50 of them were of the Arian party that at their first Assembly they refused the Formula of Faith brought by * Socrat lib. 2. c. 29. p. 2â—0 F. Vrsacius and Valens from Sirmium they condemned Arianism and established the Nicene Faith and sent their Decrees to the Emperor desiring a dismission of the Assembly But the Emperor dissatisfied with this constancy would not give any answer to their Legates but ordered the Bishops to stay at Ariminum till his return from an Expedition against the Barbarians Socrat. Ibid. p. 262. F. Sozom. lib. 4. c 18. p 487. at which time he hoped they would concur with him To which they answered that they could not depart from the Sentence they had already pronounced and therefore begged leave again to return before Winter to their Churches to which the Emperor giving no answer Russin Hist lib. 1. c. 21. pag 203. several of them returned by stealth the others kept like prisoners which want of Freedom shewed this later part of the Council not to have been Legitimate at last deluded by the Emperors Agents and the specious pretences of a firm Peace and Union which would follow amongst the Western and Eastern Churches yielded to Subscribe a Form in which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not rejected but omitted as being not well understood by the Latins But however this general Form was suspected by the Catholic Bishops and they would not Subscribe to it without some additions to secure the Churches Faith from Arianism and other misconstructions in which Additions they condemned Arius and all his perfidiousness and declared the Son to be Equal to the Father Severus Hist lib. â— Hier. dial adver Lucifer Apud Guide of Controvdise 2 §. 26. n. 5. pag. 117. Sozom. l. 4. c. 18. pag. 487. C. and without beginning or time and that he was not a Creature and pronounced and Anathema against all those who should offer to say that the son was not Eternal with his Father all which either shew the Son to be Consubstantial to his Father or that they are two Gods which the Arians denyed the Arians having consented to these Additions and the Catholic Faith being now thought secure the Council was dismissed But Valens and his Followers having now got a specious pretext proclaimed abroad that the Council of Ariminum had consented to the Arian Doctrin and condemned the Nicen Faith explicating the Formula to their own sense and pretending that when they said the Son was not a Creature they meant he was not a Creature as other Creatures were c. But the Western Bishops seeing themselves thus cheated by the subtilty of the Arians were highly vexed and protested against it and at this time it was that St. Jerome says the world admired to see it self become Arian all of a suddain not as if it were really so but because the equivocal words were easily turned by the Arians to their own sense and the People deceived by their pretences of a General Council Constantius also the Emperor resolved to make this Formula be Signed by all persons that were not at that Council or that had gone from it without his leave and hence a great Persecution arose and many Bishops amongst which (a) Sozom. lib. 4. c. 18. pag. 487. B. Pope Liberius was one were Banished others cruelly (b) Martyr Rom. Marcel de Schism Vrcis Dumas Apud Mainburg Hist de l' Arianism 1. Partie lib. 4. p. 39 Edit Paris in 4â—0 murdered as Gaudentius Bishop of Ariminum Rufinus and others So that it is plain from what has been here deduced from the best Historians of those times that neither the Pope nor Council nor Western Church condemned the Divinity of Christ Moreover it is to be remarked that St. Athanasius with all thee other Eastern Bishops of his party most of them either Deposed Banished or Persecuted by the Emperor and all these Western Prelates stood up for the defence of the Faith defined in the Council of Nice against the Arians who Innovated and would impose a sense upon Scripture which they had not been taught by their Forefathers but had taken up upon their own Private Judgments So that our Defenders Instance if rightly taken will be very much to his disadvantage and is a convincing proof against his assertion for it is manifest that to Imitate St. Athanasius a person ought to stand to the Definitions of a lawful General Council against all the Private Interpretations and pretended evident convictions of those who oppose it And ought to be so far from preferring his Private Sentiments of the sense of Scripture before the Judgment of the Church that he ought to suffer all manner of Persecutions and even Death it self rather than recede from her approved Faith. ART XXV Of the Authority of the Holy See and of Episcopacy OUr Defender having layd down such a Principle in the foregoing Article of his Exposition §. 125. as rendred all Chruch-Authority ineffectual Yet as if he had forgot himself in the very next he tells us that he allows the Church a just Authority in matters of Faith as bound thereto by a Subscription to the 39 Articles in the 20th of which that Authority is expressed And to shew us what he means by this just Authority he tells us that they allow such deference to her decisions Expos Church of Engl. p. 80. as to make them their directions what Doctrin they may or may not publickly maintain and teach in her Communion That is I suppose as much as to say they allow an exterior assent as far as Non-contradiction But even thus much is certainly inconsistent with that obligation which our Defender affirms Desence pig 80. particular persons lye under to support and adhere to their own belief in opposition to that of the whole Church if they be but evidently convinced that the Church has erred in her decisions I perceive he was Conscious of this Incongruity and therefore left a hole to creep out at Expos Church of Engl. pag. 81. telling us that they allow whatsoever submission they â—an to the Authority of the Church without violating that of God declared to us in his Holy Scriptures So that thence it may as well be concluded as from his former Principle that every Private person Tinker Gobler or Weaver having received the Decrees of a General Council in to examin them himself by Scripture before he give his interior Assent and if having summoned together his own Extravagant Notions of the Word of God and its sense he be but evidently convinced as he imagines that the sentence of the Church thwarts the Scriptures he not only may but in our Defenders Principles is obliged to support and adhere to his own seeing as he thinks he cannot allow such a submission to her Authority without violating that of God c. And if so I would gladly ask him what is that just Authority which he tells
as if they were first Principles which needed none he draws this Admirable Conclusion worth the consideration of every Member of the Church of England and for which the Dissenters will no doubt return him thanks If says he in Matters of Faith a man be to judge for himself and the Scriptures be a clear and sufficient rule for him to judge by it will plainly follow that if a man be evidently convinced upon the best enquiry he can make that his particular Belief in necessary point of Faith is founded upon the Word of God and that of the universal Church is not he is obliged to support and adhere to his own belief in opposition to that of the Church because he must follow the Superior not the Inferior guide Now from hence any Rational Man will certainly conclude that at least all Dissenters in necessary points of Faith of which I see not but that they themselves must be judges may make use of this Principle to maintain their Dissent And as long as they ground themselves upon the Scriptures interpreted by themselves and have but confidence enough to think they have examined them sufficiently what ever Church pretends to punish or compel them does an unjust action because they are obliged to follow the Superior not the inferior guide Neither is this method as the Defender acknowledges it is liable only to some Abuse Ibid. pag. 81. through the Ignorance or Malice of some men But the Universal Church and much more every particular is put into an incapacity of reducing either the Ignorant or the Malitious to their duty if they have but Pride enough to be positive in as well as conceited of their own Opinions But however this Method tho' thus liable to some abuses is certainly in the main most just and reasonable and agreeable to the constitutions of the Church of England which does not take upon her to be Mistress of the Faith of her Members See. â—rt 20. but alloows a higher place and Authority to the guidance of the Holy Scripture than to that of her own Decisions Thus He. I know not what thanks the genuine Sons of the Church of England will return him for thus destroying the Authority of their Mother §. 115. but I am sure the Dissenters will thank him for this liberty if he will but give them any assurance that it shall be maintained to them with all its consequences and such large concessions as these may Unite them all tho' the Anathemas of their Synods and all the Penal Laws and Tests have proved ineffectual It is not my business to go about to teach the Defender the Doctrin of his own Church Bishop Sparrows judgment of the Authority of a Church but had he read the Preface to the collection of Articles Canons c. by Bishop Sparrow he would have found a Doctrin diametrically opposite to this of his and that one of them misunjhderstood that 20th Article For the Bishop declares that without a Definitive and Authoritative sentence controversies will be endless and the Church's peace unavoidably disturbed and therefore the Voice of God and right Reason hath taught that in matters of Controversy the Definitive sentence of Superiors should decide the Doubt and whosoever should decline from that sentence and do presumptuously should be put to death that others might hear and fear and do no more presumptuously Deut. 17. which is to be understood mystically also of death spiritual by Excommunication by being cut off from the living body of Christ's Church Nay he there proves there is a double Authority in the Church the one of Jurisdiction to correct and reform those impure members by spiritual censures whom Counsel will not win and if they be incorrigible to cast them out of this Holy Society and the other a Legislative power to make Canons and Constitutions upon emergent occasions to decide and compose controversies c. and this he shews by Reason as he says and Gods own Rule by matter of fact by that very 20th Article of the Church of England which declares that the Church has power to decree Rites and Ceremonies and Authority in Controversies of Faith and the practice of the Primitive Church in her General Councils of Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Calcedon whereas all these have no force with our Defender For he it may be is evidently convinced that those Texts of Scripture As my Father sent me so send I you John 20. All power is given to me go therefore and teach all Nations Matth. 28. Obey them that have oversight over you and watch for your Souls Heb. 13 c. were misapplyed by Bishop Sparrow or the Church of England in his days Nay moreover if he be but evidently convinced that the Holy Scriptures where or how I cannot conceive have taught the contrary and that the whole Church has erred in challenging this Authority both in the Primitive and later times he will think himself if he be constant to his Principle obliged to support and adhere to his own belief in opposition to that of the whole Church because he must follow the Superior not the inferior guide That is in plain English if his Fancy tell him the Church has erred he must believe his Fancy rather than the Church he must follow the Superior not inferior Guide Let us now examin a little his two Postulata's upon which he grounds this Doctrin §. 116. His first is That he allows of this dissent or opposition from the whole Church only in Necessary Articles of Faith. The Defenders first Postulatum answered Now I thought the Protestants of the Church of England had at least held the whole Church to be unerrable in Fundamentals or necessary Articles of Faith Our Defender knows very well that the most eminent of his Church have held so and if he have forgot it I will at another time refresh his memory If he answer it was only their private opinion but not the Doctrin of their Church I desire him to shew his assertion that the whole Church may err in necessary Articles of Faith and every private person is bound to dissent from her c. to be the Doctrin of their Church Their 19th Article says indeed that particular Churches have erred But affirms the Visible Church of Christ to be a Congregation of faithful men in which the pure Word of God is Preached and the Sacraments be duly minisired according to Christs Ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the saine Now one would think that that Congregation of Faithful who Preach the pure Word of God an administer the Sacraments duly according to Christs Ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requiste to the same should be freed from error in those Necessaries But this is the new Protestancy our Defender endevors to expound and it is a hard case that we must beforced to teach those who pretend to expound the Doctrin
Heretical and Schismatical Assemblies and was not her self condemned or cut off by any sentence of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church And tho' perhaps the number of those particular Heretical or Schismatical Assemblies one condemned in one Age and another in another some few of all which might perhaps survive even till our time might be considerable if taken altogether tho' inconsiderable in themselves yet being every one of them lawfully cut off by that Orthodox Church they can never stand in competition with her nor challenge a place in her Councils neither is she obliged to call in their help to Condemn any other New Heresy arising after them And if that New Heresy should pretend she was obliged such pretentions would be unreasonable This is the case with the Roman Catholic Church and the other Christian Churches now extant in the world §. 113. The Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome having condemned the Arians in the first General Council of Nice the Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome was never condemned by any General Council needed not to call them in to help her to condemn Macedonius Nestorius and Eutyches in the three following Councils The same Catholic Church that thus condemned Arius Macedonius Nestorius and Eutyches in the four first General Councils condemned the followers of Origen in the 5th the Monothelites in the 6th the Iconoclasts in the 7th And the Schismatic Photius and his adherents in the 8th And as this Catholic Church needed not the assistance of those Heretics who were condemned in the first four General Councils to help her to condemn those that were extant when she called the 5th so did she not need the aid of them or of those that were condemned by the 5th or 6th to help her to condemn the Iconoclasts or Photius in the 7th or 8th And thus we can shew in following ages as Errors did arise still new Councils Called as the first second third See Binins Tom. 7. part 2. pag. 806. F. and fourth of Lateran in which last the Doctrin of Transubstantiation was defined against Berengarius and his followers the Albigenses by 400. Bishops and 800. Fathers After these the first and second of Lyons the later of which condemned the Errors which the Eastern Churches had fallen into by the delusion of Photius the condemned Schismatic Ibi compartunt Paleologus Impa Constaniinopoliâ—â—nas cuns magno comits u qui tertia decima vice in sententiam Romane Ecclesiae Graecos suos toties deficientes Conetilio necessario pertraxit Bin. Tom 7 â—onc pag. 891. c. and in which as Binius notes from Trithemius the Grecians returned the thirteenth time to the Roman Catholic Faith. Then followed that of Vienna in France against the Beguardes and the Beguines After which the Council of Florence Anno 1438. In which the Greeks and the Latins consented to these Points The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son the belief of a Purgatory and the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome tho' through the negligence of the Emperor John Palaeologus occasioned by his too much sollicitude for wordly concerns and the calumnies of Mark the Metropolitan of Ephesus this Council had not its wished effect After this the 5th Council of Lateran Anno 1512. for the reestablishing the Unity of the Church and the condemnation of the Schism begun by the unlawful assembly at Pisa And lastly the Council of Trent Anno 1545. Against Luther Calvin and all the Modern Heresies Ths to be silent concerning the vast number of Provincial Councils we can shew eighteeen Oecumenical Councils All the General Councils that condemned Errors Communicated with the Church of Rome Generally received as such by all but those whose Errors were either condemned in them or some foregoing Councils The Members of all which Councils were in Communion with the Bishop of Rome and none dissented from that Communion but such as had been thus condemned neither can Protestants ever shew that even the particular Church of Rome or any other in Communion with her were ever thus cut off by any General Council or the Doctrins that she holds condemned It is only she therefore and those Churches in Communion with her all which we call the Roman Catholic Church that can challenge the title of Orthodox that is of One Holy Catholic and Apostolic This Truth being thus established and it having been plainly shewed what we mean by the Roman Catholic Church I pass over his second and third Exception because as I have already said they are built upon a False notion of the Roman Catholic Church taken only for the Diocese of Rome or a particular Church and come to his 4th §. 114. the Defenders fourth Exception Exception which is as I said more intolerable than the rest and which since he goes about to justify it as a Doctrin of his Church for he has promised to give us no other he would have done well to have shewed us some Canon Article or Constitution for it without which others of his Brethren will I fear come off with this Excuse that he is a young man and does not well know the Tenets of his Church He tells us that it is left to every Individual person not only to examin the Decisions of the whole Church but to Glory in Opposing them if he be but evidently convinced that his Own belief is founded upon the undoubted Authority of Gods Holy Word This I told him was a Doctrin that if admitted Maintains all Dissenters would maintain all Dissenters that are or can be from a Church and establish as many Religions as there are persons in the world Desence pag. 80. which consequences he confessEs to be ill but such as he thinks do not directly follow from this Doctrin as laid down in his Exposition But what if they follow indirectly or by an evident tho' secondary deduction would not that suffice to discountenance such a Doctrin as opens a gap to such licentiousness in Belief when Faith is but One and without which it is impossible to please God But let us see how he maintains it does not directly follow from what he has laid down in his Exposition First he tells us that he allows of this Dissent or Opposition from the whole Church only in Necessary Articles of Faith where he supposes it to be every mans concern and Duty both to judge for himself and to make as sound and sincere a judgment as he is able And secondly He tells us that as he takes the Holy Scriptures for the Rule according to which this Judgment is to the made so be supposes these Scriptures to be so clearly written as to what concerns those necessary Articles that it can hardly happen that any one man any serious and impartial enquirer should he found opposite to the whole Church in his Opinion From these two wild Suppositions without any proof of them
us the Church has in matters of Faith and when and whom it binds Object But perhaps it may be here asked What if the Church should Define there is no God no Jesus Christ no Heaven no Hell and I be fully convinced in my own judgment by reading Scripture that there is a God a Jesus Christ a heaven and a Hell would you have me quit the sense of Scripture in these plain Points in which I have evident conviction and follow that of the Church Before I answer I must needs say that I think this Question tho' it be the ground-work of our Defenders foregoing Position and without the supposal of which he can never pretend it to be reasonable yet will perhaps be derided by him when proposed in such plain terms For no man certainly can ever think that the whole Church of Christ against which the Gates of Hell are never to prevail can fall into such a Total Defection as to Apostatize and oppose such places of Scripture as are plain to every understanding Moreover The Defender knows very well that the differences betwixt us and them lyes rather on the contrary side and that if the Scripture be plain for either side it is for * See several Books published upon this account as the Anchor of Christian Dodrin the 2d part of the Prudential Ballance Catholic Scripturist c. ours He knows how they have been often invited to shew one positive Text of Scripture against any one of our Tenets without their false glosses to it which make it no Scripture He knows or at least may be easily informed that we have shewn them positive Texts according to the Primitive Fathers interpretations both for our Articles and against their Innovations and the late Request to Protestants to produce plain Texts of Scripture in about 16 of their Tenets and the shufling answer to it are a sufficient Argument that it is unreasonable for them to pretend to it Answer My answer is therefore that the Defender and they who with him suppose the Church can ordain things directly opposite in necessaries either to Faith or Manners even in things clear to every understanding do not consider the notion of a Church nor the Promises that God has given to secure it from such Damnable Errors as must destroy its Essonce So that establishing a False notion without proving it for their ground no wonder if many Absurdities arise from it From which it will appear that a Libertines argument for his Debauches drawn from a supposition that there is no God no Heaven no Hell nor other Life is as conclusive as theirs who suppose the whole Church can or ever shall propose a truth to be believed or an action to be practised which is contrary to the express words of Scripture in places plain to every understanding or contradict Divinely delivered Truths However the Defender tells us that they allow a deference and that whatsoever deference they allow to a National Church or Council Expos Ch Engl. p. 81. the same they think in a much greater degree due to a General And that whensoever such an one which he says they much desire shall be freely and lawfully assembled to determin the Differences of the Catholic Church none shall be more ready both to assist in it and submit to it §. 126. The Council of Trent vindicated Upon this account I desired him to consider whether the Council of Trent had not the qualifications of a General and free Council and whether the Four first General Councils were not liable to the same exceptions as were made against the Council of Trent This he calls a new question hookt in and gives an old thread-bare answer to it as if we never had before confuted it 1. His first Exception that it was not General answered He says it was not so General because it was not called by so Great and Just an Authority as those were that is those were called by the Authority of the Emperors and this by the Authority of the Pope But what is there no Authority given to the Church to call her Pastors together in cases of necessity but that it must be the Temporal Power must do it If so then our Defender must condemn the first Council of the Apostles Act. 15. and all the other Councils held till Constantin the first Christian Emperors time But if he dare not do this but answer that the Church had the Priviledge at that time whilst the secular Power was Heathen I ask him how she came to lose it afterwards Did Princes by submitting themselves unto the Church rob their Mother of her just Authority T is true they assisted by interposing their Commands also and so strengthned the obligation of Assembling themselves But will any one say that such an accumalative power in assisting the Church was a depriving her of that Authority Moreover if he cannot deny but the Church had that Authority when the Secular Powers were heathens and enemies to Christianity I hope he will not deny her the same when some part of those Powers are Enemies to the Orthodox Faith for the Church is liable to the same dammages from an Heretical Prince as from an Unbelieving Again the whole practice of the Church is against what our Defender says It is well known Doctor Field of the Church pag. 697. apud Censid on the Council of Trent c. 3. §. 49. and consented to by Protestant Authors that the calling of a Diocesan Synod belongs to the Bishop that of a Provincial to the Metropolitan of a National to the Primate and of a Patriarchal to the Patriarch and why not that of a General to the Prime Patriarch unless he will say that God has taken care to provide for the unity of so many different Patriarchats and established a means to compose the differences that may arise in them but has not taken care of the whole Church Furthermore §. 127. The first 4 General Councils were called by the Pope our Defender is out in pretending that the four first General Councils were called by the Emperors For as to the First if we may believe the 6th Synod Act. 18. and Pope Damasue in Pontific it was called by the consent of Pope Sylvester 't is true Constantine having received Pope Sylvester's order promulgated the convocatory Letters and was at the expences of conducting the Bishops to the Council As to the Second General Council that of Constantinople Concurrer imus Coâ—st intinopolim ad vestre Reverentiâ— lâ—eras missa Ibeodosio suâ—â—ma pietate Inperatori Theodor. Hist lib. 5. c. 9. pag 403. B. Syâ—odum Epâ—esinam â—actam esse Cyrtssi industria Celestini authoritate Prolper in Chronico the Bishops there assembled in their Letters to Pope Damasus and to the Council then met with him at Rome tell him that they had met and assembled themselves at Constantinople according to the Letters he had sent to Theodosius the Emperor