Meanwhile as in these points Dr. Field hath noted the Eastern and Western Churches to differ so we may conclude that in those other points of modern controversie that are omitted by him as Freewill Justification not by faith alone adoration of the Eucharist and offering it pro vivis defunctis Monastick life and vows Sacramental Confession and penances their publick service and the Ceremonies attending it they do agree or that this Doctor was somewhat overseen in his choice To this consent of the modern Greek Church with the Roman in many of the modern Controversies much urged by Roman Catholicks especially from Jeremias Patriarch of Constantinople his censure to prove the Protestant's departure not from the Roman only but the whole modern Catholick Church you may see if you please what answers have been returned by several other late Protestant Writers by Arch-Bp Lawd § 29. n. 4. by Bp Bramhal Reply to Chalced. c. 9. p. 356. by Dr. Gunning in a conference with some of the Roman party called Schism unmasked p. 605. by Mr. Stillingfleet Rational account part 2. c. 8. p. 500. c. And by the Wittenberg Divines against Socolovius in the preface before their Acts with the same Patriarch To give you some account of them and here to begin with these last who first apologiz'd These Tubing Divines in their Reply to Socolovius whilst they produced nothing wherein the Patriarchs doctrines suited with theirs save Communion in both kinds and the admitting married men to take Orders thought fit rather to justifie the lawfulness of a reformation though against the whole Catholick Church of that time on this manner Defectionem porrò à Romanâ pontificiâ Ecclesiâ immò ut Rhetor amplificat ab ipso terrarum orbe omnibusque Ecclesiis quòd nobis objicit sciat Polonus iste discat si ignorat non omnem defectionem vitio vertendam esse hominibus Quoties enim Deus populum suum per Prophetas suos hortatus est ut averterent se à viis suis pessimis quas à suis majoribus pessimis didicerant Johannes in suâ Apocalypsi hortatur Ecclesiam ut exeat à Babylone quam Hieronymus Romam intelligendam docet ne plagarum ejus fiat particeps And there also they declare the intention of their sending their confession into the East notwithstanding what is said before § 166. Si quo modo say they per gratiam Dei operatiâ—nem Spiritus sancti oculi caecutientium hoc modo medio aperi ntur erroribus usitatis aliquot saeculorum agnitis eisdem valedicentes adveritatis agnitionem pervenirent And afterwards Se Graecos non constituisse communis causae judices neque studiesè ab illis recipi petiisse sed hoc egisse studiosè quod bonos cordatos pios decet viros ut ad agnitionem syncerae doctrinae Religionis eos perducerent And they apologize for their not publishing the Patriarchs answer Quòd nullam admodum ex istâ editione ad Ecclesiam Christi utilitatem perventuram sperare possent cùm alia exstent plurima ac meliora scripta malorum alias plus satis sit Lastly make their appeal notwithstanding to the Catholick Church but this collective of all ages and including the Apostles De nostro cum Apostolicis Ecclesiis dissidio mentitur Nos certe non solùm ad has sed etiam omnium temporum universalem Patriarcharum Prophetarum Apostolorum Ecclesiam pâ—ovocare non dubitamus cum quibus nos conjunctissimos esse luculenter supra ex ipsâ Scripturâ Propheticâ Apostolicâ est demonstratum Such was the reply of these German Divines § 183 To come to our own men Mr. Stillingfleet α 1st endeavours to weaken the Patriarch's authority by saying †Rat. account p. 503. That it is well enough known how much Barbarism had crept into the Greek Church after their being subdued by the Turks the means of instruction being taken from them and that it is therefore more to be wondred they should preserve so much of the doctrine of faith entire as they have done than that any corrupt practises should prevail amongst them 2. Next β That as in some things he is opposite to the Protestants so in other things to the Church of Rome †p. 500. that it is sufficiently known how much the Greeks agree with the Protestants γ in the opposition to the great points of the Pope's Supremacy δ and the infallibility of the Church of Rome ε how far they are from the belief of Purgatory in the Roman sence That the Patriarch doth also profess his consent with Protestants †p. 502. ζ that the Sacrament was to be received in both kinds η that the use of Marriage was not absolutely to be forbidden the Clergy And θ that he opposed also invocation of Saints in such a sence as that they hear us Thus he and some of these are mentioned also in the forecited conference with Dr. Gunning § 184 To what he saith first α I answer that as Protestants urge this present illiterate and desolate condition of the Eastern Churches when their opinions or practice make against them so it is meet they should remember it when in their appealing to a General Council they seem to set so high a value on the judgment and sentence of these remote Churches therein resting no way satisfied with that of the West Next I say whatever corrupt practices have prevailed of late times in the East yet that as for those wherein both East and West that is the whole Catholick visible Church at Luther's coming agreed in especially when at such enmity between themselves these Churches in both of them having the like customs do bear mutual witness to one another that they could be no innovations in either of them § 185 To β. viz. the Greek Churches their agreeing in some things with Protestants against the Church of Rome To β. as in others with the Roman Church against Protestants from which it seems to follow that the Church of Rome must as well be culpable of Schism or any other crime in what the Greeks and Protestants differ from it as the Protestants in what the Greek and the Roman accord in against it I answer that any Churches co-ordinate may without Schism or fault differ from one another or one of them from all the rest in several doctrines and opinions if such opinions or doctrines be not defined or the practice of them not required by any theâ—r Superiors but any Church differing from the rest in any doctrine formerly defined or to which conformity is required by their Superiors or by 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
Grecian opinions are since but what they were when first the Reformation was made Now Jeremias his declaration was not long after the beginning of the Reformation and Cyril's above 50. years after his 2ly Concerning the newness of Cyril's opinions the words of Knowles ibid are considerable who there saith That he was a reverent and learned man and that he desired to reform many errors and to enlighten much of the blindness of his Church So that it seems he was a Reformer in the Greek Church as these others were in the Western which also appears from the complaints and persecution against him more than against his Predecessors by the Agents of the Roman Church upon this pretence Knowles ibid. And he is said †Spondan A. D. 1638. Franc. à S. Clarâ system fidei p. 528. at last for certain crimes objected to him and among others charged with innovations in Religion by the Greeks to have been imprisoned and shortly after executed and another Cyril ab Iberia formerly rejected to have been repossessed of his Chair But 3ly How contrary soever Cyril's opinions are to those of Jeremias yet the same testimonies above-named †§. 158. n 2. 165 162. that shew Jeremias's to be the doctrines of the Greek Church shew Cyril's whoever had new reformed him not to be so But 4ly Indeed his declaration though it seems purposely moulded according to the Calvinists expressions is very short and sparing general and unclear extending to few points and waving the rest and forbearing there to mention any one point save that of the procession of the holy Gho t wherein the Greeks differ from the reformed as surely in some they do and again those points therein in which Cyril seems more clearly to contradict both Jeremias's and the Roman tenents namely the denying of Purgatory and of Transubstantiation if therein he intend to deny all sorts of Purgatory though not by five and all transmutation of the Elements in the Eucharist are unquestionably singular and not owned by the Greeks as is shewed before and as is witnessed also by some reformed †§. 167 169. c. out of the common relations of the Grecian opinions and practâ—ces 5ly If Cyril or any other Patriarch of Constantinople should entertain any reformed and new opinions diverse from his predecessors whilst such a one is not followed in them by the rest of the Church These are to be stiled not its doctrines but his own and it is not denied that Patriarchs as well as others may be heretical for in several ages some have been so But 6ly If the rest of the Greek Church should also have concurred with Cyril in such innovation then will this only follow that it is true of the Greek Church as of the Protestant that they also have reformed from the whole Catholick Church 1. from the former as well Greek Church as Latine and so this fact of theirs will prove no just plea for the Protestant practice if a departure from the Church Catholick bâ— Schism but only the enlargment of the same guilt to another Church THE FOURTH DISCOURSE Containing the SOCINIANS Apology for the believing and teaching his Doctrine against former Church-Definitions and present Church-Authority upon the Protestant's Grounds Divided into Five CONFERENCES The I. CONFERENCE The Socinian's Protestant-Plea for his not holding any thing contrary to the Holy Scriptures § 2. 1st THat he believes all contained in the Scriptures to be God's Word and therefore implicitely believes those truths against which he errs Ib. 2. That also he useth his best indeavours to find the true sence of Scriptures and that more is not required of him from God for his faith or salvation than doing his best endeavours for attaining it § 3. 3. That as for an explicite faith required of some points necessary he is sufficiently assured that this point concerning the Sons consubstantiality with the Father as to the affirmative is not so from the Protestant's affirming all necessaries to be clear in Scripture even to the unlearned which this in the affirmative is not to him § 4. 4. That several express and plain Scriptures do perswade him that the negative if either is necessary to be believed and that from the clearness of Scriptures he hath as much certainty in this point as Protestants can have from them in some other held against the common expressions of the former times of the Church § 6 8. 5. That for the right understanding of Scriptures either he may be certain of a just industry used or else that Protestants in asserting that the Scriptures are plain only to the industrious and then that none are certain when they have used a just industry thus must still remain also uncertain in their faith as not knowing whether some defect in this their industry causeth them not to mistake the Scriptures 6. Lastly That none have used more diligence in the search of Scripture than the Socinians as appears by their writings addicting themselves wholly to this Word of God and not suffering themselves to be any way by ass'd by any other humane either modern or ancient authority § 5. Digress Where the Protestant's and Socinian's pretended certainty of the sence of Scripture apprehended by them and made the ground of their faith against the sence of the same Scripture declared by the major part of the Church is examined § 9. The II. CONFERENCE His Plea for his not holding any thing contrary to the unanimous sence of the Catholick Church so far as this can justly oblige § 13. 1st THat an unanimous consent of the whole Catholick Church in all ages such as the Protestants require for the proving of a point of faith to be necessary can never be shewed concerning this point of Consubstantiality § 13. And that the consent to such a doctrine of the major part is no argument sufficient since the Protestants deny the like consent valid for several other points § 14. 2. That supposing an unanimous consent of the Church Catholick of all ages in this point yet from hence a Christian hath no security of the truth thereof according to Protestant Principles if this point whether way soever held be a non-necessary for that in such it is said the whole Church may err § 15. 3. That this Article's being in the affirmative put in the Creed proves it not as to the affirmative a necessary § 16. 1st Because not originally in the Creed but added by a Council to which Creed if one Council may add so may another of equal authority in any age and whatever restrain the made by a former Council 2. Because several Articles of the later Creeds are affirmed by Protestants not necessary to be believed but upon a previous conviction that they are divine revelation § 16. 4. Lastly That though the whole Church delivers for truth in any point the contrary to that he holds he is not obliged to resign his judgment to hers except conditionally and
true that I may mistake in the sence of some Scripture but it follows not from hence that I can be certain of the sence of no Scriptures To answer you in the words of Mr. Chillingworth †Chilling p. 111. Though I pretend not to certain means in interpreting all Scripture particularly such plaâ—es as are obscure and ambiguous yet this methinks should be no impediment but that we may have certain means of not erring in and about the sence of those places which are so plain and clear that they need no Interpreters and in such this my faith is containâ—d If you ask me how I can be sure that I know the true meaning of these places I ask you again can you be sure you understand what I or any man else saith They that heard our Saviour and the Apostles preach can they have sufficient assurance that they understood at any time what they would have them do If not to what end did they hear them If they could why may not I be as well assured that I understand sufficiently what I conceive plain in their writings Again I pray tell me whether do you certainly know the sence of these Scriptures for the evidence of which you separated from the Church before Luther requiring conformity to the contrary doctrines as a condition of her Communion If you do then give us leave to have the same means and the same abilities to know other plain places which you have to know these For if all Scripture be obscure how can you know thâ— sâ—nce of these places If some places of it be plain why should I stay here †Id. p. 112. If you ask seeing I may possibly err how can I be assured I do not I ask you again seeing your eye sight may deceive you how can you be sure you see the Sun when you do see it †Ib. p. 117. A Judge may possibly err in judgment can he therefore never have assurance that he hath judged rightly A Traveller may possibly mistake his way must I therefore be doubtful whether I am in the right way from my Hall to my Chamber Or can our London Carrier have no certainty in the middle of the day when he is sober and in his wits that he is in his way to London †Id. p. 112 This I am certain of that God will not requ re of me a certainly unerring belief unless he hath given me a certain means to avoid error and if I use those which I have will never require of me that I use that which I have not †See also Chilling p. 140. 366. 307. This is Mr. Chillingworth's solid plea against the Papist's grand objection for the proving an uncertainty in the Protestant's faith upon any their pretence of evident Scripture § 8 Prot. But the Scriptures which you urge against the Son's being the same one only God with God the Father carry not the same evidence and clearness as those Scriptures do whereon Protestants build the certainty of their faith against the Papists or against the common Church-doctrines that were before Luther Soc. That say the Papists of your plain Scriptures which you of mine I pray what can be said more plain or in what point in your opinion more fundamental wherein we contend Scripture is most clear even to the unlearned than this in Joh. 17.3 Vt cognoscant te Pater solum verum Deum quem misisti Jesum Christum And 1 Cor. 8.6 Vnus Deus Pater unus Dominus Jesus And Eph. 4. ver 5. Vnus est Dominus i. e. Jesus and then ver 6. Vnus est Deus Pater omnium And Joh. 14.1 Creditis in Deum in me credite And ver 28. Pater meus major me est I say what more clear for proving the Father his being the true most high God and excluding the other persons the Son or the holy Ghost from being the very same God Prot. And 1 what more clear on the other side than these Texts Rom. 9.5 Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever And Tit. 2.13 The glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ And †1 Joh. 5.20 We are in him that is true even in his Son Jesus Christ This is the true God and eternal life spoken by S. John the great vindicator against Ebion Cerinthus Cerpocrates and others in his time opposers of our Lord's Divinity †S. Hieron de viris illust And Apoc. 1.8 compared with 1.17 I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the ending which is and which was and which is to come the Almighty I say what more clear than these Texts for shewing the true Deity of Christ 2 And then how many other clear Texts are there asserting the Eternity of our Lord that he is nothing made or created but pre-existent before the constitution of the world equal with God that heaven and earth and all things were made by him that were made and that he descended from heaven from his Father when he took our nature upon him See Joh. 1.1 c. 3.13 Heb. 1.2 3 10. c. Joh. 17.5 24. Phil. 2.6 Joh. 6.38 16.28 1 Tim. 3.16 Heb. 2.14 And 3 then his Deity and Eternity thus cleared his Deity can be no other than in the total essence thereof numerically the same with that of God the Father For those of your own Sect together with the whole Christian world do acknowledge 1 That there is but one numerical most high God an inseparable attribute of whom is the Creation of the world and his preexistence before it And again 2 That the substance or essence of this most high God is not any way divisible partible or multipliable so that Si Christus ex Dei substantiâ generatus fuit tota ei Patris substantia eadem numero communicata suit See Volkel de vera Rel. l. 5. c. 12. upon which consequence well discerned your predecessors were constrained to desert Arrianism or semi-Arrianism and to take in other respects a more desâ—erate way of denying any pre-existence of our Lord before his Incarnation To return then to our business All Scripture being equally true you know no Text thereof can be pronounced clear in such a sence which others as clear contradict The non-consideration of which by the passionate or unlearned is the mother of all errors The Texts therefore that you produce here to manifest on your side that they may not contradict many more others as clear against you are to be understood to speak of our Lord only according to his Incarnation Messias-and Mediator-ship in which he hath an inferiority to the Father and is our Lord by a special Redemption wâ—th his blood in another manner than he together with his Father in the same essence is the one true God Soc. All the Texts you have mentioned have been diligently considered and answered by our party
Prot. And your answer 's new forced absurd as may clearly appear to any rational and indifferent person perusing Volkelius l. 5. from the 10. to the 14. Chapter But to omit this dispute as now beside my purpose If your sence of the Scriptures you have urged be so manifest and clear as you pretend how comes so great a part of the Christian world doubtless rational men in the sence of these very Scriptures so much to differ from you Therefore here I cannot but still suppose in you the defect of a due industry well comparing these Scriptures and void of pride passion and other interest Soc. And I return the like question to you If on the clearness of the express sence of these Scriptures I cannot infallibly ground my faith against many other rational men contradicting on what plainness of the sence of any other Scripture is it that Protestants can ground theirs against a contrary sence given by the learned by several Councils by the whole Church of some ages as they do not promising to the Councils even to the four first an absolute but conditional assent viz. only so far as their decrees agree with these clear Scriptures If neither the plain words of Scripture can afford a sufficient certainty to me in this matter which Scriptures you say in fundamentals are to all perspicuous and such do many deem this point nor I can have a sufficient assurance of using an unbâ—ast industry in the understanding of these Scriptures and also in the comparing them with others in which I am conscious to my self of no neglect I see no sufficient ground of my presuming to understand any other part of Scripture and then wherein can lye the assurance of a Protestant's faith for his not erring in Fundamentals at least Bishop Lany tells me †Serm. at Whitehall March 12.1664 p. 17. That when we have certain knowledge of a thing we may safely learn from the Schools viz. Vbi non est formido contrarii that after diligent search and inquiry when there remains no scruple doubt and fear of the contrary when the understanding is fixt we are said to be certain And that they who will say it and do think so too may safely be absolved from the guilt of disobedience Prot. †Dr. Ferne Division of Churches p. 47.61 Chillingw p. 57. You have a judgment of discretion I grant and may interpret Scripture for your self without the use of which judgement you cannot serve God with a reasonable service who are also to give account of your self and are to be saved by your own faith and do perish upon your own score †Stillingf p. 133. None may usurp that royal prerogative of heaven in prescribing infallibly in matters questioned but leave all to judge according to the pandects of the divine laws because each member of this Society is bound to take care of his soul and of all things that tend thereto †Chillingw p. 59 100. In matters of Religion when the question is whether any man be a fit judge and chooser for himself we suppose men honest and such as understand the difference between a moment and eternity And then I suppose that all the necessary points in Religion are plain and easie and consequently every man in this case to be a compleat judge for himself because it concerns himself to judge aright as much as eternal happiness is worth and if through his own default he judge amiss he alone shall suffer for it To God's righteous judgment therefore I must finally remit you At your own peril be it This of the Socinians plea concerning the Scripture on his side § 9 Where the self-clearness of the sence of Scriptures not mistakable in Fundamentals or necessaries upon a due industry used of which also rightly used men may be sufficiently assured being made the ground as you see of the Protestants and Socinians faith before these two proceed to any further conference give me leave to interpose a word between them concerning this certainty so much spoken of and presumed on § 10 And here first from this way lately taken by many Protestants there seems to be something necessarily consequent which I suppose they will by no means allow viz. That instead of the Roman Church her setting up some men the Church Governors as infallible in necessaries here is set up by them every Christian if he will both infallible in all necessaries and certain that he is so For the Scripture they affirm most clear in all necessaries to all using a due industry and of this due industry they also affirm men may be certain that they have used it it being not all possible endeavour but such a measure thereof as ordinary discretion c. adviseth to See Mr. Chillingworth p. 19. And next from this affirmed firmed that every one may be so certain in all Fundamentals it must be maintained also that their spiritual Guides in a conjunction of them nay more every single Prelate or Presbyter if they are not yet may be an infallible Guide to the people in all Points necessary And therefore Mr. Chillingworth freely thus vindicates it †p. 140. That these also may be both in Fundamentals and also in some points unfundamental both certain of the infallibility of their Rule and that they do manifestly proceed according to it and then in what they are certain that they cannot be mistaken they may saith he †p. 118 140. 166. lawfully decide the controversies about them and without rashness propose their decrees as certain divine Revelations and excommunicate anathematize also any man persisting in the contrary error And there seems reason in such Anathema because all others either do or may know the truth of the same decrees by the same certain means as these Governors do Now then what certainty the Guides of a particular Church may have I hope may also those of the Church Catholick and then obedience being yielded to these by all their inferiors this will restore all things to their right course All this follows upon certainty 1 That Scriptures are plain in Fundamentals And 2 that due industry is used to understand them But if you should deny that men can have a certainty of their industry rightly used then again is all the fair security these men promise their followers of their not erring in necessaries quite vanished But now to pass from this consequence to which I know not what can be said and to enquire a litle after the true grounds of our certainty in any thing which is here so much pretended 1st It cannot be denyed that he that doth err in one thing may be certain that he doth not err in some other because he may have sufficient ground and means for his not erring in one thing which he hath not in another Nor again denyed that he who possibly may err yet in the same thing may be certain that he doth not err if
not neglecting some means which he knows will certainly keep him from error § 11 2. But notwithstanding these This seems also necessary to be granted on the other side and is so by learned Protestants That in what kind of knowledge soever it be whether of our sence or reason in whatever Art or Science one can never rightly assure himself concerning his own knowledge that he is certain of any thing for a truth which all or most others of the same or better abilities for their cognoscitive faculties in all the same external means or grounds of the knowledge thereof do pronounce an error Not as if truth were not so though all the world oppose it nor had certain grounds to be proved so though all the world should deny them but because the true knowledge of it and them cannot possibly appear to one mans intellect and omnibus paribus not to others Now for any disparity as to defect whether in the instrument or in the means of knowledge there where all or most differ from me it seems a strange pride not to imagine this defect in my self rather than them especially * whenas all the grounds of my Science are communicated to them and * whenas for my own mistakes I cannot know exactly the extent of supernatural delusions I say be this in what knowledge we please in that of sence seeing hearing numbring or in any of Mr. Chillingworth's former instances mentioned § 7. So I can never rationally assure my self of what I see when men as well or better sighted and all external circumstances for any thing I know being the same see no such matter And this is the Rule also proposed by learned Protestants to keep every Phanatick from pleading certainty in his own conceit See Arch-Bp Lawd 〈◊〉 33. Consid 5. n. 1. and Hooker Preface § 6. their defining of a clear evidence or demonstrative argument viz. Such as proposed to any man and understood the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent to it and therefore surely proposed to many men the mind of the most cannot dissent from it § 12 Consequently in the Scripture abstracting from the inward operations of God's holy Spirit and any external infallible Guide which infallible Guide Scripture it self cannot be to two men differing in the sence thereof I see not from whence any certainty can arise to particular persons for so many Texts or places thereof concerning the sence of which the most or the most learned or their Superiors to whom also all their motives or arguments are represented do differ from them From the plainness of the expression or Grammatical construction of the words such certainty cannot arise unless no term thereof can possibly be distinguished or taken in a diverse or unliteral sence but if it cannot be so taken then all Expositors must needs agree in one and the same sence For example For the literal and Grammatical sence what Text plainer than Hoc est corpus meum and yet Protestants understand it otherwise Very deficient therefore seemeth that answer of Mr. Chillingwoith's to Fr. Knot †Chill p. 307 urging That the first Reformers ought to have doubted whether their opinions were certain Which is to say answers he that they ought to have doubted of the certainty of Scripture which in formal and express terms contains many of their opinions whenas the greater world of Catholicks sees no such matter Besides as these is no term almost in any sentence but that is capable of several acceptions so since no falshood no discord is in the Scriptures there is no senrence in it however sounding for the expression but must be reconciled in its sence to all the rest and for this a diligent comparing of Texts is necessary to attain the true meaning of many places that seem at the first sight most clear in what they say but that there are also other places as clear that seem to say the contrary And some such places it was and that in very necessary points too of which S. Peter saith That some wrested them to their own damnation wrested them because they wanted not industry but learning which the unlearned saith he wrest And indeed commonly the most ignorant have the strongliest-conceited certainty for what they apprehend or believe †2 Pet. 3.16 because they know fewest reasons against it whilst by much study and comparing several Revelations one with another those come at last to doubt or deny that sence of some of them which at the first they took for most certainly and evidently true Pardon this long Parenthesis CONFERENCE II. 2. The Socinians Protestant-Plea For his not holding any thing contrary to the unanimous sence of the Catholick Church so far as this can justly oblige § 13 Now to resume the Conference The Protestant better thinking on it will not leave the Socinian thus at rest in this plerophory of his own sence of Scripture but thus proceeds Prot. Scriptures indeed are not so clear and perspicuous to every one †Stillingf p. 58 59. as that Art and subtilty may not be used to pervert the Catholick doctrine and to wrest the plain places of Scripture which deliver it so far from their proper meaning that very few ordinary capacities may be able to clear themselves of such mists as are cast before their eyes even in the great Articles of the Christian faith Therefore why do not you submit your judgment and assent to the sence of Scripture in this point unanimously delivered by the consent of the Catholick Church which also is believed alwayes unerrable in any necessary point of faith as this is Soc. First If you can shew me an unanimous consent of the Church Catholick of all ages in this point and that as held necessary I will willingly submit to it But this you can * never do according to such a proof thereof as is required viz †Stillingf p. 57. That all Catholick Writers agree in the belief of it and none of them oppose it and agree also in the belief of the necessity of it to all Christians * That no later Writers and Fathers in opposition of Hereticks or heats of contention judged then the Article so epposed to be more necessary than it was judged before the contention * That all Writers that give an account of the faith of Christians deliver it And deliver it not as necessary to be believed by such as might be convinced that it is of divine Revelation but with a necessiity of its being explicitely believed by all See before Disc 3. § 52. Now no such unanimous consent can be pretended for Consubstantiality For not to speak of the times next following the Council of Nice nor yet of several expressions in the ancients Justin Martyr Iraeneus Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus Origen that seem to favour our opinion †See Petavius in Epiphan Haer. 69 Nor of those Bastern Bishops which Arrius in his letter to Eusebius Nicomed ‖ Apud
Epiphan Haer. 69 Theodoret. l. 1. c. 5. numbers on his side Hilarius †De Synodis relates no less than eighty Bishops before that Council to have disallowed the reception of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the Council also seventeen some of note at first to have dissented from the rest § 14 Prot. Not yielding what you say for truth but for the present supposing it yet the judgment of so small a party may by no means be adhered to by you it being inconsiderable in respect of the whole Body of the Catholick Church declaring against you Soc. If the consent of the much major part is to be taken for the whole then the reformed cannot maintain their dissent from the much more numerous body of Christianity that opposed their opinions and sence of Scriptures at the beginning of the Reformation and do still oppose them But not to stand upon this I would willingly conform to the unanimous or most general judgement of the Church Catholick if I were secure that she could not be mistaken in it But †Stillingf p. 59. The sence of the Church Catholick is no infallible rule of interpreting Scripture in all things which concern the rule of faith †Stillingf p. 133. Nor may she usurp that royal prerogative of heaven in prescribing infallibly in matters questioned Prot. You may be secure that she never erreth in any point necessary Soc. But you tell me that though she never err in necessaries yet it follows not that she is an unerring Guid or witness therein †Stillingf p. 154 252. Chilling p. 150. Dr. Hammond Defence of the L. Falkl. p. 23. §. 15. or that she must unerringly declare what points are necessary and what not and I must first learn whether this point of Consubstantiality is to be numbred among necessaries before I can be assured that the sence of the Church Catholick errs not therein Prot. But †Stillingf p 58. It is a sufficient prescription against any thing which can be alledged out of Scripture that it ought not to be looked on as the true meaning of Scripture if it appear contrary to the sence of the Church Catholick from the beginning and therefore such doctrines may well be judged destructive to the rule of faith which have been so unanimously condemued by the Church Catholick Soc. Why so Prot. †Stillingf ib. Because nothing contrary to the necessary Articles of faith can be held by the Catholick Church for it s very Being depends on its belief of necessaries to salvation Soc. This last is most true but then if you mean to make your discourse cohere you must say it is a sufficient prescription c. if it appear contrary to the sence of the Catholick Church viz. in a point necessary for the reason you give carries and secures you no further and then that which you say is no great matter For here we are still to seek whether the point we discourse of is in the affirmative such a necessary § 16 Prot. But this is ranked among those points which the Church hath put in her Creeds Soc. From the beginning this Article was not in the Creed and though it should be granted that all points necessary are contained in the Creeds yet all in the Creeds are not thought points necessary †Stillingf p. 70. 71. Necessary so as to be believed by any before a clear conviction of the divine Revelation thereof which conviction I yet want § 17 Prot. But yet though first the Catholick Church may err in non-necessaries and 2ly in what points are necessary what not her judgment be not infallible yet you have still great reason to submit your judgment to hers because if it happen to be a point necessary she is from the divine Promise infallible and unerring in it not so you And 2ly If not necessary and so both she and you therein liable to error yet you much the more and she also in these things is appointed by God for your Teacher and Guide Soc. Therefore I use the help and direction of my spiritual Guides consider their reasons do not rashly depart from their judgement but yet †Dr. Ferne Considerations p. 19. The due submission of my assent and belief to them is only to be conditional with reservation of evidence in God's Word For in matter of faith as Dr. Ferne saith I cannot submit to any company of men by resignation of my judgment and belief to receive for faith all that they shall define for such resignation stands excluded by the condition of the authority which is not infallible and by the condition of the matter faith of high concernment to our own souls and to be accounted for by our selves who therefore stand bound to make present and diligent search for that evidence and demonstration from God's Word upon which we may finally and securely stay our belief And †The Case between the Churches p. 40. The Church determining matter of faith saith he ought to manifest it out of God's Word and we may expect such proof before we yield absolute assent of belief And so Mr. Stillingfleet saith †p. 133. All men ought to be left to judge according to the Pandects of the divine Laws because each member of this Society is bound to take care of his soul and of all things that tend thereto Now I for my part see no solid ground out of the Scripture for Consubstantiality but rather for the contrary which several of our Writers have made appear to the world And therefore unless the Church were either infallible in all she determined or at least in distinguishing those necessaries wherein she cannot err from the rest it seems no way justifiable that she puts this her definition into the Creed she as I conceive thus requiring from all an absolute consent thereto and not only as some †Still p. 70. would perswade me a conditional for some of them viz. whenever I shall be clearly convinced that such point is of divine Revelation CONFERENCE III. 3. Or contrary to the Definitions of lawful General Councils the just conditions thereof being observed § 18 3. PRot. But do you not consider by what persons this Article was long ago inserted into the Creed Namely by the first General and the most venerable assembly of the Fathers of the Church that hath been convened since the Apostles times celebrated under the first Christian Emperor by a perfect representative of the Catholick Church and by such persons as came very much purified out of the newly-quenched fire of the greatest persecution that the Church hath suffered that under Dioclesian will not you then at last submit your judgment to the Decree of this great and holy Council one and the first of those four which S. Gregory said he received with the same reverence as the four Gospels Soc. No And for this I shall give you in brief many reasons
and either these evidences remain still unsatisfied Or these satisfied yet some other new ones appear to call for a new consideration Soc. †Stillingf ib. Because it may also err it follows not it must err and it is probable that it shall not err when the former error is thus discovered and if the Council proceed lawfully be not over-awed c. †Idem p. 526 But however if I ought upon this review to be restrained to silence yet I not convinced of the truth of its decree this silence is the uttermost that any future Council after its rejecting my reasons can justly exact of me and not belief or assent at all it may not oblige me that I should relinquish that you call Socinianism at all but that not divulge it whereas now by the Acts of former Councils I would gladly know upon what rational ground an Anathema is pronounced against me if I do not believe the contrary and I am declared to stand guilty of Heresie meerly for retaining this opinion which retaining it is called obstinacy and contumacy in me after the Councils contrary Definition CONFERENCE IV. 4. His Plea for not being guilty of Heresie § 23 4 PRot. You know that all Hereticks are most justly anathematized and cut off from being any longer members of the Catholick Church and so do remain excluded also from salvation Now this Tenent of yours hath alwayes been esteemed by the Church of God a most pernicious Heresie Soc. I confess Heresie a most grievous crime dread and abhor it and trust I am most free from such a guilt and from this I have many wayes of clearing my self For Heresie as Mr. Chillingworth defines it †p. 271. being not an erring but an obstinate defence of an error not of any error but of one against a necessary or fundamental Article of the Christian faith 1st Though this which I hold should be an error and that against a Fundamental yet my silence practiced therein can never be called an obstinate defence thereof and therefore not my tenent an Heresie 2ly Since Fundamentals vary according to particular persons and as Mr. Chillingworth saith †No Catalogue thereof p. 134. that can be given can universally serve for all men God requiring more of them to whom he gives more and less of them to whom he gives less And that may be sufficiently declared to one all things considered which all things considered is not to another sufficiently declared and variety of circumstances makes it as impossible to set down an exact Catalogue of Fundamentals as to make a Coat to fit the Moon in all her changes And as Mr. Stillingfleet follows him †p. 98 99 since the measure of Fundamentals depends on the sufficiency of the proposition and none can assigne what number of things are sufficiently propounded to the belief of all persons or set down the exact bounds as to all individuals when their ignorance is inexcusable and when not or tell what is the measure of their capacity what allowance God makes for the prejudices of Education c. Hence I conceive my self free from Heresie in this my opinion on this score also because though the contrary be to some others a Fundamental truth and to be explicitly believed by them yet to me as not having any sufficient proposal or conviction thereof but rather of the contrary it is no Fundamental and consequently my tenent opposing it if an error yet no Heresie Prot. Do not deceive your self for though according to different revelations § 24 to those that were without Law or those under the Law or those under the Gospel Fundamentals generally spoken of might be more to some than others yet to all those who know and embrace the Gospel we say †Chillingw p. 92. all Fundamentals are therein clearly proposed to all reasonable men even the unlearned and therefore the erring therein to all such cannot but be obstinate and Heretical Soc. Unless you mean onely this That all Fundamentals i. e. so many as are required of any one are clear to him in Scripture but not all the same Fundamentals there clear to every one but to some more of them to some fewer I see not how this last said accords with that said before by the same person But if you mean thus then consubstantiality the point we talk of may be a Fundamental to you and clear in Scripture but also not clear to me in Scripture and so no Fundamental and hence I think my self safe For †I believing all that is clear to me in Scripture must needs believe all fundamentals I cannot incur Heresie which is opposit to some fundamental †Chilling p. 367. The Scripture sufficiently informing me what is the Faith must of necessity also teach me what is Heresie That which is streight will plainly teach us what is crooked * Id. p. 101 and one contrary cannot but manifest the other Prot. I pray you consider a little better what you said last for since Heresie as you grant it is an obstinate defence of error only against some necessary point of Faith and all truth delivered in Scripture is not such unless you can also distinguish in Scripture these points of necessary Faith from others you can have no certain knowledge of Heresie and the believing all that is delivered in Scripture though it may preserve you from incurring Heresie yet cannot direct you at all for knowing or discerning Heresie or an error against a fundamentall or a necessary point of Faith from other simple and less dangerous errors that are not so nor by this can you ever know what errors are Heresies what not and so after all your confidence if by your neglect you happen not to believe some Scriptures in their true sence you can have no security in your Fundamentall or necessary Faith or of your not incurring Heresie Neither Secondly according to your discourse hath the Church any means to know any one to be an Heretick because she can never know the just latitude of his fundamentals And so Heresie will be a grievous sin indeed but walking under such a vizard of non-sufficient proposal as the Ecclesiastical Superiors cannot discover or punish it Therefore to avoid such confusion in the Christian Faith there hath been alwaies acknowledged in the Church some authority for declaring Heresie and it may seem conviction enough to you that her most general Councils have defined the contrary position to what you maintain and received it for a fundamentall Of which Ecclesiastical Authority for declaring Heresie thus Dr. Potter †p. 97 The Catholick Church 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 judgement so well grounded is justly esteemed an Heretick not properly because he disobeyes the Church but because he yeilds not to Scripture sufficiently propounded or cleared unto him i. e. by the
of their Doctrine out of the Scripture words understood with piety and the fetching their Definitions regularly from the sense thereof which the General Churches had received down from the Apostles †Of Heresie p. 96. Upon which follows that in such case where a Lawful General Council doth not so as possibly it may and Inferiors are to consider for themselves whether it doth not there may be no Heretical autocatacrifie in a dâ—ssent from it nor this dissent an evidence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his being perverted and sinning wilfully and without excuse Lastly thus Mr. Stillingfleet concerning Heresie †p. 73. The formal reason of Heresie is denying something supposed to be of divine Revelation and therefore 2ly None can reasonably be accused of Heresie but such as have sufficient reason to believe that that which they deny is revealed by God And therefore 3ly None can be guilty of Heresie for denying any thing declared by the Church unless they have sufficient reason to believe that whatever is declared by the Church is revealed by God and therefore the Churches Definition cannot make any Hereticks but such as have reason to believe that she cannot err in her Definitions From hence also he gathers That Protestants are in less danger of Heresie than Papists till these give them more sufficient reasons to prove that whatever the Church declares is certainly revealed by God Thus he Now such sufficient proving reasons as Protestants plead that Papists have not yet given them concerning this matter of Church-authority I alledge that neither have they nor others given me To be self-condemned therefore in my dissent from the definition of the Council of Nice I must first have sufficient reason proposed to me to believe and so to remain self-condemned and Heretical in disbelieving it this point viz. That the Church or her Council hath power to define matters of Faith in such manner as to require my assent thereto Which so long as I find no sufficient reason to believe I suppose I am freed without obstinacy or Heresie or being therein self-condemned from yeilding assent to any particular matter of Faith which the Church defines And had I sufficient reason proposed to me for believing this point yet so long as I am not actually convinced thereof I become only guilty of a fault of ignorance not obstinacy or autocatacrisie or Heresie for if I am self-condemned or guilty of obstinacy in disbelieving the foresaid points †See Mr. Stillingf p. 99. Then I become so either by the Churches definition of this point or without it By reason of the Churches definition of this it cannot be for this very power of defining is the thing in question and therefore cannot be cleared to me by the Churche's defining it †Still p. 74 and thus That thing is proposed to me in the definition to be believed which must be supposed to be believed by me already before such proposal or definition or else the definition is not necessary to be believed †Ib. p. 99. Nor without or before such definition can I have an autocatacrisie because this autocatacrisy you say with Dr. Hammond ariseth from my disobedience to the Church Prot. Methinks you make the same plea for your selfe in this matter as if one that is questioned for not obeying the divine precepts or not believing the divine revelations delivered in Scripture should think to excuse himself by this answer that indeed he doth not believe the Scripture to be Gods Word and therefore he conceives that he cannot reasonably be required to believe that which is contained therein And as such a person hath as much reason though this not from the Scripture yet from Apostolical Tradition to believe that Scripture is Gods Word as to believe what is written in it so have you though not from the Nicen Council defining it yet from Scripture and Tradition manifesting it as much reason to believe its authority of defining as what it defined It s true indeed that had you not sufficient proposal or sufficient reason to know this your duty of Assent to this definition of the Council of Nice you were faultless in it but herein lies your danger that from finding a non actual conviction of the truth within hindred there by I know not what supine negligence or strong self-conceit c. you gather a non sufficient proposal without § 37 Soc. It remains then to inquire who shall judge concerning this sufficient proposal or sufficient reason which I am said to have to believe what the Nicen Council or the Church hath declared in this point †Stillingf p. 73. Whether the Churches judgment is to be taken by me in this or my own made use of If her judgement the ground of my belief and of Heresie lies still in the Churches definition and thus it will be all one in effect whether I believe what she declares without sufficient reason or learn this of her when there is sufficient reason to believe so It must be then my own judgment I am to be directed by in this matter †See Stilling p. 479. and if so then it is to be presumed that God doth both afford me some means not to be mistaken therein and also some certain knowledg when I do use this means aright for without these two I can have no security in my own judgment in a matter of so high concernment as Heresie and fundamental faith is Now this means in this matter I presume I have daily used in that I finde my conscience after much examination therein to acquit me unless you can prescribe me some other surer evidence without sending me back again to the authority of the Church Prot. Whilst your discovery of your tenent to be an Heresie depends on your having sufficient reason to believe it is so And 2ly The judgment of your having or not having sufficient reason to believe this is left to your self the Church hath no means to know you or any other to be an Heretick till they declare themselves to be so And thus in striving to free your selfe from Heresie you have freed all mankind from it as to any external discovery and convincement thereof and cancelled such a sin unless we can finde one that will confess himself to maintain a thing against his own conscience Soc. If I so do the Protestants for they also hold none guilty of Heresie for denying any thing declared by the Church unless they have reason to believe that what ever is declared by the Church is revealed by God and of this sufficient reason they make not the Church or Superiors but themselves the Judge The V. CONFERENCE His Plea for not being guilty of Schism 5. PRot. I have yet one thing more about which to question you If you will not acknowledge your opinion Heresie in opposing the publike judgment § 28 and definition of the Catholick Church
superiors the condition of whose Communion containes nothing really erroneous or sinful though the doctrine so proposed as the condition of their Communion be apprehended by him to whom it is thus proposed to be false remaines in Schism Soc. And at this rate all those who separate from the Church requiring their assent to what is indeed a truth will be Schismaticks and that whether in a point fundamental or not Fundamental though they have used all the industry all the means they can except this the relying on their Superiors judgment not to err unless you will say that all truths even not Fundamental are in Scripture so clear that none using a right industry can neither err in them which no Chillingworth hath maintained hitherto § 34 Prot. But we may let this pass for your separation was in a point perspicuous enough in Scripture and so you void of such excuse was in a point Essential and Fundamental and in which a wrong belief destroyes any longer Communion of a particular Person or Church with the Catholick Soc. This I utterly deny nor see I by what way this can ever be proved against me for you can assigne no Ecclesiastical Judge that can distinguish Fundamentals Necessaries or Essentials from those points that are not so as hath been shewed already And as Mr. Stillingfleet †p. 73. urgeth concerning Heresie so may I concerning Schism What are the measures whereby we ought to judge what things are essential to the being of Christianity or of the Church Whether must the Churches judgment be taken or every mans own judgment if the former the Ground of Schism lies still in the Churches definition contrary to what Protestants affirm if the latter then no one can be a Schismatick but he that opposeth that of which he is or may be convinced that it is a Fundamental or essential matter of Faith If he be only a Schismatick that opposeth that of which he is convinced then no man is a Schismatick but he that goes against his present judgment and so there will be few Schismaticks in the world If he that opposeth that which he may be convinced of then again it is that which he may be convinced of either in the Churches judgment or in his own if in the Churches it comes to the same issue as in the former If in his own how I pray shall I know that I may be convinced of what using a due indeavour I am not convinced already or how shall I know when a due industry is used and if I cannot know this how should I ever settle my self unless it be upon Authority which you allow not Again I am taught that any particular whether person or Church may judge for themselves with the Judgment of Discretion And in the matter of Christian Communion †Stillingf p. 292. That nothing can be more unreasonable than that the Society Suppose it be a Council imposing conditions of its Communion Suppose the Council of Nice imposing Consubstantialiity so should be Judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no And especially in this case where a considerable Body of Christians judg such things required to be unlawful conditions of communion what justice or reason is there that the party accused should sit judg in his own cause Prot. By this way no Separatist can ever be a Schismatick if he is constituted the judge whether the reason of his separation is just Soc. And in the other way there can never be any just cause of separation at all if the Church-Governors from whom I separate are to judge whether that be an error for which I separate § 35 Prot. It seems something that you say But yet though upon such consideration a free use of your own judgment as to providing for your own Salvation is granted you yet methinks in this matter you have some greater cause to suspect it since several Churches having of late taken liberty to examine by Gods Word more strictly the corrupt doctrins of former ages yet these reformed as well as the other unreformed stand opposit to you and neither those professing to follow the Scriptures nor those professing to follow Tradition and Church authority neither those requiring strict obedience and submission of judgment nor those indulging Christian liberty countenance your doctrin But you stand also reformers of the reformation and separated from all Soc. Soft a little Though I stand separated indeed from the present unreformed Churches or also if you will from the whole Church that was before Luther yet I both injoy the external Communion and think I have reason to account my self a true member of the Churches reformed and as I never condemned them or thought Salvation not attainable in them so neither am I that I know of excluded by or from them so long as I retain my opinion in silence and do not disturbe their peace and I take my selfe also on these termes to be a member in particular of the Church of England wherein I have been educated For all these Churches as confessing themselves fallible in their decrees do not require of their Subjects to yeeld any internal assent to their doctrines or to profess any thing against their conscience and in Hypocrisie and do forbear to use that tyranny upon any for injoying their Communion which they so much condemn in that Church from which for this very thing they were forced to part Communion and to reform Of this matter thus Mr. Whitby †p. 100. Whom did our Convocations ever damn for not internally receiving their decrees Do they not leave every man to the liberty of his judgment They do not require that we should in all things believe as they believe but that we should submit to their determination and not contradict them their decisions are not obtruded as infallible Oracles but only submitted to in order to peace and unity So that their work is rather to silence than to determine disputes c. and p. 438. We grant a necessity or at least a convenience of a Tribunal to decide controversies but how Not by causing any person to believe what he did not antecedently to these decrees upon the sole authority of the Council but by silencing our disputes and making us acquiesce in what is propounded without any publick opposition to it keeping our opinions to our selves A liberty of using private discretion in approving or rejecting any thing as delivered or not in Scripture we think ought to be allowed for faith cannot be compelled and by taking away this liberty from men we should force them to become Hypocrites and so profess outwardly what inwardly they disbelieve And see Mr. Stillingfleets rational account p. 104. where speaking of the obligation to the 39. Articles he saith That the Church of England excommunicates such as openly oppose her doctrin supposing her fallible the Roman Church excommunicates all who will not believe whatever she defines to be infallibly
true That the Church of England blindeth men to peace to her determinations reserving to men the liberty of their judgments on pain of excommunication if they violate that peace For it is plain on the one side where a Church pretends infallibility the excommunication is directed against the persons for refusing to give internal assent to what she defines But where a Church doth not pretend to that the excommunication respects wholly that overt Act whereby the Churches peace is broken And if a Church be bound to look to her own peace no doubt she hath power to excommunicate such as openly violate the bonds of it which is only an act of caution in a Church to preserve her selfe in unity but where it is given out that the Church is infallible the excommunication must be so much the more unreasonable because it is against those internal acts of the minde over which the Church as such hath no direct power And p. 55. he quotes these words out of Bp. Bramhall †Schism guarded p. 192. To the same sence We do not suffer any man to reject the 39. Articles of the Church of England at his pleasure yet neither do we look upon them as essentials of saving faith or legacies of Christ and his Apostles but in a mean as pious opinions fitted for the presâ—rvation of unity neither do we oblige any man to believe them but only not to contradict them By which we see what vast difference there is between those things which are required by the Church of England in order to peace and those which are imposed by the Church of Rome c. Lastly thus Mr. Chillingworth †p. 200. of the just authority of Councils and Synods beyond which the Protestant Synods or Convocations pretend not The Fathers of the Church saith he in after times i. e. after the Apostles might have just cause to declare their judgment touching the sence of some general Articles of the Creed but to oblige others to receive their declarations under pain of damnation what warrant they had I know not He that can shew either that the Church of all ages was to have this authority or that it continued in the Church for some ages and then expired He that can shew either of these things let him for my part I cannot Yet I willingly confess the judgment of a Council though not infallible is yet so far directive and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to afford it an outward submission for publick peace sake Thus much as the Protestant Synods seem contented with so I allow Again p. 375. He saith Any thing besides Scripture and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it Well may Protestants hold it as matter of opinion but as matter of faith and religion neither can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it themselves nor require the belief of it of others without most high and most schismatical presumption Thus he now I suppose that either no Ptotestant Church or Synod will stile the Son 's coequall God-head with the Father a plain irrefragable indubitable Scripture or consequence thereof about which is and hath been so much contest or with as much reason they may call whatever points they please such however controverted and then what is said here signifies nothing § 36 Prot. Be not mistaken I pray especially concerning the Church of England For though she for several points imposed formerly by the tyranny of the Roman Church hath granted liberty of opinion or at least freed her subjects from obligation to believe so in them as the Church formerly required yet as to exclusion of your doctrin she professeth firmly to believe the 3. Creeds and concerning the additions made in the two latter Creeds to the first Dr. Hammond †Of Fundamentals p. 90. acknowledgeth That they being thus settled by the universal Church were and still are in all reason without disputing to be received and imbraced by the Protestant Church and every meek member thereof with that reverence that is due to Apostolick truthes with that thankfulness which is our meet tribute to those sacred Champions for their seasonable and provident propugning our faith with such timely and necessary application to practice that the Holy Ghost speaking to us now under the times of the New Testament by the Governors of the Christian Churches Christs mediate successors in the Prophetick Pastoral Episcopal Office as he had formerly spoken by the Prophets of the Old Testament sent immediately by him may finde a cheerfull audience and receive all uniform submission from us Thus Dr. Hammond of the Church of England's assent to the 3. Creeds She assenteth also to the definitions of the 4 first General Councils And the Act 1. Eliz. †cap. 1. declares Heresie that which hath been adjudged so by them now in the definitions of these first 4. General Counclls your tenent hath received a mortal wound †But lastly the 4th Canon in the English Synod held 1640. †Can. 4. particularly stiles Socinianism a most damnable and cursed Heresie and contrary to the Articles of Religion established in the Church of England and orders that any convicted of it be excommunicated and not absolved but upon his repentance and abjuration Now further than this namely excommunication upon conviction No other Church I suppose hath or can proceed against your Heresie It being received as a common axiom in the Canon Law that Ecclesia non judicat de occultis And cogitationis poenam nemo patitur And Ob peccatum mere internum Ecclesiastica censura ferri non potest And in all Churches every one of what internal perswasion soever continues externally at least a member thereof till the Churches censures do exclude him § 37 Soc. The Church of England alloweth assenteth to and teacheth what she judgeth evident in the Scripture for so she ought what she believes or assenteth to I look not after but what she enjoynes Now I yeeld all that obedience in this point that she requires from me and so I presume she will acknowledge me a dutiful Son Prot. what obedience when as you deny one of her chiefest and most fundamental doctrins Soc. If I mistake not her principles she requires of me no internal belief or assent to any of her doctrins but only 1st silence or non-contradiction †See Disc 3 § 84. n. 2. n. 4. or 2ly a conditional belief i. e. whenever I shall be convinced of the truth thereof Now in both these I most readily obey her For the 1st I have strictly observed it kept my opinion to my self unless this my discourse with you hath been a breach of it but then I was at least a dutiful subject of this Church at the beginning of our discourse and for the 2d whether actual conviction or sufficient proposal be made the condition of my assent or submission of
with this reservation unless on the other side there appear evidence to him in God's Word Now of the evidence of Scripture in this point on his side that he hath no doubt § 17. The III. CONFERENCE His Plea for his not holding any thing contrary to the definitions of lawful General Councils the just conditions thereof observed § 18. THat he conceives he ows no obedience to the Council of Nice 1. Because this cannot be proved to have been a lawful General Council with so much certainty as is necessary for the ground of his faith as appears by those many questions mentioned by Mr. Chilling-worth Stillingfleet and other Protestants wherein he must first be satisfied concerning it which see Disc 3. § 86. c § 18. 2. Because though it were a General Council yet it might err even in necessaries if it were not universally accepted as he can shew it was not 3. That though yielded to be generally accepted it might err still in non-necessaries and that Protestants cannot prove this point to be otherwise 4. That the leaders of this Council were plainly a party contestingt his for many years before with the other side condemned and were Judges in their own cause 5. All these exceptions cancelled and obedience granted due to this Council yet that so there is due to it not that of assent but only of silence § 19. 6. But yet not that of silence neither from him considering his present persuasion that indeed the affirmative in this point is an error manifest and intolerable concerning which matter his party having long complained to their Superiors and produced sufficient evidence yet these have proceeded to no redress of it § 20. 7. But yet that he will submit to the judgement of a future Council if it rightly considering the reasons of his tenent decree that which is according to God's Word and he be convinced thereof § 22. The IV. CONFERENCE His Plea for his not being guilty of Heresie § 23. THat he cannot rightly according to Protestant Principles be accused as guilty of Heresie for several reasons 1. Because Protestants holding Heresie to be an obstinate defence of some error against a fundamental he thinks from hence his tenent freed from being an Heresie as long as in silence he retains it unless he engage further to a publick pertinacious maintaining thereof § 23. 2. Fundamentals varying according to particular persons and sufficient proposal none can conclude this point in the affirmative to be as to him a fundamental or of the truth which he hath had a sufficient proposal 3. That a lawful General Council's declaring some point Heresie doth not necessarily argue that it is so because they may err in Fundamentals or at least in distinguishing them from other points § 26. 4. That he can have no autocatacrisie or obstinacy in a dissenting from their Definitions till he is either actually convinced or at least hath had a sufficient proposal either of the truth of such point defined Or that such Councils have authority to require submission of judgement and assent to their Definitions of which conviction or sufficicient proposal that varies much according to the differing conditions of several persons as to himself none can judge save himself and consequently neither can they judge of his guilt of Heresie Ib. The V. CONFERENCE His Plea for his not being guilty of Schism § 28. 1. THat the Socinian Churches have not forsaken the whole Church Catholick or the external Communion of it but only left one part of it that was corrupted and reformed another part i. e. themselves Or that he and the Socinian Churches being a part of the Catholick they have not separated from the whole because not from themselves § 28. 2. That their separation being for an error unjustly imposed upon them as a condition of Communion the Schism is not theirs who made the separation but theirs who caused it § 29. Besides that what ever the truth of things be yet so long as they are required by any Church to profess they believe what they do not their separation cannot be said causless and so Schism § 32. 3. That though he and his party had forsaken the external Communion of all other Churches yet not the internal in which they remain still united to them both in that internal Communion of charity in not condemning all other Churches as non-Catholick and in that of Faith in all Essentials and Fundamentals and in all such points wherein the unity of the Church Catholick consists § 30. 4. That the doctrine of Consubstantiality for which they departed is denyed by them to be any Fundamental nor can the Churches from which they depart for it be a competent judge against them that it is so § 34. 5. That though they are separaters from the Roman yet not from the Reformed Churches which Churches leave men to the liberty of their own judgment nor require any internal assent to their doctrines in which thing these blame the tyranny of the Roman Church save only conditional if any be convinced of the truth thereof or not convinced of the contrary § 35. 6. In fine that for enjoying and continuing in the Protestant Communion he maketh as full a profession of conformity to her doctrines as Mr. Chillingworth hath done in several places of his book which yet was accepted as sufficient 〈◊〉 41. The Fourth DISCOURSE CONFERENCE I. The Socinian's Protestant Plea for his not holding any thing contrary to the holy Scriptures § 1 THat those things which have been delivered in the three former discourses concerning the invalidity of the Protestants Guide for preserving the true faith and suppressing Heresies may be clearlier seen and more seriously considered I have thought fit in this for an Example to shew what Apology a Socinian upon the forementioned Protestant-positions may return for himself to a Protestant indeavouring to reduce him to the true faith and using any of these five motives thereto the testimony 1. of Scriptures 2. Of Catholick Church 3. Of her Councils 4. The danger of Heresie 5. The danger of Schism In which would not be thought to go about to equal all other Protestant-opinions to the malignity of the Socinian errors but only to shew that several defences which in respect of the former motives Protestants use for retaining theirs if these are thought just and reasonable the Socinians may use the same for much grosser Tenents For suppose a Protestant first concerning the Scriptures question a Socinian in this manner Prot. Why do you to the great danger of your soul and salvation not believe God the Son to be of one and the same essence and substance with God the Father it being so principal an Article of the Christian faith delivered in the Holy Scriptures Soc. To give you a satisfactory account of this matter I do believe with other Christians that the Scriptures are the Word of God and with other Protestants that they are a perfect Rule of
in that most reverend Council of Nice upon pretence that you have not had a convincing Proposal that this Definition was therein made according to Gods Word or the Scriptures yet how will you clear your self or your Socinian Congregations of Schism avoidable upon no plea of adherence to Scripture if it shall appear that you have for this opinion deserted the Communion of the Catholick Church out of which Church is no Salvation Soc. †Dr. Potter p. 75. I grant there neither is nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himself therefore I utterly deny that our Churches have made any separation from the Church Catholick at all and this for many reasons For 1st †Chillingw p. 274. We have not forsaken the whole Church or the external Communion of it but only that part of it which is corrupted and still will be so and have not forsaken but onely reformed another part of it which part we our selves are and I suppose you will not go about to perswade us that we have forsaken our selves or our own Communion And if you urge that we joined our selves to no other part therefore we separated from the whole I say it follows not in as much as our selves were a part of it and still continued so and therefore can no more separate from the whole than from our selves Prot. So then it seemes wee need fear no Schism from the Church Catholick tilla part can divide from it self which can never be § 29 Soc. Next As for our separating from all other particular Churches the ground of our Separation being an error which hath crept into the Communion of these Churches and which is unjustly imposed upon us in order to this Communion we conceive in this case if any They not We are the Schismaticks for as the Arch. Bp. †Lawd p. 142. The Schism is theirs whose the cause of it is and he makes the separation who gives the first just cause of it not he that makes an actual separation upon a just cause preceding § 30 Again Though we have made an actual Separation from them as to the not-conforming to or also as to the reforming of an error yet 1st As to Charity we do still retain with the same Churches our former Communion †Dr. Ferne Division of Churches p. 105. and 31 32. Not dividing from them through the breach of Charity Or condemning all other Churches as no parts of the Catholick Church and drawing the Communion wholy to our selves as did those famous Schismaticks the Donatists § 31 Next as to matter of Faith We hold that all separation from all particular Churches in such a thing wherein the unity of the Catholick Church doth not consist is no separation from the whole Church nor any more than our suspension from the Communion of particular Churches till such their error is reformed For as Mr. Stillingf †p. 331. There can be no separation from the whole Church but in such things wherein the unity of the whole Church lies Whos 's therefore separates from any particular Church as to things not concerning their being is onely separated from the Communion of that Church and not the Catholick Now that for which we have separated from other Churches we conceive not such as is essential or concernes the being of a Church so that without it we or they cannot still retaâ—n the essence thereof we declare also our readiness to joyn with them again if this error be corrected or at least not imposed And †Stilling Ib. as Mr. Stillingf faith Where there is this readiness of Communion there is no absolute separation from the Church as such but onely suspending Communion till such abuses be reformed or not prâ—ssed upon us And as Bp. Bramhall †Vindic. of the Church of England p. 9. When one part of the universal Church separateth it self from another part not absolutely or in essentials but respectively in abuses and innovations not as it is a part of the universal Church but onely so far as it is corrupted and degenerated whether in doctrine or manners it doth still retain a Communion not onely with the Catholick Church and with all the Orthodox members of the Catholick Church but even with that corrupted Church from which it is separated except onely in such Corruptions § 32 Prot. Saving better Judgments methinks a separation if causeless from the Communion of all other Churches or from those who are our Superiours in a lesser matter than such a Fundamental or essential point of Christianity as destroyes the being of a Church should be Schism and the smaller the point for which we separate the greater the guilt of our separation Were not the Donatists Schismaticks in rejecting the Catholick Communion requiring their conformity in such a point in which St. Cyprian's error before the Churches definâ—ng thereof was very excusable and the Affrican Congregations in his time not un-churched thereby Soc. †Dr. Potter p. 76. But the Donatists did cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which they separated which is the property of Schismaticks And †Stillingf p. 359. Division of Churches p. 106. They were justly charged with Schism because they confined the Catholick Church within their own bounds But as Dr. Ferne saith †Had the Donatists only used their liberty and judgment in that practise of rebaptizing Hereticks leaving other Churches to their liberty and though thinking them in an error for admitting Hereticks without baptising them yet willing to have Communion with them as parts of the Catholick Church saving the practices wherein they differed then had they not been guilty of Schism In that which I hold I only follow my conscience condemn not the Churches holding otherwise On the other side †Chillingw p. 278. Christ hath forbid me under pain of damnation to profess what I believe not be it small or great and consequently under the same penalty hath obliged me to leave that Communion in which I cannot remain wothout the Hypocritical Profession of such a thing which I am convinced to be eroneous †Ib. 279. At least this I know that the Doctrine which I have chosen to me seemes true and the contrary which I have forsaken seemes false and therefore without remorse of conscience I may profess that but this I cannot and a separation for preserving my conscience I hope will never be judged causeless § 33 Prot. At this rate none will be a Schismatick but he who knowes he erreth i. e. not who holdeth but only who professeth an error or who knows that the point for the non-conformity to which required of him he deserts the Church is a Truth and the contrary which he maintaines an error But Dr. Hammond †Of Schism p. 23. 24. 25. tells you That he that doth communinate with those I suppose he means