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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
my faith § 2 Prot. But this secures you not unless you believe according to this Rule which in this point you do not Soc. However I believe in this point truly or falsly I am secure that my faith is entire as to all necessary points of faith Prot. How so Soc Because as Mr. Chillingworth saith †p. 23. p. 159 367. He that believes all that is in the Bible all that is in the Scriptures as I do believes all that is necessary there Prot. This must needs be true but meanwhile if there be either some part of Scripture not known at all by you or the true sence of some part of that you know for the Scripture as that Author notes †Chill p. 87. is not so much the words as the sence be mistaken by you how can you say you believe all the Scriptures For when you say you believe all the Scripture you mean only this that you believe that whatsoever is the true sence thereof that is God's Word and most certainly true which belief of yours doth very well consist with your not believing or also your believing the contrary to the true sence thereof and then you not believing the true sence of some part of it at least may also not believe the true sence of something necessary there which is quite contrary to your conclusion here § 3 Soc. †Chill p. 18. I believe that that sence of them which God intendeth whatsoever it is is certainly true And thus I believe implicitely even those very truths against which I err Next †Chill Ib. I do my best indeavour to believe Scripture in the true sence thereof By my best indeavour I mean †Chill p. 19. such a measure of industry as humane prudence and ordinary discretion my abilities and opportunities my distractions and hinderances and all other things considered shall advise me unto in a matter of such consequence Of using which endeavour also I conceive I may be sufficiently certain for otherwise I can have no certainty of any thing I believe from this compleat Rule of Scriptures this due indeavour being the condition which Protestants require that I shall not be as to all necessaries deceived in the sence of Scripture Now being conscious to my self of such a right endeavour used †Chillingw p. 102. For me to believe further this or that to be the true sence of some Scriptures or to believe the true sence of them and to avoid the false is not necessary either to my faith or salvation For if God would have had his meaning in these places certainly known how could it stand with his wisdom to be so wanting to his own will and end as to speak obscurely Or how can it consist with his justice to require of men to know certainly the meaning of those words which he himself hath not revealed †Chill p. 18.92 For my error or ignorance in what is not plainly contained in Scripture after my best endeavour used to say that God will damn me for such errors who am a lover of him and lover of truth is to rob man of his comfort and God of his goodness is to make man desperate and God a tyrant § 4 Prot. But this defence will no way serve your turn for all points of faith revealed in Scripture for you ought to have of some points an express and explicite faith Soc. Of what points Prot. Of all those that are fundamental and necessary Soc. Then if this point of Consubstantiality of the Son with God the Father be none of the Fundamentals and necessaries wherein I am to have a right and an explicite faith the account I have given you already I hope is satisfactory § 5 â— But next I am secure that this point which is the subject of our discourse at least in the affirmative thereof is no fundamental for according to the Protestant principles †Chill p. 92. The Scripture is a Rule as sufficiently perfect so sufficiently intelligible in things necessary to all that have understanding whether learned or unlearned Neither is any thing necessary to be believed but what is plainly revealed for to say that when a place of Scripture by reason of ambiguous terms lies indifferent between divers senses whereof one is true and the other false that God obligeth men under pain of damnation not to mistake through error and humane frailty is to make God a tyrant and to say that he requires of us certainty to attain that end for the attaining whereof we have no certain means In fine †Chill p. 59 where Scriptures are plain as they are in necessaries they need no infallible Interpretor no further explanation to me and where they are not plain there if I using diligence to find the truth do yet miss of it and fall into error there is no danger in it Prot. True Such necessary points are clear to the unlearned using a due industry void of a contrary interest c. Soc. And in such industry I may be assured I have not been deficient having bestowed much study on this matter read the controversie on both sides compared Texts c. as also appears in the diligent writings of others of my perswasion and after all this the sence of Scripture also which I embrace a sence you know decried and persecuted by most Christians is very contrary to all my secular relations interest and profit Now after all this search I have used I am so far satisfied that this point on the affirmative side is not clear and evident in Scripture and therefore no Fundamental that I can produce most clear and evident places out of the Scriptures if a man can be certain of any thing from the perspicuity of its expressions that the contrary of it is so See Crellius in the preface to his book de uno Deo Patre Haec de uno Deo Patre sententia plurimis ac clarissimis sacrarum literâ—ram testimoniis nititur Evidens sententiae veritas rationum firmâ—ssimarum è sacris literis spontè subnascentium multitudo ingenii nostritenuitatem sublevat c Argumenta quae ex sacris literis deprompsimus per se plana sunt ac facilia adeo quidem ut eorum vim deâ—linare aliâ ratione non possint adversarii quam ut à verborum simplicitate tum ipsi deflectant tum nos abducere conentur And see the particular places of Scripture which they urge where as to the expression other texts being laid aside that seems to be said as it were totidem verbis which the Socinians maintain Joh. 14.28 17.3 Ep. 1 Cor. 8.6 Col. 1.15 Rev. 3.14 I set not down this to countenance their cause but to shew their confidence § 7 Prot. O strange presumption And is not your judgment then liable to mistake in the true sence of these Scriptures because you strongly perswade your self they are most evident on your side Soc. 'T is
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
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
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.
sanguinem Christi mutare Sed quod Deus hanc suam absolutam Omnipotentiam in Eucharistiâ exerceat non videtur esse certo verbo Dei traditum apparet veteri Ecclesiae fuisse ignotum The third is Calvins Confession of faith ‖ Lib. Epist p. 5702. written two years before his death and directed to the Emperor and Princes of Germany Porrò saith he qui nos accusant quod Dei potentiae derogetur à nobis valde sunt in nos injurii Non enim hîc quaeritur quid Deus possit sed quid verbo suo velit extra quod nihil nobis qaaerendum ut hoc aut illud divinemus Quare illam quaestionem omittemus an Deus possit facere ut Christi Corpus sit ubique sed cum omni modestiā intra istos Scripturae fines consistimus qu◠perhibet Christum induisse corpus nostro corpori per omnia simile Interea extollimus Dei potentiam magis quam illi qui nos istiusmodi probris infamant Fatemur enim ipsamillam Christi à nobis secundum humanam naturam distantiam non impedire quò minùs in seipso nos vivificet habitet in nobis nosque adeo participes reddat ipsiusmet substantiae corporis sui sanguinis virtute incomprehensibili sancti sui Spiritus Ex quo apparet merè calumniosum esse quod nobis imponitur quasi nempe figeremus suos terminos Dei potentiae explacitis Philosophorum atqui omnis nostra Philosophia una est simpliciter admittere quod Scriptura nos docet And de vera Christianae pacificationis ratione c. 11. speaking of the Eucharist ' Quasi vero saith he hic de Christi potentia disputetur Rerum omnium conversionem fieri posse à Christo nos quoque fatemur This then I hope may be said with the approbation of Protestants that the interposings of sence though indeed in the Eucharist there is no error in our sences all that being really there which they perceive there but in our reason only arguing from the position of the accidents to the position of the subject or the interposing of Reason and Philosophy are not to be hearkned to in this matter till first it be cleared what is the divine Revelation concerning it which divine Revelation so often as it appears to have declared any thing contrary to them we may with modesty enough use that expression of F. Cressies causlesly censured ‖ Tillots p. 276. That we have learnt not to answer such Arguments but to despise them § 64 2ly All thus acknowledging their submission to divine Revelation This hath bin produced out of the Scriptures 2. For a corporal presence of Christs Body and a Conversion of the consecrated Elements into it Many texts urged if taken in their most literal proper and natural sence very express for it as Mat. 26.26 Mark 14.22 Luke 22.19 Jo. who speaking of it here omits it in the History of the Passion 6.51 53 54. 1 Cor. 11.24 27 29. 10.16 It being very observable here 1st That the words of Institution are still repeated punctually by four several sacred Writers Matthew Mark Luke and Paul without any variation or Exposition of any impropriety whereas it is not usuall so constantly to retain without Explication a tropical or figurative speech especially in a matter where the truth is so necessary to be known 2 Again that the fourth of these Writers cautiously as it were useth not his own stile in this matter as in others but chuseth to deliver our Lords commands punctually in his own words what I have received that I deliver c. And 3 That our Saviour also in these words seconds his first expression Hoc est Corpus meum without changing afterward any impropriety in them with the like words following Hic est sanguis and then confirmeth both these with a quod tradetur and qui effundetur i on the Cross to shew he was real in these words and meant no Figure Notwithstanding this the true sence of these Scriptures was called in question by a party not now only but eight hundred years ago contending that they were not properly but figuratively to be understood And upon this the usual remedy for the right understanding of Scriptures controverted was then repaired to and the same supreme Ecclesiastical Judge consulted for deciding and declaring the true and traditive sence of these Scriptures in this important controversie concerning the real substantial corporeal presence of our Lords Body as was formerly for declaring the traditive sence of the Scriptures controverted concerning the Divinity of Christ A General Council i.e. the most general that the times would permit was assembled in the West in our Forefathers days nay of these more than one as hath bin shewed ‖ §. 57 c. a substantial Conversion of the Elements and a corporal Presence declared to be the traditive sence of these Scriptures and a reverence suitable required in this great mystery not one Bishop in these Councils for any thing we know in the whole Church of God at that time dissenting and those of the Eastern Churches absent consenting in the same judgment ‖ See Disc 3. §. 158. what more can be done Ought not sence reason philosophy here to be silenced and ought not such a Decree to be if not assented to yet even in the judgment of those learned Protestant Divines before quoted ‖ § 56. n. 2. 59. acquiesced in so far as not to be by any contradicted § 65 But 3 ly what now if many of those contradictions and absurdities which are urged against the corporeal presence of the Catholicks 3. do as much overthrow that real presence that is maintained by Protestants I mean the Calvinists and so many in the Church of England as have not deserted their Forefathers and to flie the father from the Church of Rome are gone quite over into the Camp of Zuinglius changing a real into meerly a spiritual presence or a presence only of Christs Spirit uniting the worthy Communicant here on earth to his Body in Heaven But heretofore at least it hath bin the common Tenent of the English Divines to affirm not only a spiritual presence or a presence only by effect operation or grace but a substantial presence in the Eucharist and that is here on earth not to the Elements indeed but to the worthy Receiver of the very same Body of Christ that suffered on the Cross and that is now at the same time as here also in heaven § 66 To which purpose thus Calvin in 1 Cor. 11.24 Neque enim mortis suae keneficium nobis offert Christus sed Corpus ipsum in quo passus est resurrexit And Institut l 4. c. 17. § 7. Neque enim mihi satisfaciunt qui dum Communionem cum Christo ostendere volunt nos spiritus modò participes faciunt praeteritâ carnis sanguinis mentione Quasi vero illa omnia de nihilo dictaforent
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
should be free from error save in the Definition or conclusion only which I say not as denying sufficient former Revelation and Tradition whereon to ground every conclusion that hath been passed in any Council nor that such Revelation and Tradition is unknown to the Council but only that for the Councils not erring in the Conclusion this is not necessary that all the Principles or all the reasoning it useth be infallible and certain If it be asked how it is possible that the Council should be infallible or actually unerring for this is all that is meant in the Conclusion when fallible or erring in the making Premises or deduction I answer Because the Holy Ghost assists them that they should alwayes conclude right and that from some principles never failing Though some other such a conclusion be not solid I say some principle for since the same conclusion is provable by many several Mediums or Arguments or the Conclusion or Definition it self may descend by express Tradition and not be extracted only out of some former traditive Principle by deduction it cannot be shewed that any Council hitherto hath failed in either of these the delivering a proposition as express Tradition that was not so or the deducting it from principles none of which are true or Traditional Nor are we certain that more Arguments or Reasons were not used by any such Council than those only that are transmitted to posterity Nor do I see who are sufficient Judges of the misarguings of Councils unless it be some following Council of the same Authority It cannot be denied also that the Holy Ghost may preserve the Church in all necessary Truth by inspiring and illuminating their understandings in and exciting the adherence of their will to such Truth when they are mistaken in some of the rational evidence they think they have for it By illuminating them I say after the same ordinary manner in the Council as them or others out of it only this assistance here is constant to a competent number and they are disposed rightly for it in this supreme Ecclesiastical Court for the necessities of the Church whereas out of the Council the same persons when some way indisposed thereto often fail of it But in the last place if it be asked how they or others can know that that they do not err in the Conclusion where their premises or their deduction is supposed erroneous I answer 1st That they may know they do not err either from Tradition of the Conclusion or the certainty of other premises or evident deduction used 2ly That indeed they cannot truly be certain of their conclusion by this way viz. from their arguing if it be not right or from the Principle they use if this uncertain or false but yet they may be certain of their Conclusion still by another way from Christs promises if he hath ingaged to them a not erring therein and the confidence of their infallibility lies in this latter not alwayes the former which perhaps may be discovered sometimes to fail In the first Council Act. 15. there was much reasoning pro and con v. 15. and some reasoning that was amiss and yet to their Conclusion was prefixt a Visum est Spiritui Sancto 11. Again it is asked Q. 11. Why if these Councils secure of not erring § 108 at least in their Conclusions they do not straightwayes determine all Controversies some of which seem necessary to be so determined because of the great trouble they give the Church and particularly why the Council of Trent left so many unresolved that were agitated not only before but also in that Council by its own members I answer Because they have a promise of divine assistance not in deciding any point controverted but only those necessary And again they judge necessary to be decided only those points whereof they have a former Revelation and Tradition descended to them for in all necessaries by the divine providence these two fail them not a Revelation and Tradition thereof either in the formal Conclusion it self or in its necessary Principles In the considering of which Principles and deductions though the Guides are sometimes liable to mistakes yet the divine promise and superintendency * never suffers them to err in the matter that is concluded from them or also never suffers them to err in all those principles when they attempt by these to prove some tradition from which it may be concluded as is mentioned in the last Query whilst they pass not beyond the setling of those doctrines which are necessary for the edification of this Church * nor yet 2ly suffers them to pass these bounds of resolving necessaries so far as to burden the Church's faith with curiosities And this union of the divine direction together with humane reasoning may be observed in the very first Council held Act. 15. but now mentioned Where the assistance of the Holy Ghost is applyed to all or major part that sate in Council and concurred in making the decree not only to the Apostles and is found well to consist with the great reasoning disputing used there before the laâ—â— resolution Cum autem magna conquisitio fieret Vers. 7. And yet Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis Vers. 28. There are therefore two sorts of Controversies which these supreme Courts ordinarily dismiss unresolved the one sort out of necessity namely those whereof they find no certain former Revelation or Tradition whence with good reason they conclude also the knowledge of them not necessary the other voluntarily such as appear to them of sufficient evidence but small consequence 12. Again it is asked Q. 12. How such infallibility of lawful General Councils doth any way differ from that of the Apostles § 109 or that of their decrees from the holy Scriptures I answer That whatever decrees of Councils are true they are as true as the Scriptures and in whatever the Church-Guides are infallible or unerring they are as infallible in it as the Apostles for one truth is no truer than another but that this their infallibility as to several circumstances thereof compared with the Apostles is much inferior 1st In that it is not extended so far for its matter as that of the Apostles they being infallible in all they delivered these only in their Conclusions or Definitions § 110 2ly In that though sometimes the reason why these do not err in such a Definition may be not their necessary deduction of it from an infallible Principle but the inspiration illumination immediate assent of faith or some other way of operation of God's Spirit at that time upon them in such manner as it works on other Christians when ever it opens their minds and makes them understand a truth beyond the rational arguments they have or humane industry they use to attain it yet such inspiration in this differs from that of the Apostles that as the Council collects not this their infallibility from any unfailable
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
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
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
means infallibly true to us and applies infallibly not to the object but act of faith seems faulty Because God may oblige us to believe either a thing to be infallibly true i. e. as to us so as that there can be no possibility of our error in it or only most credibly so according to the proof or ground we have of such belief Therefore though it is true which he saith That God never obligeth us to believe i.e. to be absolutely true what is really a lye or false and true also that if we know that God obligeth us to believe a thing to be infallibly true we have the greatest assurance that such thing is infallibly true Yet so 1. Is this true that God obligeth us to believe nor for infallibly but only for most credibly true what is from those principles which right reason can attain of it only most credibly so And 2. So is this also true that God hath not obliged us to believe Christianity as infallibly true from the moral certainty we have thereof supposing that this moral certainty is not absolutely infallible I mean as to a possibility of the contrary Upon this supposition therefore that our moral certainty or assurance on which we ground the verity of Christian Religion involves a possibility of falshood God doth not oblige us to believe Christian Religion with an acquisite or rational faith from this evidence as freed from all possibility of falshood or as absolutely infallible but to believe in the same degree the one to be credible as we do the other in the same degree Christian Religion true as we do the ground thereof and no further And here Mr. Stillingfleet seems to incur the fault he imputes to others †Ibid. of making the conclusion surer than the premises if he would make Christian Religion by this way any whit more infallible than moral certainty is So also in the next page †p. 208. if he pretends to prove from that text of Scripture Joh. 16.13 any infallible assurance and not only a moral certainty to us of the Apostle's infallibility in the conveyance of Scripture himself must incur the Circle he objects to Catholicks For since we have this Text of Scripture only from their conveyance I cannot be infallibly assured of the truth of it till first so assured of their infallibility in conveying it 3ly It is true also That when reason is not rightly used by us and when that seems to us from false reasoning most credible which in right reason is not yet that here also God obligeth us to believe this the most credible but then he obligeth us to believe this most credible hypothetically only and upon supposition that our reasons and reasonings are good and therefore we are obliged by him herein only to believe a truth namely this thing to be most credible hypothetically c. though the thing which we believe thus hypothetically most credible is absolutely not true As also God obligeth us to follow an erroneous conscience Neither do we sin in this following it to which God obligeth us and which we do only upon supposition that it is not erroneous for if we knew it erroneous we might not follow it but we sin in not better informing it where God also obligeth us to the contrary But to let these things pass I grant what Protestants affirm That the moral evidence we have from Tradition is sufficient to produce such an assurance of Christian Religion as God requires us to have of it by an acquisite and rational faith and that both this evidence of the truth of Christian Religion and our faith built on it are morally infallible This of the sufficient certainty of Church-Tradition concerning Scripture and so concerning all the Articles of Christian Faith that are built thereon affirmed by Protestants Upon which ground also they freely grant †See Chillingw p. 114. Stillingf p. 216. That if any other point wherein they dissent from Catholicks can be proved by as universal a Tradition as that of the Scriptures they will subscribe to it § 138 2. Again the same sufficient certainty Catholicks also affirm to be in Church Tradition for what it delivers but withall they urge many motives of credibility concurring in it †See before §. 121. which are not so much insisted on by Protestants some of which motives may add to a Tradition of a less latitude a moral certainty as great or greater from the dignity of the persons as a more universal Tradition may have from the multitude of Testators amongst which motives also are the miracles done in several ages by such persons And by these motives also Catholicks affirm * that the true Religion may be rationally evident and discerned from all false ones whether they be within or without the pale of Christianity none of which Sects can produce like evidence for their faith and * that by these our faith is demonstrated a rational service Rom. 12.1 1 Pet. 3.15 These motives likewise are acknowledged by them to be the ultimate resolution of an humane faith which is begotten by them and that in respect of such a faith they are the formal principle of believing nor that such faith doth exceed the certitude of this principle and that the assent we yeild to the Articles which we believe only on this account is no stronger or certainer than these motives be on which it is grounded All which things as Protestants earnestly contend for †See Stillingf p. 137. 140. Arch-Bishop Lawd p. 61. so there seems no reason why they should be denied them Of this matter thus the fore-quoted Author Layman out of Scotus and others ‖ Theol. moral p. 183. Qui credit propter authoritatem hominum vel simile motivum humanum is fide solumodò humanâ credit And Authoritas illa Ecclesiae non quatenus consideratur ut organum Spiritus sancti which we learn from Divine Revelation the Scripture's being the Word of God first supposed sed ut illustris congregatio hominum prudentum c. est quidem formale principium credendi fide humanâ And Accedit quòd assensus cognoscitivus non potest excedere certitudinem principii quo nititur § 139 This is said concerning a sufficiently certain evidence in Church-Tradition c. agreed on both by Catholicks and Protestants That the Scriptures at least the books of it called by Protestants Canonical are the Word of God But then 2ly The Protestant's declining the admission of Church-Traditions that are less universal than that of Scripture is thought unreasonable 1. Because of two Traditions whereof one appears more universal than the other yet the lesser also may have a sufficient certainty in it whereon to build a rational belief and hence Protestants may have reason enough to admit several other Traditions though not all equally universal or any so universal as that of the Scriptures For the wars of Caesar and Pompey descend by a more universal
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
p. 506. 537. No authority on earth can oblige to internal assent in matters of faith or to any farther obedience than that of silence Prot. Yes you stand obliged to yield a conditional assent at least to the Definitions of these highest Courts i. e. unless you can bring evident Scriptures or Demonstration against them Soc. I do not think Protestant Divines agree in this I find indeed the Arch-Bp †§. 32 n. 5. §. 33. Consid 5. n. 1. requiring evidence and demonstration for inferiors contradicting or publishing their dissent from the Councils decrees but not requiring thus much for their denial of assent and I am told ‖ Dr. Ferne Case between the Churches p. 48. 49. Division of Churches p. 45. That in matters proposed by my Superiors as God's Word and of faith I am not tyed to believe it such till they manifest it to me to be so and not that I am to believe it such unless I can manifest it to be contrary because my faith can rest on no humane authority but only on God's Word and divine Revelation And Dr. Field saith †p. 666. It is not necessary 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 Till I am convinced then of my error the obedience of silence is the most that can be required of me § 20 But 6ly I conceive my self in this point not obliged to this neither considering my present perswasion that this Council manifestly erred and that in an error of such high consequence concerning the unity of the most high God as is no way to be tolerated and I want not evident Scriptures and many other unanswerable Demonstrations to shew it did so and therefore being admitted into the honourable function of the Ministery I conceive I have a lawful Commission from an higher authority to publish this great truth of God and to contradict the Councils decree § 21 Prot. But you may easily mistake that for evident Scripture and those for Demonstrations that are not Concerning which you know what the Arch-Bp and Mr. Hooker say †Ap. Lawd 245. That they are such as proposed to any man and understood the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent to them †Id. p. 227. You ought therefore first to propose these to your Superiors or to the Church desiring a redress of such error by her calling another Council And if these Superiors acquainted therewith dislike your demonstrations which the definition saith if they be right ones they must be by all and therefore by them assented to methinks though this is not said by the Arch-Bp in humility you ought also to suspect these Demonstrations and remain in silence at least and no further trouble the Church Soc. May therefore no particular person or Church proeed to a Reformation of a forme doctrin if these Superiors first complained to declare the grounds of such persons or Churches for it not sufficient Prot. I must not say so But if they neglect as they may to consider their just reasons so diligently as they ought and to call a Council for the correcting of such error according to the weight of these reasons then here is place for inferiors to proceed to a reformation of such error without them Soc. And who then shall judge whether the reasons pretended are defective or rather the present Church negligent in considering them Prot. Here I confess to make the Superiors Judges of this is to cast the Plaintiff before that any Council shall hear his grievance these Superiors whose faith appears to adhere to the former Council being only Judges in their own cause and so the liberty of complaining will come to nothing †Still p 479.292 Soc. The inferiors then that complain I suppose are to judge of this To proceed then To these Superiors in many diligent writings we have proposed as we think many unanswerable Scriptures and reasons much advanced beyond those represented by our party to the former Nicen Council and therefore from which evidences of ours we have just cause to hope from a future Council a contrary sentence and finding no redress by their calling another Council for a reviewing this point we cannot but conceive it as lawful for a Socinian Church Pastor or Bishop for to reform for themselves and the souls committed to them in an error appearing to them manifest and intolerable as for the Protestants or for Dr. Luther to have done the same for Transubstantiation Sacrifice of the Mass and other points that have been concluded against the truth by several former Councils Prot. But such were not lawful General Councils as that of Nice was Soc. Whatever these Councils were this much matters not as to a reformation from them for had they been lawfully General yet Protestants hold †See before Disc 3. §. 34. c. these not universally accepted may err even in Fundamentals or when so accepted yet may err in non-fundamentals errors manifest and intolerable and so may be appealed from to future and those not called their error presently rectified by such parts of Christianity as discern it and also S. Austine †De Baptismo 2 l. 3 c. is frequently quoted by them saying That past General Councils erring may be corrected by other Councils following § 22 Prot. But I pray you consider if that famous Council of Nice hath so erred another Council called may it also not err notwithstanding your evidences proposed to it For though perhaps some new Demonstrative proofs you may pretend from several Texts more accurately compared and explained yet you will not deny this sufficient evidence to have been extant for that most learned Council to have seen the truth having then the same entire rule of faith as you now the Scriptures in which you say your clearest evidences lye for their direction When a future Council then is assembled and hath heard your plea will you assent to it and acquiesce in the judgment thereof Soc. Yes interposing the Protestant-conditions of assent if its decree be according to God's Word and we convinced thereof Prot. Why such a submission of judgement and assent I suppose you will presently yield to me in any thing whereof you are convinced by me may this future Council then challenge no further duty from you why then should the Church be troubled to call it Soc. †Stillingf p. 542. Though this future Council also should err yet it may afford remedy against inconveniences and one great inconvenience being breaking the Church's peace this is remedied by its authority if I only yield the obedience of silence thereto Prot. But if your obedience oblige not to silence converning Councils past because of your new evidences neither will it to a future if you think it also doth err
for his being absolved from mortal sin but also to seek a release from excommunication incurred for his reinjoying the Churches Communion Thus you see a rigor in this Church towards what it once accounted Heresie much different from the more mild Spirit and moderate temper of the reformed § 41 To conclude For the enjoying the Protestant Communion I conceive that as to any necessary approbation of her Doctrines it is sufficient for me to hold with Mr. Chillingworth as I do †Chillingw Preface § 39. That the doctrine of Protestants though not that of all of them absolutely true yet is free from all impiety and from all Error destructive to salvation or in it self damnable And †Ib § 28. whatsoever hath been held necessary to Salvation by the consent of Protestants or even of the Church of England which indeed hath given no certain Catalogue at all of such necessaries that against the Socinians and all others whatsoever I do verily believe and embrace And which is still the same †Ib. § 39. I am perswaded that the constant doctrine of the Church of England is so pure and Orthodox that whosoever believes it and lives according to it undoubtedly he shall be saved For if all truths necessary to Salvation be held in it then so is no error opposite or destructive to Salvation held by it and so living according to the truths it holds I may be saved Again †Ib. I believe that there is no error in it which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturb the peace or renounce the Communion of it For though I believe Antisocinianism an error Yet if I hold it not such as that for it any man may disturb the peace or ought to renounce the Communion of this Church I may profess all this and yet hold Socinianism Lastly as he †Chill p. 376 so I Propose me any thing out of the Bible seem it never so incomprehensible I will subscribe it with hand and heart In other things that I think not contained in this Book I will take no mans liberty of jud gment from him neither shall any man take mine from me for I am fully assured that God doth not and therefore that men ought not to require any more of any man than this To believe the Scripture to be Gods Word to indeavor to find the true sence of it and to live according to it Without pertinacy I can be no Heretick And †Ib. §. 57. indeavouring to find the true sence of Scripture I cannot but hold my error without pertinacy and be ready to forsake it when a more true and a more probable sence shall appear unto me And then all necessary truth being plainly set down in Scripture I am certain by believing Scripture to believe all necessary truth and in doing so my life being answerable to my faith how is it possible I should fail of Salvation Thus Mr. Chillingworth speaks perfectly my sence Prot. I see no other cure for you but that you learn humility and mortification of your understanding in which lies the most subtle and perilous of all Prides And It will reduce you to Obedience and this to Truth That with all the Church of God you may give glory to God the only begotten Son and the Holy Ghost coessential with God the Father To which Trinity in Vnity as it hath been from the beginning and is now so shall all Honour and Glory be given throughout all future ages Amen FINIS Addenda PAge 30. line 31. After Turky Add. Brerewood Brerw Enquir p. 84. 88. computing the whole Body of Christians in Asia including also those united with Rome not to amount to a twentieth part of its inhabitants and all the Turks Dominions in Europe not to exceed the magnitude of Spain Ib. p. 67. Throughout whose Dominions also the chief c. Page 30. line penult After Field p. 63. Add. And Brerewood's inquire c. 19. p. 147. Page 31 line 17 After reside Add. To which in the last place may be added that great Body of the same Communion that hath long flourished and daily enlargeth it self throughout the West-Indies Page 51 line 4. After practice Add. To all these may be further added the early Condemnation that is found in Antiquity of those modern tenents of several Protestants in opposition to a subordination of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy to the utility of Prayer for the Dead of Invocation of the Saints Veneration of Saints Reliques set Fasting-dayes Festivals Vigils Abstinence from certain meats Monastick vows especially that of Virginity and Celibacy Hermitages Disparity of the Coelestial Rewards and degrees of Glory The maintainers of which long ago Arrius Vid. Epiphan Haer. 75. August Haer. 53. Jovinian Vid. Hieron contra Jovin Austin Haer. 82. Vigilantius Vid. Hieronym contra Vigilant were condemned as Hereticks i. e. as opposers of those points that the general Church practice received and allowed as lawful by the Fathers of those times and being crushed by their Censures were prevented from receiving any further sentence from a Council Lastly why was there made a departure from the Church at least for many of these points c. Page 66 line 19. After Himself Add. And so this Person supposed by Protestants to have been raised up by God to vindicate his Truth yet was permitted by him to dy in their conceit a Desertor of it i. e. reconciled to the doctrin of the Church Page 93 line ult After exordium unitatis Add. The Ecclesiasticalunity in which Bishop Grotius conceiveth so necessary as that he saith Rivet Apol. discussio p. 255. Non posse Protestantes inter se jungi nisi simul jung antur cum iis qui sedi Romanae cohaerent sine qua saith he nullum sperari potest in Ecclesia commune regimen Again Inter causas divulsionis Ecclesiae non esse primatum Episcopi Romani secundùm Canones favente Melancthone qui eum primatum etiam necessarium putat ad retinendam unitatem Neque enim hoc esse Ecclesiam subjicere Pontificis libidini sed reponere ordinem sapienter institutum Thus moderate Protestants of the Churches unity founded Supremely as to single persons in the Bishop of Rome Page 96 line 15. After Coeteris Add. And accordingly in all those instances gathered out of Antiquity by Arch-Bishop Lawd § 24. n. 5. where inferior Synods have reformed abuses in manners or made Decrees in causes of Faith as it is willingly granted many have done it cannot be shewed that any of them hath done either of these in matters stated before contrarily by a Superior Authority a thing with which Protestants are charged Somthing was then stated or reformed by Inferiors without nothing against their Superiors Page 103 line 36. After times Add. Baron saith A. D. 358. That In tantâ errorum offusâ caligine qui substantiae Filii Dei assertores essent a nostris in pretio habebantur ut pote quod ut soepius est dictum nullâ aliâ re viderentur a Catholicis differre nisi quod vocem Consubstantialitatis non admitterent Page 104 line 8 After mentioned Add. So but that the words are well capable of an Orthodox sence So that the seventeenth and twenty sixth Articles in the first Sirmian Confession as they are understood by Sozomen in the Semi-Arrian l. 5. c. so are they compared with the antecedents expounded by St. Hillary De Synodis in a Catholick sence The Semi-Arrian Bishops it seems c. Page 125 line ult After errores Add. And Ib. q. 5. a. 3. Omnibus articulis fidei inhaeret fidei propter unum medium sci propter veritatem primam propositam a nobis in Scripturis secundùm doctrinam Ecclesiae sane intelligendis See several Authorities to this purpose collected by Fr. a S. Clara in System Fid. c. 7. Page 206 line 3. After Accesserunt Add. Concerning 1 the corruption of humane nature and bondage under sin 2 Justification gratuital and 3 Christs Sacerdotal Office thus he censures ancient Church-Tradition Resp ad Cassand offic Pii viri in Cassand oper p. 802. Verum si quid in controversiam vocetur quia flexibile est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the holy Scriptures inter nasi cerei si absque Traditionis subsidio quicquam definire fas non sit quid jam fiet praeciputs Fidei nostrae capitibus Tria solum exempli causa proferam 1. Naturae nostrae corruptio misera animae servitus sub peccati Tyrannide 2. Gratuita justificatio 3. Et Christi Sacerdotium apud vetustissimos Scriptores ita obscurè attingitur ut nulla inde certitudo possit elici Si ex eorum Traditione haurienda sit cognitio salutis nostrae jacebit omuis Fiducia quia ex illis nunquam discemus quomodo Deo reconciliemur quomodo illuminemur a Spiritu sancto formemur in obsequium justitiae quomodo gratis accepta nobis feratur Christi obedientia quid valeat sacrificium mortis ejus continua pro nobis intercessio quarum rerum luculenta explicatio in Scripturâ passim occurrit Itaque novo hoc Magistro Cassandr Authore quaecunque ad salutem apprimè cognitu necessaria sunt non tantùm manebunt semi-sepulta sed quia nulla Traditio suffragatur i. e. in Antiquity certitudine carebunt Thus he And it is very true that of such a Doctrin as many Protestants deliver in these matters no footsteps will be found in antiquity and that nulla Traditio suffragabitur Page 230 line 35. After censetur Add. And Ib. q. 5. ar 3. Si quis non pertinaciter discredit articulum Fidei paratus sequi in omnibus doctrinam Ecclesiae jam non est haereticus sed solùm errans Page 342 line 28. After Prot. Add. No person that is appointed by our Lord to be a Judge in any Controversie as those Bishops you have mentioned were in the cause of Arrius can rightly or properly be said to be on that side for which he gives sentence a Party Nor doth their giving sentence once against any side prejudice them as enemies or opposites or interessed from sitting on the Bench as oft as need requires to passe it again alone or with others But if every one may be afterward called an Anti-Party who once declareth himself of a contrary Judgment I perceive c. FINIS