follow and do according to his own Judgment who judgeth it meet to follow Authority against his private Reason then he who judgeth it meet and so doth the contrary i. e. follow his own Reason and reject Authority or which is the same follow Authority meerly for the Reasons it giveth evidencing to him such a Truth Thus we without difficulty believe the Books of Scripture that are proposed us for such by sufficient Authority to be God's word when we find in them some seeming contradictions which perhaps our private Reason cannot reconcile And every one who believes that God hath commanded him an assent and submission of Judgment in Spiritual matters to his Ecclesiastical Superiors doth in yielding it follow his own Judgment even when in yielding it he goeth contrary to his own private Reason 4. It is freely conceded That supposing that one hath infallible certainty of a thing from private Reason or any other way whatever such person cannot possibly yield obedience of assent to any Authority whatever proposing the contrary to be believed by him 5. But notwithstanding 5ly It is affirmed by Catholicks That every one ought to yield assent and submit his Judgment even when by plausible arguments of private Reason otherways biass'd and sway'd in all Spiritual matters wherein such assent is required to the Authority of the Church and those Spiritual Superiors who are by Christ appointed in these matters the Guides of his Faith And also That none can ever have from private Reason an infallible certainty of the contrary of that which the Church enjoins him to believe 6. But supposing that such a certainty in some Points by some persons could be had yet 6ly If no more may plead freedome from obedience of assent to the Church's Authority than only those who pretend infallible certainty as nothing less than this seems sufficient to reject so great an Authority and so divinely assisted then the most part of Christians I mean all the unlearned at least unfit to read Fathers compare Texts of Scripture c. in matters controverted will always be obliged to follow this Authority tho against their private Reason And for the other since one may think himself infallibly certain who is not so for men of contrary opinions not unfrequently both plead it these seem to have as little humility so little security in relying thereon especially when so many others having the same Evidences and as these men ought to think better Judgments and having larger promises of Divine assistance and lastly appointed for their Guides shall apprehend so much certainty of as to decree the contrary 7. To one who as yet doubteth whether there be any Authority or amongst many pretending to it which of them it is to which God hath subjected him for the guidance of his Judgment in Spiritual matters to such a one the use of his private Reason in the Quest thereof is not denyed by Catholicks But 1st they affirm that such Guide being found here the use of his private Reason against such Authority ceaseth for those things wherein he is enjoined obedience to it which indeed are but few in comparison of those vast Volumes of Theological Controversies wherein private Judgment still enjoys its liberty 2ly That if by reason of a faulty search such Guide is not discovered by him none is therefore held excused from obedience to such Guide or licensed to use his liberty in both which he is culpably mistaken 3ly That as it is left to our reason to seek so that it is much easier for us by it to find out this Guide that is appointed to direct us than to find out the Truth of all those things wherein she is ready to direct us more easy to find out the Church than to understand all the Scriptures and that from the use of private Reason in some things none may therefore rationally claim it in all HEAD XIII Concerning the necessary Means or Motive of attaining Faith Divine and Salvifical Concerning the necessary means of attaining faith Divine and Salvifical 1. IT is certain that all Faith Divine or wrought in us by God's Spirit is infallible or that the Proposition which is so believed never is or can be false 2. Again Catholicks affirm that the Authority or proposal of the Church is a sufficiently infallible ground of the Christians belief for all necessary Points of Faith From which Infallibility in the Church which is clearly revealed in Scripture and by Tradition Apostolical delivering such Points unto them they also maintain a firm Faith is had among Catholicks of all those necessary Points which are not in Scripture or Tradition as to all men so clearly revealed Whilst others denying this Infallibility in the Church either miscarry in their Faith concerning some of these Points or can have no external firm ground of their believing them 3. Catholicks affirm also that a right Belief of some Articles of Faith profiteth not as to Salvation persons Heretical in some other But 4ly many learned Catholicks deny That a known Infallibility of the external Proponent or Motive of ones Faith or a certainty not from a firm adhesion of mind wrought by the Spirit whereby a man is without all doubt but from the Infallibility of the external means of his Faith that he cannot err is necessary that Faith may be truly Divine or Salvifical See Card. Lugo De Virtute fidei Dis 1. § 12. n. 247.251 252. Estius 3. Sent. 23. d. 13. § Layman Theol. Moral 2. l. 1. Tract 5. c. or consequently That such external motive or means for producing Divine Faith needeth to be to every man one and the same Or lastly That one cannot have Divine Faith in any one Article of Faith who culpably erreth in any other Next Concerning the necessity of an explicite or sufficiency of an implicite Faith Concerning explicit and implicite Faith 1. It is freely acknowledged by Catholicks that to some Articles of the Christian Faith an explicite or express Faith wherein the Article in its terms is particularly known and professed is necessary to all Christians that have the use of reason of what condition or calling soever But to how many Articles such Faith is necessary it is not easy punctually to determine 2. Catholicks teach that all Christians are obliged by what means soever afforded them to acquire an explicite Faith of all other Articles of Faith or Precepts of good Life which are any way either necessary or profitable to their Salvation so far as their capacities or callings do permit or also require them 3. That all Christians ought in general or implicitely to believe that whatever God hath revealed or the Church in her Definitions or Expositions of the Divine Revelations delivereth as matter of Faith and to be believed is to be believed and ought also to be ready explicitely to hold and profess whatever is at any time sufficiently proposed to them to be such And other implicite Faith than the
their Authority by the Emperors I answer All this is true 1. That the Church Canons are not of force as to any Coactive Power to he used in the Execution of them by Clergy or Laity before made the Emperor's or other Princes Laws For which take the same Bishop Bramhal's Exposition when I believe he had better considered it Schism Guarded p. 92. We see the Primitive Fathers did assemble Synods and make Canons before there were any Christian Emperors but that was by Authority meerly Spiritual They had no Coactive Power to compel any man against his will And p. 119. We acknowledge that Bishops were always esteemed the proper Judges of the Canons both for composing of them and for executing of them but with this caution That to make them Laws the Confirmation of the Prince was required and to give the Bishop a Coactive Power to execute them The Prince's Grant or Concession was needful 2. That the Church Canons are not of force at all when these Canons relate to any civil Right without the secular Magistrate's precedent admission of them of whose proper Cognizance such Rights are But meanwhile all Ecclesiastical Canons whether concerning the Faith or Government and Discipline of the Church so far as they do not encroach on any such civil Rights as I presume all those made by the Church when under Heathen Governors will be granted to be are in force in whatever Princes Dominions so as to render all the disobedient liable to the Church's Censures tho the Christian Prince never so much oppose and reject them And this granted more is not desired for thus no Members of the Church at any time can be free from the strict observance of such Canons by any secular Authority or Patronage § 54 6. They urge That in any Princes Dominions the Clergy's liberty to exercise actually their Function 6. and the application of the matter on which it worketh viz. of the Subjects of such a Dominion are held from the Crown so that a Christian Prince by denying this lawfully voids the other as he thinks fit We draw saith Bishop Bramhal Vindic. p. 268. or derive from the Crown Liberty or Power to exercise actually and lawfully upon the Subjects of the Crown that habitual Jurisdiction which we receive at our Ordination And in his Reply to Chalced. p. 291. he makes Ecclesiastical Persons in their excommunicating and absolving the King's Substitutes i. e. as he expounds himself afterward by the King's Application of the matter namely of his Subjects to receive their Absolution from such Ecclesiastical Persons I answer This again if meant of the liberty of the Clergy's exercising their Functions with a Coactive Power or of some persons among that Clergy which the Church owns as Catholick being admitted to exercise their Function absolutely in such Dominions and not others is very true but little to their Purpose that urge it But if understood absolutely as to the liberty of any such Clergy at all to exercise their Function at all in any Christian Prince's Dominions upon his Subjects without his leave in which sense only it besteads them is most false Neither may a Christian Prince be thought to have any priviledge herein which a Heathen hath not And as such Priviledge is most pernicious to the propagation of the Christian Religion where the Prince is Heathen So to the Conservation of the Catholick Religion where the Christian Prince happens to be Heretical or Schismatical § 55 7. They urge For the abrogating Church Canons That Ecclesiastical are only humane Institutions 7. that Authority given by the men and abused may be again suppressed by them So Rivet Grot. Discuss Dialys p. 173. in Answer to Grotius Discussio Rivet Apol. p. 69. who alledged a Jus Ecclesiasticum for the Pope's Primacy to be conceded by Protestants And ' Tho Inferiors are not competent Judges of their Superiors yet as to subordinate Superiors in matters already defined by the Church the Sentence of the Judge is not necessary the Sentence of the Law and Notoriety of the Fact are sufficient So Bishop Bramhal Vindic. of the Church of England p. 253. from whence seems to be inferred the lawfulness for a Prince within his Dominions or for a Church National totally to abrogate the forementioned Canonical Sub-ordination of such Kingdome or Church to the Patriarchal Authority when this abused § 56 To which 1st it is willingly granted That both Ecclesiastical Offices and Canons may be abrogated for abuses happening by them only that this may not be done by Inferiors or by every Authority but by the same Authority that made or set them up 2. Next for Abuses and the Notoriety of them that no Practices may be stiled so where neither Church-Definitions are found against them much less where these found for them nor where a major part of those subject to them acknowledge them as Abuses but continue their obedience therein as their Duty 3ly For such things as are notorious Abuses or most generally agreed on for such and so Obedience withdrawn herein yet none may therefore substract his obedience absolutely from such an Authority for such other matters where their Obedience is due and due it is still that was formerly so till such Power reverse that Authority and its Injunctions as set it up But whilst Obedience in the one is denyed in the other it ought still to be yielded Therefore should the Patriarch make a breach upon the Civil Rights of Princes or their Subjects these may not justly hence invade his Ecclesiastical And if the Priest Patriarch or Bishop would in some things act the Prince therefore may not the Prince justly take upon him to act the Priest or to alter any thing of that Spiritual Hierarchy established by Christ or by the Church much to the good but nothing at all to the damage of temporal States If any thing happen to be unjustly demanded it excuseth not from paying just debts The Office must not be violated for the fault of the Person And herein may the Example of other Nations be a good Pattern to ours who having made resistance to their Patriarch in some Injunctions conceived by them not Canonical yet continue still their Obedience in the rest as appears in the late Contest of the State of Venice and those Opposals both of France and Spain and England before the times of Henry the Eighth of which Bishop Bramhal In Vindic. 3d. Book 7th Chap. hath been a sufficiently diligent Collector but at last found them all to come short of Henry the Eighth's Proceedings See before § 49. Neither indeed need any Prince to fear any Ecclesiastical Tyranny so far as to pluck up the Office by the roots who holding the Temporal Sword still in his own hands can therewith divide and moderate it as he pleaseth § 57 8. The endeavour to void the Pope's Patriarchal Authority and the Canonical Priviledges belonging to it 8. by his claiming an Universal Headship by
renders them no longer any part of the Church Catholick nor Members of the Body of Christ 1. From whence they conclude 1. That a particular Person or Church differing or dividing from the whole in any one Point of Faith which is defined by the whole and their assent or belief required thereto cannot plead it self any more to be one Church with or a part of the Church Catholick because that it agreeth with it still in many or in all other Points of Faith As the Arian Churches agreeing in all other Credends save Consubstantiallity of God the Son with the Father became by this no longer a part of the Church Catholick 2. And likewise from hence they conclude that those who in their separation 1. first deny not the Church or Churches they separate from to be true Churches 2. Who profess themselves not to renounce an inward Communion with those departed from 3. Who renounce not external Communion neither if they may be admitted thereto on terms they can approve 4. Who exclude not those from whom they separate from their own external Communion that is if others will conform to them 5. Who do not set up any new external Communion at all 6. Lastly Who do not publickly contradict the tenents or customes of those Churches from which they separate Those I say who can plead all these things or themselves are not thereby cleared from Schisme because their Separation may be tho in none of these things yet otherwise faulty mentioned above and tho some Churches heretofore noted for Schisme have offended in some of these yet it hence follows not that those who offend in none of these are free from Schisme 3. Again they conclude from hence that those who refuse to conform to something which the Church Catholick requires of them that they may be Partakers of her external Communion and for this are by her thrust out of her Communion are guilty of Schism as well as those who before any Ejection voluntarily desert it Else Arians and many other Hereticks would have been no Schismaticks 4. Lastly That those who never were in the external Communion of the Church Catholick yet stand guilty of Schisme so long as upon the same reason upon which the others left it they do not return to it or cannot be admitted by it 4. They maintain That any particular person or multitude joined together dividing from the external Communion of all other particular visible Churches of the present Age and even from those of their own Church as well as from the rest viz. from so many of it as continue what they were and what the Separatists also were formerly must needs in this separate from the external Communion of the Church Catholick of the present Age for either all or some of these Churches which they separate from is so and do separate from their lawful Superiors for such is the Church Catholick in respect of any part and so is guilty of that sort of Schisme which cuts off from the whole 5. They affirm that the exercise of any sacred Function is to all Heretical or Schismatical Clergy tho never so truly or validly ordaioned utterly unlawful and the Sacraments and other Ordinances of the Church to the Receivers in such Church unbeneficial i. e. to so many as are conscious of the Schism or only thro a culpable ignorance nescient HEAD XI Concerning the Judgment and Discovery of Heresy and Schism Concerning the Judgment and Discovery of Heresy and Schism 1. CAtholicks affirm That all maintaining of any Tenent contrary to the known Determination of the supremest judgment of the Church in matters which she declares of necessary Faith is guilty of obstinacy and so is Heresy Likewise that all voluntary departure from the external Communion of the Church Catholick upon what pretences soever of its erring in faith or manners is truly causeless the Catholick Church being our Guide in Spiritual matters as to both what is true and what is lawful to whom we ought to assent and submit and so Schisme But 2ly taking the Protestant Description of them viz. That Heresy is an obstinate Defence of Error contrary to a necessary Article of Faith and Schism a causless Departure or Separation from the external Catholick Communion and so also being causless from the internal Yet Catholicks urge this as necessary that there must be some certain Judge upon Earth authorized to decide whether such Error be against necessary Faith and whether the Defence thereof be to be interpreted obstinacy and whether such Departure be causless So that all the Subjects of the Church are to receive that to be Heresy or Schism which this Judge pronounceth to be so Else what none can know and judge of none can punish or separate from nor the true extent of the Church Catholick and its Distinction from the Heretical and Schismatical ever be discovered 3. It is most reasonable that in any differences of judgment concerning these amongst Ecclesiastical Magistrates or Courts of Judicature the most supreme for the time being must be the Judge to whom all ought to acquiesce Else if a particular Person or Church may undertake to judge these against Superiors Heresy and Schisme will remain equally undiscovered between these two contrary Judges as if there were none And Heretical and Schismatical Churches will still free themselves of it by their own Judgment and that Person or Church which contends for such Priviledge at any time gives great suspition that they are in such manner faulty 4. It seems clear that all separation of a particular Person or Church from the external Communion of all the rest will always by such Judge either be pronounced causless or the cause thereof be rectified and so the Division cease if these Churches that are departed from be the Judges of it For doubtless these if they should condemn themselves will also correct in themselves what they do condemn HEAD XII Concerning Submission of Private Judgments to this Church-Authority indicated in the former Heads Concerning Submission of Private Judgments 1. IT is conceded by Catholicks That no man can believe any thing at all or do any thing lawfully against his own judgment or conscience as Judgment is taken here for the final Determination upon reviewing the former Acts of the Intellect and upon considering all reasons as well those taken from Authority as those taken from the things themselves of what we ought to do 2. But notwithstanding this 2ly It is taken for granted That one following his own judgment in believing or acting is not thereby secure from believing amiss or acting unlawfully and therefore that every one is much obliged to take care of rectifying his Judgment or directing aright his Conscience 3. That the same Judgment may be swayed contrary ways by several Arguments viz. One way from the Argument drawn from Authority and another way from his private Reason and that when this happens he is no less truly said to