in that most reverend Council of Nice upon pretence that you have not had a convincing Proposal that this Definition was therein made according to Gods Word or the Scriptures yet how will you clear your self or your Socinian Congregations of Schism avoidable upon no plea of adherence to Scripture if it shall appear that you have for this opinion deserted the Communion of the Catholick Church out of which Church is no Salvation Soc. †Dr. Potter p. 75. I grant there neither is nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himself therefore I utterly deny that our Churches have made any separation from the Church Catholick at all and this for many reasons For 1st †Chillingw p. 274. We have not forsaken the whole Church or the external Communion of it but only that part of it which is corrupted and still will be so and have not forsaken but onely reformed another part of it which part we our selves are and I suppose you will not go about to perswade us that we have forsaken our selves or our own Communion And if you urge that we joined our selves to no other part therefore we separated from the whole I say it follows not in as much as our selves were a part of it and still continued so and therefore can no more separate from the whole than from our selves Prot. So then it seemes wee need fear no Schism from the Church Catholick tilla part can divide from it self which can never be § 29 Soc. Next As for our separating from all other particular Churches the ground of our Separation being an error which hath crept into the Communion of these Churches and which is unjustly imposed upon us in order to this Communion we conceive in this case if any They not We are the Schismaticks for as the Arch. Bp. †Lawd p. 142. The Schism is theirs whose the cause of it is and he makes the separation who gives the first just cause of it not he that makes an actual separation upon a just cause preceding § 30 Again Though we have made an actual Separation from them as to the not-conforming to or also as to the reforming of an error yet 1st As to Charity we do still retain with the same Churches our former Communion †Dr. Ferne Division of Churches p. 105. and 31 32. Not dividing from them through the breach of Charity Or condemning all other Churches as no parts of the Catholick Church and drawing the Communion wholy to our selves as did those famous Schismaticks the Donatists § 31 Next as to matter of Faith We hold that all separation from all particular Churches in such a thing wherein the unity of the Catholick Church doth not consist is no separation from the whole Church nor any more than our suspension from the Communion of particular Churches till such their error is reformed For as Mr. Stillingf †p. 331. There can be no separation from the whole Church but in such things wherein the unity of the whole Church lies Whos 's therefore separates from any particular Church as to things not concerning their being is onely separated from the Communion of that Church and not the Catholick Now that for which we have separated from other Churches we conceive not such as is essential or concernes the being of a Church so that without it we or they cannot still retaâ—n the essence thereof we declare also our readiness to joyn with them again if this error be corrected or at least not imposed And †Stilling Ib. as Mr. Stillingf faith Where there is this readiness of Communion there is no absolute separation from the Church as such but onely suspending Communion till such abuses be reformed or not prâ—ssed upon us And as Bp. Bramhall †Vindic. of the Church of England p. 9. When one part of the universal Church separateth it self from another part not absolutely or in essentials but respectively in abuses and innovations not as it is a part of the universal Church but onely so far as it is corrupted and degenerated whether in doctrine or manners it doth still retain a Communion not onely with the Catholick Church and with all the Orthodox members of the Catholick Church but even with that corrupted Church from which it is separated except onely in such Corruptions § 32 Prot. Saving better Judgments methinks a separation if causeless from the Communion of all other Churches or from those who are our Superiours in a lesser matter than such a Fundamental or essential point of Christianity as destroyes the being of a Church should be Schism and the smaller the point for which we separate the greater the guilt of our separation Were not the Donatists Schismaticks in rejecting the Catholick Communion requiring their conformity in such a point in which St. Cyprian's error before the Churches definâ—ng thereof was very excusable and the Affrican Congregations in his time not un-churched thereby Soc. †Dr. Potter p. 76. But the Donatists did cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which they separated which is the property of Schismaticks And †Stillingf p. 359. Division of Churches p. 106. They were justly charged with Schism because they confined the Catholick Church within their own bounds But as Dr. Ferne saith †Had the Donatists only used their liberty and judgment in that practise of rebaptizing Hereticks leaving other Churches to their liberty and though thinking them in an error for admitting Hereticks without baptising them yet willing to have Communion with them as parts of the Catholick Church saving the practices wherein they differed then had they not been guilty of Schism In that which I hold I only follow my conscience condemn not the Churches holding otherwise On the other side †Chillingw p. 278. Christ hath forbid me under pain of damnation to profess what I believe not be it small or great and consequently under the same penalty hath obliged me to leave that Communion in which I cannot remain wothout the Hypocritical Profession of such a thing which I am convinced to be eroneous †Ib. 279. At least this I know that the Doctrine which I have chosen to me seemes true and the contrary which I have forsaken seemes false and therefore without remorse of conscience I may profess that but this I cannot and a separation for preserving my conscience I hope will never be judged causeless § 33 Prot. At this rate none will be a Schismatick but he who knowes he erreth i. e. not who holdeth but only who professeth an error or who knows that the point for the non-conformity to which required of him he deserts the Church is a Truth and the contrary which he maintaines an error But Dr. Hammond †Of Schism p. 23. 24. 25. tells you That he that doth communinate with those I suppose he means
diversly fancieth the true causes thereof then in all this said nothing at all is said § 20 12. 2 Again for Schism Catholicks affirm That any particular Person or Church which for what cause soever and particularly for this the Church's requiring his assent and conformity to the Definitions of such her Councils doth actually relinquish and separate from the external Communion of the present Church-Catholick is Schismatical Meaning here * by Catholick Church the present true Superior Ecclesiastical Guides and the Christian Congregations joyned with them in the sence explained before Disc 2. Prop. 12. § 23. And * by External Communion the Church's Publick Prayers and Worship of God and the participation of her Sacraments And * by actual relinquishing and separating either 1 the setting up or joyning with an Anti-communion or 2 a Voluntary absenting ones self from the Church's Communion or at least 3 the incurring of an Excommunication or Separation inflicted by the Church for a non-conformity to her Decrees of which see Dr. Hammond's Concession below § 22. n. 2. § 21 The Reason Because 1 all separation from the external Communion of this Church that is made out of a Non-conformity to any thing defined by these Superiors is judged causeless upon the former account given § 6. and § 14. Since they can require no unjust condition of their Communion as the assent or subscription to an Error that any Inferior can justly judge or certainly know to be so And this because in Necessaries these Church-Governors cannot misse-guide § 6 9. And of what or how much is to be accounted necessary the judgement also belongs to these Guides not their Subjects see Disc 2. Prop. 6. Of whom also divinely assisted it is rationally presumed that to things judged no way necessary they will never enjoyn Assent upon the Church's Censures But lastly supposing not granting that they should err in some non-necessary to which notwithstanding they require Assent yet cannot particular men have in such matters any sufficient ground of an infallible assurance of the contrary which the Church cannot discover ‖ See Disc 2. §. 15. 42. and therefore cannot justly on any such account withdraw their submission And for this reason also these Superiors in whatever decrees they make or impose do never fall actually or causally into Heresie or Schisme as who are not from others but all others from them directed to learn in spiritual matters what is true and lawful and to what they are or are not to conform But 2 Next If any separation from this Church should be made for any Doctrine or Practice in it to which an assent or a conformity is no way required by it This will still be an higher Schisme because more void of any just Pretence Of this matter thus S. Austin ‖ Epist 48. speaking not of the internal but the external Communion of the Catholick Church which defining against Rebaptization was upon this forsaken by the Donatists Fieri non potest ut aliquis habeat justam causam quâ communionem suam separaret à communione orbis terrarum c. And de unitate Ecclesiae c. 3. Quicunque à Chriâ—ti corpore quod est Ecclesia ita dissentiunt ut eorum Communio non sit cum toto quacunque diffunditur sed in aliquâ parte separatâ inâ—eniatur manifestum est cos non esse in Catholicâ Ecclesia Cum toto i. e. * with the Communion of that Body which was totum integrum before some separated from it or after the separation when now the former totum is divided * with that part of the totum from which the other part separates which Body that is parted from is still the total Catholick Church of which total only S. Austin speaks though the divided part or parts for the amplitude of this totum is a casual thing nor always the same should in time swell to a greater magnitude than it Concerning this matter also thus Dr. Hammond ‖ of Schism p. 10. in his Book of Schisme c. 1. For the universal or truly Catholick Church of Christ it is not in St. Austin's Opinion possible that there should be any just cause for any to separate from it nor consequently Apology to be made for those that on any whether true or pretended cause whatsoever have really incurred this guilt and that it is not the Examination of the Occasion or Cause or Motive of any man's Schisme that is worth the producing or heeding in this matter The one thing that is of force and moment and by consequence pertinent to be enquired into is the truth of the matter of fact whether this charge be sufficiently proved or confessed i. e. whether he that is thus accused stands really guilty of Separation from the Church of Christ Thus Dr. Hammond Where it would be ridiculous for any to say that by separation from the Church-Catholick he means voluntary separation and then that by voluntary separation he means a separation without any just cause moving him to it for this is only saying there can never be just cause of a voluntary separation from the Church-Catholick without any just cause Neither can the Doctor 's meaning here be that one indeed may not separate but yet may by Excommunication be separated for his non-conforming in something to the Church-Catholick without Schism For elsewhere ‖ Answ to Cath. Gentlm p 9. he declareth Continuance in I add or incurrin Excommunication to be actual Schism supposing that if one will submit to that which is lawful not that which he thinks lawful for him to submit to he may be absolved and freed from it Now the Church-Catholick he holds here can never require unjust conditions of her Communion because upon such terms he alloweth a departure may be without Schism Here then taking his words in their plain sence since the Church-Catholick cannot be denyed to be such a Church as gives Laws and requires certain Conditions of her external Communion and since the Doctor affirms ‖ Of Schisme c 2. n. 3.5 12. that where a Church requires unjust Conditions of her Communion one may depart from or continue out of it without Schism it seems to follow that the Doctor holds here that the Church-Catholick can never require such unjust conditions which how it consists with what is quoted out of him Disc 1. § 5. I know not and hence that she did not require such at Luther's appearance Yet it is clear that there was no Church then extant one or more of which must be the Catholick to the conditions of whose external Communion Protestants would submit and from whose external Communion they departed not See Disc 1. § 55. n. 4. And then we see what followers upon these Principles of Dr. Hammond's § 23 Mean while the Catholicks grant 1 st That the several parts of this body may without Schism separate or differ from one another in any doctrine or practice wherein they are obliged to
no agreement or union from the Common Superiors of them both and so long as one part divides not from the other in any thing wherein the other agrees with the whole against it or which the whole enjoyns both to the other and it But in such case the division of this part is as from the other part so from the whose and so becomes for its division from the whole and not from the other part Schismatical 2 ly They grant also that one part may lawfully and without Schism separate or rather absent it self from the external Communion of another so often as either the Communion of the other part suspected of Heresiae or Schism before any evidence of the contrary is thought unlawful or as this part requires some condition of its external Communion to which the other is not by the whole or by the Superiors of both any way obliged Thus the Catholicks CHAP. IV. On the other side the Protestants after the four first Propositions conceded thus proceeding to qualifie them 5. In their granting the Catholick Church unerrable in Necessaries understanding thereby only such few Points without which Salvation no way attainable § 24. 6. Affirming the Church Catholick or all particular Churches of some one age or ages errable in several other doctrines dangerous to Salvation gross damnable c. § 25. Because it appears that many of the chief Points from which Protestants dissent were the General Tenents and Practices at the coming of Luther § 26. 7.8 Affirming * the Church's General Councils also when universally accepted to be unerring in Necessaries but not so in other and that is in the most Points And in the former 1 Extending universal acceptation to all particular Churches and 2 Restraining Necessaries as before to those absolutely so Again * The Councils not so accepted to be errable also in Necessaries § 34.35 36. 9.10 Allowing Obedience also due to the Definitions and Decrees of such Councils But not that of Assent but only of Non-contradiction § 39. Where of the Quality of the Obedience yeilded by the Church of England to the four first Councils § 40. 11. Of Non contradiction not generally but where the Error of the Council not manifest and intolerable § 43. Claiming also where the Errour manifest a power against such Council to reform it for themselves § 44. 12. The judgement also as for themselves when there is or is not such Error in Councils left to particular Persons or Churches § 47. § 24 BUt the Protestants after conceding the four first Propositions labour to pull down these superstructures of the Catholicks which they see else would ruine their cause and thus proceed After the first four Propositions above agreed on 5 ly They explain themselves That by the Necessaries wherein Prop. 2 they grant the Catholick Church of all ages unerrable they understand only those few Points spoken of before Disc 2. Prop. 6. without the explicit Belief of which Salvation is not at all attainable For in their saying that she is so unerrable they thus declare themselves That there alwayes shall be a number of men professing Christianity in the world So Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ Stillingf p. 251. A company of men that profess at least so much Truth as is absolutely necessary for their Salvation So Mr. Chillingworth ‖ P. 15. That Christ doth and will so defend his Church that there shall be forever till the end of the world a Church Christian on the earth So Dr. Hammond ‖ Defence of Lord Fulkland c. 1. §. 5.6 p. 23. No more inerrability in Faith you see here affirmed than that without which Salvation is absolutely on what terms soever in the Profession of Christianity not attainable wherein they straiten Christs promises as the Catholicks enlarge them by which they gain the liberty of reforming as they think fit from the universal Church of God as to some age or ages in most of her Doctrines as they granting her not save in some few necessaries unerrable that may as it were still preserve life in Her neither will they concerning this Question what are points necessary wherein our Lord hath promised an indefectibility to his Church what not by any means stand to her judgement § 25 6 ly They say ‖ that though the Church-Catholick is preserved always from errors in absolute necessaries taken in their sence § 24 for otherwise there would cease to be a Church of Christ upon earth yet the same Church or at least any or all particular Churches of some age or ages some one or many or all which particular Churches must be the visible universal Church-Catholick of that age or ages may generally hold and the Governors thereof impose upon their Subjects such errors and corruptions as are dangerous to Salvation gross damnable c. and therefore which upon a general Reformation neglected are corrigible and reformable by any particular Church for it self See what Arch-bishop Laud § 26 § 37. n. 5.6 Mr. Stillingfleet Part 2. c. 2. p. 330. and c. 4. p. 370.371 and c. 8. p. 478 479. Mr. Chillingworth c. 5. § 64.49 45 27. and the 31 st Article of the Church of England have said to this purpose § 27 And the Reason of this Assertion seems to be because these great points of modern controversie § 28 1. A Corporal Presence and a Transubstantiation or substantial Conversion of the Elements into Christs Body § 29 2. Adoration of the Eucharist i. e. of Christs Body and Blood as present in it which followes from the former § 30 3. The Sacrifice of the Mass not onely that of Prayers Praise and Thanksgivings nor only of the Mysteries in the consecrating of them offered as a Commemorative of the Passion a thing conceded also by learned Protestants but also of the very Body and Blood of Christ in these Mysteries which thing follows from the first Point offered in this Service pro vivis Defunctis c. 4. Invocation of the Blessed Virgin and Saints § 31 And 5. Such Prayer for the dead as infers their present condition before the day of Judgement whatever their restraint or sufferings be to be conceived better able by the Intercessions of the Living Do appear to have been universally held and practised and the approbation and conformity to them imposed by the Ecclesiastical Governors both of the Greek and Latine Church at the coming of Luther § 32 The clearning of which because it is a consideration of great importance and not meet to be omitted nor can be here inserted without making too great a Parenthesis and distracting your thoughts from the matter in hand I have rather chosen to annex it at the end of this discourse Cap. 11. § 158. referring you to that place for the perusal thereof if not in this matter already satisfied § 33 This then concerning the 6 th Proposition The Protestants affirming that the Catholick Church of some age may incurr and maintain dangerous
Chillingw ‖ P. 59. If through his own default any man judge amiss he alone shall suffer for it And Such person endangers both his temporal and eternal happiness ‖ P. 100. Well for such persons at their peril be it § 50 But meanwhile how is the Church's peace or her wholesome or also necessary and Fundamental Doctrines to be preserved among her Subjects How these poor Sheep delivered from harkning to and being seduced by these new Demonstrators if such publick Contradictors may not justly be punished and restrained by her Or how may they justly be restrained if all ought to be left to judge according to the Pandects of the Divine Laws because each Member of the Christian Society is bound take care of his Soul and of all things that tend thereto as Mr. Stillingfleet tells us ‖ P. 133. How restrained I mean even as to external obedience or silence if the judgement when or in what things her Councils intolerably err is rightly left to them and if so often as they judge them to err and perswade themselves they have demonstration for it they may lawfully contradict Could the Church-Governors justly punish Luther and He justly do that for which he was punished Well To give some satisfaction also to this the preserving of the Church's peace thus goes on Mr. Stillingfleet We appeal saith he ‖ P. 340. to the common Reason of Mankind whether it be not a far probabler way to end Controversies to perswade them in disputable matters to yeild external obedience to a lawful General Council than to tell them they are bound to believe whatever they decree to be infallibly true But here he hides and nimbly passeth over one half and the more scandalous part of his Doctrine and that which usher'd in the Reformation that where a Doctrine of a General Council is intolerable where it seems to any not a matter disputable but error manifest of which he knows who must judge and how many of the common Doctrines of the Church before the times of Luther are by Protestants charged to be so so that such errors are not to be numbred amongst the raro contigentia ‖ See Mr. Stillingfl p. 535. so often private men or particular Churches instead of yeilding the external obedience he here makes shew of may publickly contradict such Councils and reform I say not without them for that Protestants ‖ Ap. Laud p. 153. do bring several proofs or Examples in Antiquity but against them for which they bring none CHAP. V. 13. Suitably to the Precedents Protestants declaring Heresie to be an error obstinately maintained against some Fundamental Article of the Faith without allowing any certain Judge what Articles are Fundamental and consequently what is Heresie § 51. 14. Declaring Schism in respect of inferiors to be a separation causeless § 55. Or also as some more straiten it a separation in Essentials § 57. from the Communion of other Churches or of the Church-Catholick But leaving us no certain Judge what points are Essentials or when the separation causeless and consequently when Schism Vnless perhaps he that separates be made by them this Judge Again inlarging Schism to Superiors also so often as by requiring unjust conditions of their Communion they give their Subjects just cause of a separation § 61. Where is examined Whether the Ecclesiastical Superiors when departing from no other their Superiors can become in respect of their Subjects guilty of Schism § 63. n. 1. § 51 13. LAstly concerning their stating of Heresie and Schism 1 st For Heresie They do not enlarge it so far as Catholicks do ‖ See before §. 16. to all errors knowingly or obstinately maintained against any Church Definitions made in matters of Faith But which helps to remove the charge thereof the farther from themselves restrain it ‖ Chill 271.332 Stillingf p. 11. only to those errors that are against some essential part of the Gospel or some Fundamental Article of Faith or such as is plainly revealed by God with a command that all should believe it †Chill p. 332. §. 12. or is absolutely necessary to the Salvation of a Christian and essential to the being of a Church § 52 Which Fundamentals or necessaries they will not allow to extend so far as to all the Articles contained in some of the Creeds ‖ See before § 41. n. 2. and some fetter them with so many conditions of an universal attestation from the Church of all times as that scarce any former universally accounted Heresie can be found to oppose a Divine Truth that is in every circumstance so qualified viz. such conditions as these ‖ See Still p. 57. That all Catholick writers agree in such a Doctrine and none of them opppose it and agree in the necessity of it also to all Christians and that no later Writers and Fathers in heats of contention and opposition of Hereticks judge it then an Article more necessary than it was judged before That all Writers that give an account of the Faith of Christians deliver it not as necessary to be believed by such as might be convinced that it is divine Revelation but as necessary also to be by all explicitly believed That what all these Writers consent in be also undoubtedly the consent of the Church of those ages wherein they write Lastly that it be made appear to be universally embraced at all times and all places by the Members of the Catholick Church and the opposers thereof to have been presently disowned as any Members of it Somewhat a like Caution Bishop Taylor hath put in the beginning of his Disswasive ‖ c. 1. §. 1. p. 7. to secure Protestants from receiving any detriment to their cause from the Fathers and Antiquity where after he hath first collected That the Roman Tenents were not believed or practised in the three first ages because the Writers of those ages few and compendious are silent therein which is a faulty Negative arguing though the antecedent were granted for true and then thus prejudice't the fourth age i.e. the time of Athanasius Basil the three Gregories Chrysostom Jerome Ambrose Austine the first General Councils and the first free exercise of Religion and copious Records thereof prejudiced it I say and the ages succeeding That in those times secular interests did more prevail and the writings of the Fathers were vast and voluminous full of controversie and ambiguous sences fitted to their own times and questions full of proper opinions and such variety of Sayings that both sides eternally and inconfutably shall bring sayings for themselves respectively After such prejudices I say he adds that it is impossible for those of the Roman Church to conclude from the sayings of a number of the Fathers that their Doctrine which they would prove thence was the Catholick Doctrine of the Church Because saith he any number that is less than all does not prove a Catholick consent and the
manentibus in hunc diem vestigiis semper ubique perseveranter essent tradita Videbam ea manere in illâ Ecclesiâ quae Romanae connectitur Lastly we find it a Body generally professing against any Reformation of the Doctrines of the former Church-Catholick of any age whatsoever and claiming no priviledge of Infallibility to it self for the present which it allows not also to the Church in all former times This is the general Character of one Combination of the Churches in present being The other present Combination of Churches in the Western World §. 76. The Face of the present Protestant Church we find to be a Body of much different Constitution and Complection * Much of its Doctrin Publick Service and Discipline confessed varying from the times immediately preceding It consisting of those who acknowledg themselves or their Ancestors once members of the former and that have as they say upon an unjust submission required of them yet this no more than their forefathers paid departed from it * This new Church only one person at the first afterward growing to a number and protected against the Spiritual by a secular power and so we find it subsisting and acting at this day under many several Secular Heads Independent of one another without whose consent and approbation first obtained what if such head should be an Heretick It stands obliged not at any time to make or promulgate and enforce upon its Subjects any definitions or decrees what ever in Spiritual matters ‖ See 25. Hent 8. c. 19. As to its Ecclesiastical Governours we find it taking away the higher subordinations therein that were formerly and affirming an Independent Coordination as to incurring guilt of Schism some of all Primates others of all Bishops very prejudical to the Vnity of Faith We find it standing also disunited from St. Peters Chair yet this a much smaller Body still than that which is joyned thereto and therefore in a General Council supposing all the members thereof to continue in and to deliver there their present judgments touching points in dispute such as must needs be out voted by the other and hence by the Laws of Councills in duty obliged to submit and conform to it Neither seems there any relief to this party to be expected from the accession to their side of any votes from the Churches more remote I mean the Greek or other Eastern Churches if we will suppose these also to persist in their present judgment whose Doctrine in the chief controversies is shewed ‖ §. 158. c. to conspire yet without any late consederacy with that of this greater Body which these reformed Churches have deserted § 77 We find also this new Combination of Churches in stead of pretending to assume to it self Whatsoever de facto it doth of which see more in the following Chap. § 83. c. in its Synods the same authority in stating matters of Faith which the ancient Councills have used 1. zealously contending that Councills are fallible in their determinations for so it supports the priviledg of using its own judgment against superiour Synods 2. and accordingly teaching its Subjects that it self also is fallible in what it proposeth 3 and engaging them that they may not be deceaved by its authority upon triall of its Doctrines and search of the Truth and examining with the judgment of discretion every one for him self and then relying finally on that sentence which their own reason gives 4. allowing also their dissent to what it teacheth till it proves to them its Doctrine out of the Scripture or at least when ever they are perswaded that themselves from thence can evidence the contrary Therefore it is also more sparing or pretends to be so of which see more below § 85. c. in the articles of its faith and Religion especially positive many of its Divines holding an union of Faith requisite only in some necessaries and then contracting necessaries again in a narrower compass than the Creeds and because it allows of no judge sufficient to clear what is to be held in controversies ‖ See 2. Disc §. 38. therefore holding most controversies in Religion not necessary at all to be determined and much recommending an Union of Charity there where cannot be had an Vnion of Belief We find them also restraining Heresy to points fundamental and then leaving fundamentals uncertain and varying as to several persons fewer points fundamental to some more to others and this no way knowable by the Church Again making Schism only such a departure from the Church as is causeless and then this thing when causeless to be judged for any thing that appears by those who depart by such notions leaving Hereticks and Schismaticks undiscernable by the Catholick Church and unseparable from it and therefore many seeming to understand the One Holy Catholick Apostolick Church in the Creed to signifie nothing else than the totall complex of all Churches whatever professing Christianity unless those persons be shut out who by imposing some restraint of opinion for enjoying their Communion are said to give just cause of a separation Accordingly we find this Body spreading its lap wide to several Sects by which it acquires the more considerable magnitude and receiving or tolerating in its communion many opposite parties of very different Principles and hence as it grows elder so daily branching more and more into diversity of Opinions and multiplying into more and more subdivisions of Sects being destitute of any cure thereof both by its necessary indulgement of that called Christian liberty and allowance of private judgment and also by the absolute Independency one on another of so many several supream Governours both the Secular and the Ecclesiastical who model and order diversly the several parts thereof As the other Church in her growing elder grows more and more particular in her Faith and with new definitions and Canons fenceth it round about according as new errors would break in upon it Further we find several amongst its Leaders much offended §. 78. n. 1. that Church-Tradition should be brought in together with Scripture as an authentick witness or Arbitrator in trying Controversies See the Protestants Conditions proposed to the Council of Trent ‖ Soave p. 642-344 366 that the Holy Scripture might be Judge in the Council and all humane authority excluded or admitted with a condition Fundantes se in S. Scripturis taking great pains to * discover the errors of the Fathers and their contradicting of one another See Daille's vray usage de Peres and * to shew several of the works imputed to them and admitted by R. Catholicks supposititious and forged See Cooks and Perkins and Rivets Censures Taking no less pains to shew the non necessity of Councils in General to number the many difficulties how to be assured which of them are legal and obliging what their Decrees and what the sence of them to discover the flaws deficiencies in
relinquishing the Roman communion and that in which she is chiefly charged to have violated the Unity of the Catholick Church ‖ Sâ—â—llin p. 55. that it came forth many years after the Protestants discession from this Church whether we look at Luther's or that under King Edward or the last under Queen Elisabeth and many years too after the birth of their XXXIX Articles made against the Roman Faith both after those composed under Edward VI. A. D. 1549 and reconfirmed under Queen Elisabeth 1562. This Bull not being made till 1564. So that herein they seem to take their chiefest excuse for their discession from that Church from a thing that hapned long after it as if they departed from it out of the foresight of an offense which though it then was not yet would be given them by it The 4th thing I have to observe to you touched before is §. 85. n. 7. Obs 4 that though the Church of England in her Synod affixeth not particular Anathemaes to her Articles as the Roman-Catholick doth in that of Trent with a Si quis dixerit c. Anathema sit yet the forementioned 5th Canon of this Church pronounceth in general an Excommunication to a Si quis affirmaverit that any of these Articles is in any part erroneous The weighty value of which Excommunication also you may learn out of their Art 33. These things premised §. 85. n. 8. now to speak briefly to the former Protestant-Defence made Resp to α. § 84. n. 1. c. To α I answer that by the instances in the Canons c. produced before § 83. n. 1. and some of the expressions § 84. n. 3. the Church-Governours intention in requiring this Subscription seems to be Assent To β That as the Church of England requires submission to her Articles onely from her own Children or Subjects So doth the Council of Trent whose Subjects if it be a general one ‖ Or which see Consid on Coun of Trent § 15 c. is all Christianity if a Patriarchal ‖ Of which see Ib § 43. all the Western Churches and amongst the rest that of England To γ That as subscription to the Articles in the Church of England is only required from those who are to be initiated into holy Orders or admitted to Ecclesiastical Preferments so is Pius's oath to the Canons only exacted from those who enter into sacred Orders or Religions But as the Anathemaes in the Council of Trent extend to all persons so doth the Excommunication of the Church of England Can. 5. To δ That though these are not penned with a particular Anathema yet they are with a general Excommunication Can. 5. To ε That as not by them to their Articles so neither by the Church of Rome to her Canons is subscription required as to Articles of her Faith or Articles Fundamental if Faith or Fundamental be understood in such a sense as the Protestant quotations above explain them This hath been shewed § 85. n. 5 6. To ξ By this it is confessed that of the 39 Articles no more are Articles of the Church of England's Faith than those only wherein Rome doth agree with her and then if to the rest of her Articles no assent be exacted of any as is contended above § 84. one in all things believing and being of the same perswasion with the Church of Rome is freely admitted into the Church of Englands Communion nay may without violation of her constitutions lawfully enter into her holy Orders and Ecclesiastical preferments and there remain without any engagement to defend the Church of England's Doctrine or teach and instruct the people against the Roman Errors To n That her Negative Articles involve Affirmatives and those too pretended divine Revelations see before § 85. n. 3. which are the objects of Faith and do bind so strictly on one side as the Roman Canons do on the other and supposing assent required to them do admit as little latitude of opinion and at Luther's appearance the matter of these Roman Canons being in possession as to the common belief and practice of the Church these Negatives of them of the two will prove the Innovations Lastly In what sense Protestants say these Negatives are no Articles of their Faith i. e. faith necessary ratione medii to salvation in the same sense the Roman Church saith neither are her Positives that contradict them To θ Of the many Canons in the Council of Trent made in opposition to them Luthers many errors and innovations of Doctrine which were daily collected and brought into the Council were the cause And as to the main Points that are in debate between the Church of Rome and of England the Negatives in the English Articles equal the Affirmatives in the Canons of Trent To χ Whether assent to the Articles be required in subscription or only non contradiction as to any uniform accord in their later Writers I see nothing clear and the later seems more agreeable with their Principles but in the former instances out of some Canons c. assent seems as strictly required in this Church and that upon Excommunication as in the Roman upon Anathemaes and the Act of Parliament Elisabeth 13. recited before § 83. n. 1. an Act passed not only by the Lords Temporal but Spiritual i. e. the Governours of this Church is most express for it Review it ‖ § 83. n 1. To λ § 85. n. 9. It is true also in the Roman Church that thought is free and Ecclesia non judicat de occultis or peccatis merè internis i. e. no way discovered but true also that the Ecclesiastical Magistrate may lawfully inquire into mens thoughts and beliefs and question a person herein for this is done in Baptism and that not only words are punishable as faults by this Magistrate but thoughts if any one shall reveal that he thinks so i. e. thoughts when they are any way discovered as any one upon examination manifesting any blasphemous thoughts or tenents of his may be lawfully excommunicated and in such a case is excommunicated not for the revealing them in word but for the holding them so who defignes a treason and afterward reveals it is justly punished not for the revealing but designing thereof and this the Church of Rome doth and if the Church of England extend not her Inquisition or censures thus far especially as to those persons she admits into the Clergy she may expect a Babel of Religions and dissenting judgements in points of greatest consequence under the mask of one external Communion To μ §. 85. n. 10. Only a conditional Assent required seems to signifie little for establishing unity of Faith or consent in Religion which tyes none so but that of two Subscribers one may absolutely assent another dissent the same person assent to day dissent to morrow And a Socinian confident of his opinion as freely subscribe as any other of the Reformed a Presbyterian
superiors the condition of whose Communion containes nothing really erroneous or sinful though the doctrine so proposed as the condition of their Communion be apprehended by him to whom it is thus proposed to be false remaines in Schism Soc. And at this rate all those who separate from the Church requiring their assent to what is indeed a truth will be Schismaticks and that whether in a point fundamental or not Fundamental though they have used all the industry all the means they can except this the relying on their Superiors judgment not to err unless you will say that all truths even not Fundamental are in Scripture so clear that none using a right industry can neither err in them which no Chillingworth hath maintained hitherto § 34 Prot. But we may let this pass for your separation was in a point perspicuous enough in Scripture and so you void of such excuse was in a point Essential and Fundamental and in which a wrong belief destroyes any longer Communion of a particular Person or Church with the Catholick Soc. This I utterly deny nor see I by what way this can ever be proved against me for you can assigne no Ecclesiastical Judge that can distinguish Fundamentals Necessaries or Essentials from those points that are not so as hath been shewed already And as Mr. Stillingfleet †p. 73. urgeth concerning Heresie so may I concerning Schism What are the measures whereby we ought to judge what things are essential to the being of Christianity or of the Church Whether must the Churches judgment be taken or every mans own judgment if the former the Ground of Schism lies still in the Churches definition contrary to what Protestants affirm if the latter then no one can be a Schismatick but he that opposeth that of which he is or may be convinced that it is a Fundamental or essential matter of Faith If he be only a Schismatick that opposeth that of which he is convinced then no man is a Schismatick but he that goes against his present judgment and so there will be few Schismaticks in the world If he that opposeth that which he may be convinced of then again it is that which he may be convinced of either in the Churches judgment or in his own if in the Churches it comes to the same issue as in the former If in his own how I pray shall I know that I may be convinced of what using a due indeavour I am not convinced already or how shall I know when a due industry is used and if I cannot know this how should I ever settle my self unless it be upon Authority which you allow not Again I am taught that any particular whether person or Church may judge for themselves with the Judgment of Discretion And in the matter of Christian Communion †Stillingf p. 292. That nothing can be more unreasonable than that the Society Suppose it be a Council imposing conditions of its Communion Suppose the Council of Nice imposing Consubstantialiity so should be Judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no And especially in this case where a considerable Body of Christians judg such things required to be unlawful conditions of communion what justice or reason is there that the party accused should sit judg in his own cause Prot. By this way no Separatist can ever be a Schismatick if he is constituted the judge whether the reason of his separation is just Soc. And in the other way there can never be any just cause of separation at all if the Church-Governors from whom I separate are to judge whether that be an error for which I separate § 35 Prot. It seems something that you say But yet though upon such consideration a free use of your own judgment as to providing for your own Salvation is granted you yet methinks in this matter you have some greater cause to suspect it since several Churches having of late taken liberty to examine by Gods Word more strictly the corrupt doctrins of former ages yet these reformed as well as the other unreformed stand opposit to you and neither those professing to follow the Scriptures nor those professing to follow Tradition and Church authority neither those requiring strict obedience and submission of judgment nor those indulging Christian liberty countenance your doctrin But you stand also reformers of the reformation and separated from all Soc. Soft a little Though I stand separated indeed from the present unreformed Churches or also if you will from the whole Church that was before Luther yet I both injoy the external Communion and think I have reason to account my self a true member of the Churches reformed and as I never condemned them or thought Salvation not attainable in them so neither am I that I know of excluded by or from them so long as I retain my opinion in silence and do not disturbe their peace and I take my selfe also on these termes to be a member in particular of the Church of England wherein I have been educated For all these Churches as confessing themselves fallible in their decrees do not require of their Subjects to yeeld any internal assent to their doctrines or to profess any thing against their conscience and in Hypocrisie and do forbear to use that tyranny upon any for injoying their Communion which they so much condemn in that Church from which for this very thing they were forced to part Communion and to reform Of this matter thus Mr. Whitby †p. 100. Whom did our Convocations ever damn for not internally receiving their decrees Do they not leave every man to the liberty of his judgment They do not require that we should in all things believe as they believe but that we should submit to their determination and not contradict them their decisions are not obtruded as infallible Oracles but only submitted to in order to peace and unity So that their work is rather to silence than to determine disputes c. and p. 438. We grant a necessity or at least a convenience of a Tribunal to decide controversies but how Not by causing any person to believe what he did not antecedently to these decrees upon the sole authority of the Council but by silencing our disputes and making us acquiesce in what is propounded without any publick opposition to it keeping our opinions to our selves A liberty of using private discretion in approving or rejecting any thing as delivered or not in Scripture we think ought to be allowed for faith cannot be compelled and by taking away this liberty from men we should force them to become Hypocrites and so profess outwardly what inwardly they disbelieve And see Mr. Stillingfleets rational account p. 104. where speaking of the obligation to the 39. Articles he saith That the Church of England excommunicates such as openly oppose her doctrin supposing her fallible the Roman Church excommunicates all who will not believe whatever she defines to be infallibly
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
at the comming of Luther § 36. 7. They affirm That though the Church Catholick cannot yet General Councils such as are not universally accepted by the Church diffusive may err in absolute necessaries to Salvation and that the Councils also universally accepted may err in non-fundamentals or non-necessaries § 34. 8. Yet that they allow all such Councils as are generally accepted by the Church diffusive to be either lawfully General or equivalent thereto and also to be infallible in necessaries § 35. Where That necessaries in their sence restrained only to a very few points of the Faith and universal acceptation extended to all sects of Christians do free them from any obligation to all or most Councils formerly held in the Church § 36. 9. And that they grant an obedience due to the Definitions and Decrees of such Councels from all inferior persons or Churches § 38. 10. But this obedience not necessarily that of assent to their decrees unless such decrees be in and known to be in necessaries but only of silence and non-publick contradiction § 39. Where Concerning the quality of the obedience that is yeilded by the Church of England to the decrees of the first General Councils § 40. 11. Nor this silence or non-contradiction generally due to all the decrees of such Councils but only to such decrees wherein the error of the Council is not manifest or intolerable § 43. Nor this breach of silence or contradiction of such decrees allowed only so far as to make complaint to Superiors who not allowing their complaint they are to acquiesce but allowed so far as that they may proceed upon the Superiors by them-conceived neglect of a redress to a reformation § 44. 12. And the Judgment when such errors are manifest and intolerable and to be reformed left to every particular person or Church for themselves § 47. Chap. 5. 13. Accordingly they declare and confine Heresie to be an error obstinately maintained not against some Church-Definition but some fundamental Article of the Faith without allowing any certain Judge what or how many Articles are fundamental and so what is Heresie § 51. 14. Concerning Schism 1st In respect of inferiors they declare it to be not any separation whatever but a separation causless § 55. or also as some more straiten it a separation in essentials § 57. from the Communion of other Churches or of the Church Catholick here again without leaving us any certain Judge what points are essentials or when the separation causless and consequently when Schism unless perhaps the separatist be this Judge 2. Again In respect of Superiors they enlarge Schism and declare them also guilty of it so often as by requiring unjust conditions of their Communion from Inferiors they give the cause of separation whereby the chief and governing Body of the Clergy of the whole Catholick Church at Luthers appearance seems by them charged with Schism and that from the Catholick Church § 61. Whether the Ecclesiastical Superiors when departing from no other their Superiors can become in respect of their subjects guilty of Schism § 63. n. 1. Chap. 6. A Reflection on the former different Theses of these two parties concerning Church-authority and the obedience due thereto § 64. And A Review of the two present opposite Churches which of them most resembles the ancient Catholick Church § 67. The face * of the ancient Catholick Church Ib. * Of the present Roman Church § 72. * Of the present Protestant Churches § 76. An Enquiry Chap. 7. Whether the Church of England doth not require obedience of Assent or Belief to her Articles of Religion Several Canons in her Synonds seeming to require it § 83. n. 1 The complaint of the Presbyterians conc it § 83. n. 4. The Doctrin of her Divines conc it § 84. n. 1. Where Conc. the just importance of Negative Articles § 84. n. 1. and 85. n. 2. And Conc. conditional assent § 84. n. 4. and 85. n. 10. That to some of the 39 Articles assent is due and ought to be required by the Church of England from her subjects § 85. n. 1. That the Roman Church doth not require assent to all the Canons of her Councils as to points Fundamental i. e. of any of which a Christian nescient cannot be saved § 85. n. 4. That the requiring of obedience either of Assent or Non-contradiction by the Church of England to all the 39 Articles seems contrary to the laws of the Church and to the Protestant Principles § 85. n. 11. Chap. 8. Solutions of several Protestant Questions concerning the Supreme Ecclesiastical Guide or Judge of Controversies § 86. 1. Q. From what we can be assured That Councils are infallible since neither the Texts of Scripture the sence whereof is disputed nor the decree of any Council whose erring is the thing questioned can give such assurance Ib. 2. Q. Whence General Councils have their infallibility such promise if made being made only to the Church diffusive and not delegable by this Church to others or if so no such delegation from the universal Church appearing before hand to have been made to 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 lawful 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 these Councils do not err § 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 only when confirmed by the Pope or also unconfirmed by him be infallible § 104. 8. Q. How the Popes confirmation can any way concur to such Council's non-erring since if It erred it doth so still though he approve it if orthodox it is so still he not approving it § 105. 9. Q. In which the Pope or the Council this infallibility lies if in one of them the other needless If in both then either of them sufficient such qualities being where they are indivisible and without integral parts § 106. Chap. 9. 10. Q. If general Councils infallible whether they are so in their conclusions only which will infer Enthusiasm or new Revelation or also in their premises and proofs upon which assent will be due also to all their arguments § 107. 11. Q. Why being infallible in their Conclusions or Definitions They do not end all Controversies but leave so many unresolved § 108. 12. Q. How such infallibility of theirs differs from that of the Apostles and that of their decrees from that of Scripture § 109. 13. Q. How many persons or guides all fallible can make one infallible § 112. 14. Q. Supposing all lawful General Councils
many matters occurred not in condemning the Lutheran opinions where all did agree with an exquisite Unity And see him p. 324 326. Concerning the Fathers unanimous Votes of the 2. and 6. Canons of the 13. Sess touching Transubstantiation and Adoration See p. 799. 803 their General Agreement and Consent touching Purgatory Invocation of Saints Veneration of Images p. 544 554 738. ' Touching the Masse its being a propitiatory sacrifice c. p. 324 325 519. touching the lawfulness and sufficiency of communicating only in one kind p. 348. Touching the necessity of Sacramental Confession for mortal sin p. 783 747 678 679. ' touching the lawfulness of the Vow of Continency an universal capacity of the Gift of Chastity and injunction of Priests Celibacy It were easie to add more The 3d that without such a testimony if any consider that the things defined §. 36. n. 10. of which here is question were most of them common practices then used by all these Prelates before they were assembled in Trent in their several Dioceses and so for many hundred years formerly and that the question in the Council to be decided was whether such practices lawful As for instance whether Communion only in one kind sufficient and lawful whether Adoration of Christs Body in the Eucharist as corporally present lawful whether offering the sacrifice of the Masse the Body and Blood of Christ corporally present for the living and the dead lawful whether a Relative-Veneration of Images Prayer to Saints Prayer for the dead as betterable thereby in their present condition before the day of Judgment be lawful I omit the speculative controversies concerning Justification Faith Works Merit Worke of supererogation Grace and Free-will Certainty of salvation Now by the Moderate as it were compounded and laid aside the Catholick-doctrine being of late better understood by the reformed Whether the three Monastick Vows as also the injunction of Celibacy to the Priest lawful whether Sacramental confession to the Priest by those falling into mortal sin after their regeneration not only lawful but necessary I say seeing that the question in the Council in opposition to the new Lutheran doctrines was whether these things lawful which were then and in many former Generations daily practised Protestants not denying it what need of force of new mandates from Rome of hiring Suffrages creating more titular Bishops Oaths of obedience to the Pope which is only of Canonical obedience ‖ See Bell. de Concil 1. l. 21. and this Oath administred at their Consecration without any relation to the Council to procure a prevalent Vote or that the Prelats should in the Council establish those things several of which are found in their Missals and Breviaries as the Sacrifice of the Masse Adoration of Christs Corporal Presence in the Eucharist Invocation of Saints Prayer for the dead in the sence above-named But yet if these Fathers of the Council decided these things in such a manner by compulsion how came the many more absent Fathers of the Western Churches and of France with the rest so freely and voluntarily to accept them But if it be said that though such things were generally believed and practised before yet now the Fathers by Art and violence were brought to advance them into matters of Faith I ask concerning many of these points what faith required save that they are lawful beneficial c which lawfulness all those that practised them before who were the most if not all must also believe before or else practised them against Conscience and which Lawfulness Protestants denying had by this fallen under the condemnation of this Council had it voted nothing more or besides it Lastly What former Council had there been in the Church though never so free that for the matters called in question and decided in it had not in like manner required Assent from the Church's Subjects to their Definitions The 4th That though the Protestant Bishops trespassing in some points of their Reformation §. 36. n. 11. against former free Occidental Councils of which see below § 50. n. 2. therefore either upon the account of Heresie or of Schism forfeiting their Right needed not to be admitted into this Council yet had they been received and that not only to plead their cause but also to a decisive Vote in the Council yet the small number of them some Protestant Churches also having no Bishops had been inconsiderable in respect of the rest and so the determination of things would still have gone the same way And indeed they were admitted to plead their Cause both by a safe Conduct granted and when they came no violence offered But I cannot say on the other side that no violence was offered to the Council and that within three weeks after their coming by the very Princes that sent them who on a sudden appeared in Arms against the Emperor and by their near approach dispersed this Assembly at Trent after they had secretly withdrawn from thence their Divines But had their coming been serious and their stay longer what could they have said here that they had not formerly written and that the Council in these Writings had not perused Or by what Arts could they have disswaded as they desired ‖ Soave p. 642. this Venerable Assembly from taking for their Rule and Guides in the Exposition of Scriptures the Apostolical Traditions former Councils and Fathers by which they were cast Further Suppose all things had been regulated in this Council not by Personal Consent but by the Equal Votes of the Western Nations though this is contrary to the usual manner and never practised save only in two late Councils after Anno Dom. 1400. Constance and Basil and liable to many Inconveniences of which see Considerations on the Council of Trent § 72. yet if these Votes were truly adjusted and proportioned according to the several Magnitude of the Countries and the Multitude of the Bishops in them the Protestants also would by this way have been as much over-numbred and over-born which they well saw and therefore never motioned it ‖ But motioned this That after their party first allowed with the rest a decisive Vote Soave p. 642. yet the Decisions in the Council should not be made by plurality of voices but that the more sound Opinions should be preferred i. e. those Opinions that were regulated by the Word of God they are Soave's words ‖ Ibid. not mine And motioned yet a second thing ‖ Soave Ibid That if a Concord in Religion could not be concluded in the Council then the Conditions of Passau and Ausburge might remain inviolable Now these were a Toleration of all Sects that every one might follow what Religion pleased him best See Soave 378 393. And after this motioned a third ‖ See Soave p. 369. That the body of the whole Western Clergy being now divided into Plaintiffes the Protestant Clergy and Defendants the Catholick Clergy and it not
being just that either of these should be the Judge therefore that the Divines on one part and on the other arguing for their own Tenents there might be Judges i. e. Laicks indifferently chosen on both sides that is in an equal number to take knowledge of the Controversies And see Mr. Stillingfleet motioning some such thing p. 479. And this indeed was the only way they had in referring themselves to judgment not to be cast if the Judges of their own side at least would be true to them But to let these things pass As to a due proportion of National Votes this Council of Trent is not to be thought deficient therein whilst those Nations who by their own if by any ones fault had fewer Votes in the Council in passing the Decrees yet were as plenary and numerous as the rest in the acceptation of them after it And were now anew these things put to an equal Vote of the Western Nations I see not from what the Protestants may reasonably expect supposing the greatest liberty in these Votes that is possible an issue diverse from the former For have they any new thing to propose in their Orations and Speeches before such a Meeting that they have not already said in their Writings And notwithstanding are not the major part of the Occidental Clergy and the Learned that peruse them of a different judgment And why should not the others have as great presumptions upon an equal hearing to pcevail for reducing some of the Protestant party by Scriptures explicated by Apostolical Tradition Councils and Fathers as the Protestants of gaining some of the others by Scriptures alone Or if any will say that ancient Tradition Councils or Fathers are on the Protestant side how comes this to be one of their Articles proposed to the Council that all Humane Authority being excluded the Holy Scriptures might be judge in the Council And the Trent safe-Conauct running thus Quod causae controversae secundum Sanctam Scripturam Apostolorum Traditiones probata Concilia Sanctorum Patrum Authoritates Catholicae Ecclesiae Consensum tractentur VVhy desired they a freer Safe conduct after the form of that of Basil to the Bohemians Which if it had been granted saith Soave ‖ p. 344. they had obtained one great point that is that the Controversies should be decided by the Holy Scripture This from § 36. n. 1. I have said occasionally to Bishop Bramhal's so frequent free offers of Submission to the judgment of the present Catholick Church or of free General or also Occidental Councils § 37 Next come we to Arch-Bishop Lawd He § 31. p. 318. affirms That Of Archbish Lawd the Visible Church hath in all Ages taught that unchanged Faith of Christ in all points Fundamental Doctor White saith he had reason to say this And § 21. p. 140. It is not possible the Catholick Church i. e. of any one Age should teach He speaks therefore of the Governors of it in such Age against the Word of God in things absolutely necessary to Salvation And § 25. n. 4. If we speak of plain and easie Scripture the whole Church cannot at any time be without the knowledge of it If A. C. means no more than that the whole universal Church of Christ cannot universally erre in any one point of Faith simply necessary to all mens Salvation he fights against no Adversary that I know but his own fiction For the most learned Protestants grant it VVhere he speaks of the Church as teaching such points as appeareth by the Context Ibid. p. 139. Because the whole Church cannot universally erre in absolutely fundamental Doctrines therefore 't is true also that there can be no just cause of making a Schism from the whole Church That she may err indeed in Superstructions and Deductions and other by-and unnecessary Truths from her Curiosity or other weakness But if she can err either by falling away from the foundation i. e. by Infidelity or by heretical Errour in it she can be no longer holy for no Assemblies of Hereticks can be holy and so that Article of the Creed I believe the Holy Catholick Church is gone Now this Holiness saith he Errors of a meaner allay take not away from the Church Likewise § 33. n. 4. p. 256. the same Archbishop saith yet more clearly That the whole Catholick Church Militant having an absolute Infallibility in the prime Foundations of Faith absolutely necessary to Salvation if any thing sway and wrench the General Council he must mean here in non-necessaries such Council as is not universally accepted for a General Council universally accepted by the Church Catholick is unerrable in necessaries because the Church Catholick he saith is so upon evidence found in express Scripture or demonstration of this miscarriage hath power to represent her self in another body or General Council and to take order for what is amiss either practised or concluded in the former and to define against it p. 257. And afterward p. 258. That thus though the Mother-Church Provincial or National may err yet if the Grandmother the whole Universal Church He means in a general Council universally accepted cannot err in these necessary things all remains safe and all occasions of disobedience taken from the possibility of the Church's erring are quite taken away Again § 38. n. 14. he saith That a General Council de post facto after it is ended and admitted by the whole Church is then infallible And for this admittance or confirmation of it by the Church he granteth ‖ §. 26. p. 165. That no confirmation is needful to a General Council lawfully called and so proceeding but only that after it is ended the whole Church admit it though never so tacitly The sum of all in brief is this 1st That a General Council or indeed any Council whatever less than General accepted or admitted by the whole Church is infallible in Necessaries the reason is plain because he holds the whole Church is so 2ly Consequently that Obedience and this of Assent is due to such Council or to the judgment of the Church Catholick that is delivered by this Council as to necessaries Of Assent I say to it because infallible 3ly That all are to acquiesce none presume to urge or credit any pretence of Scripture or Demonstration against such a judgment because infallible 4ly That it is Schism to depart from the judgment of such a Council because the Archbishop holds all departure of any Member from the whole Church Catholick to be so ‖ §. 21. p. 139. § 38 Now thus much being professed by the Archbishop if he will also allow the Church Reply Where or her Councils and not private men to judge what Definitions are made in matters necessary and 2ly will grant an acceptation of such Council by a much major part of the Church Catholick diffusive I mean Concerning what acceptation of Councils by the Church diffusive is only necessary of those
same Doctrines and interpretation of Scripture was judged clear on the other side 10. Of which Controversies and matters in debate if any were in points necessary it must be granted that such Councils being universally accepted in such a sence as can only be rationally required ‖ See before §. 38. in these were unerrable and might lawfully require from their Subjects assent thereto Or at least if later Councils faulty in demanding their Subjects assent so must be the four first that are allowed by Protestants 11. To which Councils also and not to their Subjects must belong the judgment of what or how many Points are to be accounted necessary Or else neither did the judgment hereof belong to the four first Councils nor could they justly upon it require assent and join som such points to the Creed 12. But if such Controversies be supposed in non-necessaries yet for the peace of the Church after the determination of such a Council the advers party ought to acquiesce in silence and non-contradicting without either pronouncing that an Error which such Council holds a Truth or the Scripture clear for such a sence as such Council disallows 13. Or If Protestants will not be obliged to this why do they appeal to a free General Council for deciding differences and setling a peace when they will neither yield the obedience of silence to the Definitions of such Councils in points not necessary nor grant that any of the Controversies concerning which they appeal to them are points necessary wherein such Council universally accepted may be submitted to by them as un-errable The summe then is That their Reformation was not from some co-ordinate Church attempting to tyrannize over them as the second branch of their defence and those following to the eighth do import but from their Superiors From these not for somthing held or practised and not enjoined for here all having their liberty was no cause to depart but for points defined and wherein Conformity was required by them to whose judgment therefore they ought to have submitted so far as to learn from it in matters questioned what is Truth and Error Or at least so far as not to contradict it and consequently as not to reform against it In doing the contrary of which they are charged as guilty of Schism and of breaking the Laws of Subordination and Vnity established in the Church ‖ Of which see Disc 2. §. 24. n. 1. 14. Lastly VVhereas against such Obedience an Obligation is pleaded n. 6. to do nothing against Conscience It is replied that a man's conscience miss-perswaded that somthing is an Error is to be followed indeed and he upon no command to profess assent thereto but excuseth not from guilt nor freeth from the Church's Censures those who might have better informed it ‖ See Dr. Hammond of Schism c. 2. §. 8. Thus the Remonstrance After which well weighed I see not what security any one can have in continuing in such a Society as hath thus broken the Links of Ecclesiastical Government and lives in a separation from the main Body if either the rejecting the Definitions of the Church's former Councils be Heresie or relinquishing her Communion Schism CHAP. VIII VI. That according to the former Concession made in the Fifth Chapter § 32. If so enlarged as ancient Church-practice and Reason requires all or most of the Protestant Controversies are by former obliging Councils already decided § 56. n. 1 c. An Instance hereof in the Controversie of the Corporal Presence in the Eucharist or Transubstantiation § 57. NOw to consider the other Concession ‖ See before §. 41. and § 32 c. of more moderate Protestant Divines §. 56. n. 1. * granting our Lord's assistance to the Church Catholick such as that she shall also for ever be an unerring Guide in Necessaries a thing denied by Mr. Chillingworth ‖ See before §. 4. That according to those Conditions of determining controversies that can justly be required most of those between Cathol Protestants have been already decided because of a Consequence thereof which he foresaw Namely That we must take her judgment and guidance also in this point what points are fundamental or necessary and then who seeth not what will follow Namely That we are to believe this Church in all Points wherein she saith she is unerring And upon this * granting also her General Council or Representative she having no other way to teach direct define any thing or at at least no other way so clear and evident to be unerring in Necessaries provided that such Council be universally accepted and not opposed or reversed by the Church Catholick in another following Representative but received by a general tacit at least approbation and conformity to its Decrees Where also it is conceded that a Council for its meeting less General yet if having an universal acceptation is equivalent thereto And hence making their frequent Appeal to these Councils as the supream and ultimate Ecclesiastical Court for setling Unity of Doctrine and Peace in the Church and wherein they promise victory to their Cause and an end of Debates Of which see before § 32. c. A General Council §. 56. n. 2. after it is admitted by the whole Church is then infallible saith the Archbishop ‖ p. 346. he means in Necessaries But Bishop Bramhall further When inferior Questions saith he ‖ Vindic. of the Church of England p. 27 not fundamental are once defined by a lawful General Council all Christians though they cannot assent in their judgments are obliged to passive obedience to possess their souls in peace and patience And they who shall oppose the Authority and shall disturb the peace of the Church deserve to be punished as Hereticks Reply to Chalced. Prefat And I submit saith he ‖ my self to the representative Church that is to a free General Council or so general as can be procured And Schism Guarded p. 136. There is nothing saith he that we long after more then a General Council rightly called rightly proceeding or in defect of that a free Occidental Council as general as may be See much more to this purpose said by this Bishop before § 34 c. And thus Dr. Hammond ‖ Of Heres §. 14. n. 6. notwithstanding what is quoted out of him before § 5. We do not believe that any General Council truly such ever did or shall err in any matter of Faith nor shall we further dispute the authority I suppose he means to oblige us then we shall be duly satisfied of the universality of any such Council And Answer to Catholick Gentleman ‖ c. 2. §. 3. A Congregation that is fallible may yet have authority to make Decisions and to require Inferiours so far to acquiesce to their Determinations as not to disquiet the peace of that Church with their contrary Opinions And ‖ Ibid. c. 8. §. ◠n. 7. I
And whether a more General or any fuller acceptation of the Definitions of such Councils by the Church Catholick which acceptation also if any Council for the Meeting is not so numerous as others have bin supplies the defect can rationally be required than that which is set down before § 18 36 38. 4ly Whether most or at least some of the chiefest points of present Controversie between Catholicks and Protestants have not been decided by former Councils so accepted Which he may be pleased to examine in the points mentioned Disc 3. § 26 c. § 57 But for a present Example I will annex here a brief relation ‖ See Baronius and Blondel's Esclairciss sur L' Eucharist applied to the precedent Rules The great controversie of a Substantial Conversion in the Eucharist examined according to the former Proposals whether a sufficient decision hath not been already made by the Church therein of the past proceedings of the Church in the decision of one of the main points of Controversie which notwithstanding such former decision yet remains still called in question by the Reformed Namely whether in the Eucharist there is a Corporal Presence of Christ and a Substantial Conversion of the Elements of Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood This Corporal Presence and Substantial Conversion then to relate the proceedings about it as briefly as possibly I may long ago Berengarius and some Followers of his denied were complained of two Councils called one after another at Rome and at Vercelles Anno. Dom. 1050. Berengarius summoned and he not appearing his hetorodox Opinions condemned He according to the now Protestant Grounds thinking his a Doctrine of great consequence and the Decree of these two Councils a manifest Errour and that himself freed from the Obedience of silence or non-contradiction to these Councils and so he with his Followers publickly justified his old Tenent desiring a reversing by some new Council of the former Sentence against it Upon this reviv'd disturbance of the Church another Council five years after is assembled at Tours 1055. not far distant from Anger 's where he was Arch-Deacon Here himself with others of his party was present his Cause pleaded his Demonstrations considered and after all his Opinion again condemned himself recanting it The Council dismissed he finds yet other new Reasons or a greater strength in his former and falls again to the abetting maintaining and spreading abroad his old Doctrine A Fourth Council upon those new Troubles of the Church 1059. Four years after the last was called at Rome where himself also was present some say long Disputation there had his new Plea for it found too light and rejected and his Opinion opposing Substantial Conversion again condemned both by himself and by the Council consisting of 103. Bishops The third time this man revolts and publisheth a Writing answered by Lanfranck afterward Arch-Bishop of Canterbury wherein he complains that some particular Enemies of his swayed the former Council and had made him to swear contradictions These new Imputations occasioned a Fifth Council to be called at Rome A. D. 1078. In which were new Disputings his last Cavils censured and the Article of a Substantial Conversion further vindicated and his Error of the Substance of the Bread remaining again condemned by this Council and ultimately recanted by himself § 58 Such was the Sentence of five several Councils if we may believe D. Blondel ‖ Sur l' Eucharist c. 20 one reviewing another against Berengarius and his Party opposing a Corporal Presence these Persons being present in three of these Councils and pleading their Cause The same Arguments as will appear by the writers of those times Lanfranck Guitmond Algerus to any one that pleaseth to peruse them then refuted that are still urged the same Authorities out of Fathers then pressed as are still produced anew by the Reformed and with the same Answers repelled All these Councils if some of them in the Members thereof less numerous yet universally accepted by all the VVestern Churches where this Controversie was only agitated Not one single Bishop thereof that is known dissenting or siding with the Berengarians Look we for more satisfaction yet VVhen the Fervor of parties in this matter was much allayed and the Church had had sufficient leisure to consider and digest the former Conciliary Decrees above a hundred years after the last of the Councils fore-mentioned the great Lateran Council was assembled under Innocent the 3 d. in which were present the Patriarch of Constantinople and of Hierusalem in person and the Substitutes * of the Patriarch of Antioch then sick Episcopus Antheradensis and * of the Alexandrian Patriarch lying under the Sarazen yoke Germanus his Deacon T is true indeed as it is objected that some of these Patriarchs were then Latines because both Constantinople and Hierusalem being held in possession the one for near 60. the other for near 100. years by the Latines Latine Pariarchs were then elected as somtimes Greeks also by the power of the Emperors have bin Bishops of Rome but yet they were the Lawful and the only Patriarchs of those Sees in that time And present there were besides these a considerable number of other Eastern Bishops the whole Council consisting of 412 Bishops and 70 Archbishops Now this Council again in stead of reversing declared for a Substantial Conversion where also first i. e. in a Council was used the name of Transubstantiation Two hundred years after this again the Council of Florence declared likewise for the same in the Articles of Instruction to the Jacobines and Armenians in these words Ipsorum verborum Christi virtute substantia panis in Corpus Christi substantia vine in sanguinem convertuntur Which declaration though made after the departure of the Greeks whom the Turks Invasion hastned away yet it was fully agreeable to their doctrine Nor had the Latine and Greek Church then any difference concerning the Substantial Conversion of the Elements into Christs Body but only hy what words this mutation was effected For which thing see the plain Confession of Bishop Forbes ‖ De Euch. p. 412. See below Dises 3. §. 158. against Chemnitius and others of his own party And all these without any opposition or the Church-Catholick's assembling it self in any other Council in so many Centuries for to reverse such a Decree If there was let it be named § 59 Now if the Decree of so many Synods so often weighing the Adversaries reasons and evidences was not sufficient for setling such a point at least as to the obedience of future silence and non-contradiction and as to suffering the Church to enjoy her peace what can hereafter be sufficient Or can we ever hope that any controversie shall be finally determined or ended by any future Council if this is not by these forepast Can there be any ground here to question the integrity or lawful proceedings of so many Councils at such a distance
Hooker Pref. §. 6. l. 2. §. 7. and in reason what can any say less § 21 10ly From this I also take it for granted That though such or so many Prop. 10. as can demonstratively prove the contrary are hereby disobliged to yield their Assent to the Doctrines of their former Guides yet so many others as cannot do the like remain obliged still to follow and obey the same their former Pastors and by no means may join themselves in communion or adhere to the new Demonstrators till they themselves are confirmed in the like Certainty By which Rule how few will there be of the Reformed that do not still owe their Obedience to the same Church giving her Laws still as formerly that was before Luther who upon new Evidences deserted it where all owe this Obedience save Demonstrators of their new Tenents CHAP. III. 11. That these Church-Governors may teach diversly and some of them err in Necessaries and fall into Heresies § 22. 12. And therefore Christians not left to follow whom of them they please But some certain Rule there is to which of them in any Division they ought to adhere That this in the universal Church-practice is and rationally can be no other than in these Judges subordinate dissenting to adhere to the Superior in those of the same Order and Dignity dissenting to the Major part § 23. c. Where Of the Major part concluding the whole in the ancient Councils § 25. n. 2. And Of the Defection of the Church-Prelacy in the times of Arrianism § 26. n. 2. 14. And that the Protestant-Marks whereby to discern true from false Guides as to the Quest here viz. to learn from these true Guides in matters controverted which is the true Faith are unserviceable § 28. § 22 11ly THat some of these Church-Governors more or fewer may become Hereticks and erroneous in points necessary and may guide Christians contrary to the rest of them Prop. 11. is granted by all sides and known by Experience § 23 12ly It seems therefore also evident That Christians for yielding the Obediences forenamed Propos 9th and allowed by Protestants in such dissenting of Governors Prop. 12. may not safely follow which of them they please or judge to be in their doctrines the rightest for so they judge of their Judges and may as well judge the Controversies but that some Rule there is to whom in such case they are to adhere whom to relinquish it being as necessary for the same divine providence to leave some means by which to know our Guide as to give us one And this Rule also by tradition hath been and in reason can be no other but that in Judges Ecclesiastical subordinate whether Persons or Councils dissenting men ought to adhere to the Superior in Judges equal dissenting to adhere to the Major not minor part For Example In England a Synod Diocesan and one compounded of both the Provinces dissenting here Obedience is due to the Provincial Synod or Convocation and in the Provincial Synod again a minor part dissenting due to the Major Otherwise any may hold what doctrine liketh him best and oppose the maintainers of the contrary since ordinarily some Ecclesiastical Governor either Inferior or Superior if not a greater yet some smaller part or other of them may be found also to hold it And thus the Unity of this Catholick Church as to doctrine is quite overthrown 1st In Persons §. 24. n. 1. or Councils subordinate that the Superior in case of any dissent rightly challengeth our Obedience I think it out of dispute So in England for the establishing of the authority of the supreme National Synod and the Obedience thereto in respect of all Inferiors for preventing dissentions see the Decree in Can. 139. 140. of the Synod under K. James 1603. Where it is said Whosoever shall affirm that the Sacred Synod of this Nation is not the true Church of England by representation Or shall affirm that no manner of person either of the Clergy or Laity not being themselves particularly assembled in the said Sacred Synod are to be subject to the Decrees thereof in causes Ecclesiastical as not having given their voices unto those Decrees let him be excommunicated and not restored until he repent and publickly revoke that his wicked Error And for Obedience to this Highest Ecclesiastical Court see the King 's resolute Speech in the Conference at Hampton-Court ‖ p. 72. I will have one Doctrine and one Discipline one Religion in substance and Ceremony and therefore I charge you never to speak more to that point How far you are bound to obey when the Church hath ordained it What Subjection then for preserving Unity is required in the English Church cannot reasonably be disallowed by them in the Catholick Again see in Dr. Hammond's Book of Schism ‖ c. 3. an acknowledgment of primitive Subordination as of a Presbyter to the Bishop so of Bishops to Metropolitans of Metropolitans to Primates or Patriarchs where he comes short but one Link of those which the Roman Church maintains viz. Of the Patriarchs to the Proto-Patriarch or the Bishop of Rome And again see his acknowledgment ‖ Schism c 8. p 158. Ans to Cath. Gentl. p. 29. of a Subordination of all these severed persons to the whole Corporation or Body of them assembled in Council in which Council he saith It is evident that the power which severally belongs to each Bishop Answ to Cath. Gentl. p. 29. §. 9 10. is there united I add and therefore if that Power which they have severally be by divine right so is this which they have conjunctly notwithstanding what is disputed against it ‖ See Stil Rat account 3 par c. 1. p. 515. c. as a subordination of all the Bishops in a Province to a Council Provincial in a Nation to a Council National of all Christianity to a Council General Only here he omits one subordination well known in the Church and sufficiently attested by other Protestants viz. a subordination of the Bishops of several Nations that are under one Patriarch to a Council Patriarchal Which defect of his give me leave to supply to you out of Dr. Field and Bishop Bramhall Authorities as authentick as his Thus then Dr. Field ‖ Of the Ch. p. 518. These Patriarchs might convocate the Metropolitans of their several divisions and hold a Patriarchal Council which was of greater Authority then either those in the several Provinces or of a whole Nation formerly mentioned because it consisted of more and more honourable Bishops yet had the Patriarchs no greater authority over the Metropolitans within their larger Circuits than the Metropolitans within their lesser Compass And Ib. 513. shewing against Bellarmine that by reason of the several subordinations of the Churches Officers and of their Consults there was no further necessity of a Monarchical Government in the Church for conserving the unity thereof 1 If saith
justius res nostras aestimare non ex uno aut altero eorum qui ad veritatem baud recto pede ingrediuntur sedex multitudine totius orbis Episcoporum qui gratiâ Christi conjuncti nobis sùnt Vnamines omnes eodemque sensu praediti sumus Itaque si quisque Communionem nostram fugit ne prudentiam vestram lateat ab universâ illum Ecclesiâsese divulsisse §. 27. n. 3. And now by this Relation may be understood the true sence of those places of the Fathers that are urged for a defection of the greatest part of the Church in these times from the true faith which as they are now pressed by many Protestants against the Roman Church so some of them were anciently by the Donatists against S. Austin to whose 48. Epistle I refer you to peruse his Answer When therefore S. Hierom saith ‖ Dialog-adv Luciferianos Tunc after the Council of Ariminum usiae nomâ—â— abolitum est tunc Nicaenae fidei damnatio conclamata est And Nomine unitatis fidei infidelitas soripta est he meaneth Iâ—fidelitâ—s c. according to that sence and glosse as the Emperor and Arrian party made of the decree after the Council ended Saying also Ingemuit totus Orbis totus Orbis because the Eastern Bishops at Constantinople as well as the West before them at Ariminum by the same fraud made the same subscription miratus est se esse Arianum see the like Comment in Galat. 5.9 Arianum i. e. quite contrary to their intention and sence and by an Interpretation of some part of the decree so as it contradicted another therefore also ibid he saith how afterward Concurrebant Episcopi qui Ariminensibus do lis irretiti sine conscientiâ Haeretici ferebantur contestantes Corpus Domini quicquid in Ecclesia sanctum est se nihil mali in suâ fide suspicatos Whence he expostulates with the Luciferians Cur damnassent eos qui Ariani non erant Cur Ecclesiam scinderent in concordiâ fidei permanentem c. From which may be gathered the meaning of several passages urged ‖ See Tillot Rule of faith p. 167 c. out of his Chronicon declaring the establishment of Arrianism in the Arimine or Sirmian Council and out of his Dialogue against the Luciferians of the Confessors but a few admitting all the rest to their Communion which he saith there expresly was done Non quod Episcopi possent esse qui Haeretici fuerant sed quod constaret eos qui reciperentur haereticos non fuisse So Liberius his words ‖ apud Socrâ— l. 4. c. 11. Omnes illi ferè Episcopi qui Arimini convenerant quique vel fallacibus inescati illecebris vel vi compulsi à fide tum quidem desciveraut c. with whom he also joines the Oriental Orthodox Bishops to whom he writ Quibus item vos per versutas blanditias c are to be understood only of their failing from such a plenary confession of their faith as their Christian duty obliged them to whom I do not go about here to excuse from all fault but from heresie and such expressions as these subscriptionem pristinam damnabant fidei formulae Ariminensi Anathema denunciârunt to be understood that they condemned it not as in their own former sence false but as by the later Arrian sence perverted In the same sence are those things said by Vincentius Lirinensis ‖ Severus ‖ and others to be expounded and those passages of Nazianzen ‖ Hist l. 2. c 6. where he speaks of the complying lapse of many of the too-credulous Eastern Bishops and among the rest of his father yet always constantly Catholick As for S. Bâ—sils sad complaints ‖ In Orat. de laud. than dâ— sunere Patris of the overflow of Arrianism to which may be added several in Nazianzen ‖ Epist 71. c. they were made concerning the times of Valens and then concerning the East subjected to his power * Orat. in Arrian when can be no question as to the Church universal of the major part of its Prelats their professing the Catholick faith Of which see his forequoted Epistles ‖ Epist 75.293 As neither can there be of the times before Ariminum as to the West the persecution then being in the cause of Athanasius not of the Nicene faith so that how long soever the Arrian errour may be said to have continued as it hath to this day in the Mahometans and of late the Socinians yet the great eclipse which the Nicene Faith may be thought to have suffered thereby was only from Ariminum to the restorement of the Catholick Bishops made by Inlian i.e. for the space of three years though then also the Lights of the Church were not extinguished but only obscured because removed out of their Candlesticks And what hath bin said here of the Catholick's subscription to the Arrian forme of faith may be said of their communion also with them which lasted only for that small time that they imagined them from the additions made to the forme at Ariminum and before the manifesting of their equivocation good Catholicks Lastly one thing more in this Arrian defection is very considerable that the Anti-Nicene faction divided presently into two Sects as is usual to those who leave the unity of the Church the Arrians and the semi-Arrians Which Sects persecuted excommunicated ejected out of their Chairs one another Now one of the properties of the Church-Catholick in the Creed being its unity Credo unam c. for the discerning of it always from other Societies by its more eminent magnitude and extent it is sufficient if of all those Bodies or Churches that can any way pretend to this property and that are any way united within themselves and contradistinct to others it be the greatest still and most diffused as if of the two divided parties neither the Arrian nor semi-Arrian equalled the Catholick though by the whole masse of all these Bodies that fight with one another cast up together it should be exceeded Of which see what is said before § 26. n. 1. I have contrary to my first intention related this matter more at large as well knowing this defection of the Church in the time of Arrianism to be the main or only instance wherewith Protestants seek to countenance that later and more universal defection which many of them charge upon it since the times of Antichrist from A.D. 600. or sooner till the coming of Luther a defection as some say of above a thousand years durance Now to return to the matter in hand 13. From these things Catholicks infer §. 27. n. 4. Prop. 13. That both the Decrees in a Council and acceptation of them out of it made by a much major part of the Church-Governours especially this major part also being joyned to the supreme Pastor of the Church ought undeniably to conclude the whole and that all the obedience forementioned is
the priviledges of an undisturbed Ecclesiastical Government and which seems by reason of its numerous Clergy and populacy and extent of the arms of this body propagation of its faith into all the other quarters of the world to be the greatest part of Christianity that which hath bin alwais the most dignified by reason of S. Peters Chair From which for any of the Western Body to make an appeal out of these bounds to the present Eastern Churches now hindred by the great oppressor of Christianity there disturbed in the Exercise of any such Judicature and also much divided among themselves and who have not met in any Council for this eight hundred years save by sending at several times their delegates into the West For any I say to make an appeal from a Church flourishing in Government and discipline in learning and records of Antiquity the City still on a Hill and Candle on a Candlestick to seek for Votes among the Jacobites Maronites Caphtites Armenians Abyssines or Greek Churches c. several of them being suspected of ancient Heresies and if Hereticks no members of the Catholick Church appears nothing else but the refusal of a trial and avoiding the sentence of any such Guide and judge as Gods Providence hath afforded us and besides this is an Appeal where could those Churches now freely deliver their sentence and were now set on the Bench as this present Judge the Appealants can have no hopes of any success to their cause For that these Churches or at least the greatest Body of them as is shewed elsewhere ‖ Disc 3. §. 158. appear to keep as great a distance from the reformed as the major part of the Western Body doth § 37 3ly If the Councils that are extant and reputed for General since the first six or seven hundred years to the times of Luther's reformation shall be by any acknowledged either for General 3. or for the most universal that could well be convened or at least that are found actually to have bin convened a thing which I think though the testimony the present Church gives to them be made no use of the common veracity of History will clear to us besides that none hath any other Councils of an equal authority in these times to nominate and set up against them and those who demolish them do it without erecting or discovering to us any better or any besides I say if any think meet to relie on the judgment of these past Councils in the present matter these also will sufficiently evidence to us that the first of these Bodies fore-named is our present rightful Guide and Judge For since the Acts and Laws of such Councils are not only of force and obligatory to those present times wherein they sit but to all future Ages with the execution of which Acts and Decrees the succeeding Pastors and chief Governors of the Church in their several stations and residences in all following times stand charged till these are by an equal authority reversed It seems clear that in any division hapning afterward of these Pastors those are to be acknowledged our right Guides who own adhere to and propagate the Definitions and Laws of these former Councils Now this we see the first of these two Bodies doth as the latter renounceth them yet renounceth them without the producing of the patronage of any Councils at all in their stead pulling down as it were all the Church's Castles and Forts if I may call her Councils so against the incursions of errours and heresies that have bin built in several Ages for near a thousand years and yet shewing none other at all for Christians in the many points that have been disputed to repair to but leaving the sad Spectators of these their demolitions quite disheartned as diffiding in the Churches judgment so much decried for error and having yet more reason to distrust their own and so not knowing in this case whither to betake themselves for the setling of their Religion and conscience For surely this unerringness which the late Reformers have denied to those great Bodies of the Church they cannot in reason assume to those lesser Conventions of their own CHAP. V. The Pretended security of those Protestants who deny any certain living or personal Guide infallible in Necessaries Affirming That all necessary matters of Faith are even to the unlearned clear in Scripture and the Controversies in non Necessaries needless to be decided § 38. Necessaries clear in Scripture Because God hath left no other certain means or Guides for the knowledge of them § 39. n. 1. 1 No Guide which is infallible 2 Which the unlearned in any Division can discern from false or know and understand their decrees better than the Scriptures 3 Or which the Scriptures direct them to for learning Necessaries § 39. n. 2. The Reply 2. That Evidence of the Scriptures hath been the usual Plea of former Hereticks in their dâ—ssenting from the Church § 40. n. 1. 2. That as to the main and principal Articles of the Christian Faith the sufficiency of the Rule of Scripture is not denied by Roman Catholicks But only the clearness thereof as to all mens capacities questioned and another Guide held necessary § 40. n. 2. It is replied then 1. * Concerning the clearnesse of Scripture 1 That some of the Controversies in Religion since the Scriptures written have bin concerning Points necessary § 41. 2 That the more clear all Necessaries are in Scripture the more security Christians have in the Churches judgement § 42. 3 That there is no necessity that all Necessaries be revealed in Scripture clearly to all 1 Because it is sufficient If the Scriptures for the things doubtful therein direct to these Guides § 43. 2 Sufficient if such things be cleared to these Guides by other Apostolical Tradition § 44. 3 Or if the true sence of the Scriptures touching these matters be cleared to them by Tradition § ib. 4 Or if such sence be clear in the Scriptures themselves well examined and compared to them though not to all § 45. 2 y Concerning the Guide 1 That Scripture in what it is ambiguous cannot be a Guide § 49. n. 1. 2 That it is not necessary that Christians be in or by the Scriptures directed to another Guide ib. n. 2. 3 Yet that thâ—y are in the Scriptures so directed § 47. n. 3. 4 And may in many points more easily understand the sence of their decisions than of the Scriptures § 48. § 38 THe usual security that some of them give their followers α. is this α That all Controversies that arise in matters of Faith or in matters very profitable ‖ Chillingw p. 54. are so clearly decided or determined in Scripture that none learned or unlearned using that industry which humane prudence and ordinary discretion his condition considered adviseth him to can err in them ‖ See Chiling p 115.92 19.58 59. Pref. §. 30. c.
Archbishop Lawd p. 196. n. 3. Sillingst p. 149. Whitby p. 441. Tillois Rule of Faith p. 20.86 where the unlearned seem also to be put in lest these at least for their ignorance should be referred from the Scripture to a Guide for the ending of their doubts and using ordinary industry added lest private men jealous of not using their utmost industry to understand aright the Scriptures should upon this account be perswaded that it is safest for them to repair and adhere to a Guide Next That for all other Controversies that arise in non-Necessaries neither is it necessary that they should be ended So that as one briefly states the case ‖ Chillingw p. 59. Those places of Scripture which contain things necessary and wherein error were dangerous need no infallible Judge or Interpreter or rather cannot but have every one an infallible Interpreter upon supposition of a due diligence used be-because they are plain and those that are obscure need none because they contain not things necessary neither is errour in them dangerous Or as another ‖ Tillots p. 86. Of the true sence of plain texts every one may be certain and for the obscure ones it is not necessary every one should And thus having no living Judg to decide controversies they make those controversies so much the fewer that need deciding And if we here further question §. 39. n. 1. why all controversies in necessaries are affirmed to be clearly decided in Scripture or yet more why so clearly decided there as that even the unlearned cannot mistake in them Mr. Chillingworth answers they are so because the Scripture must be to all sufficiently perfect and sufficiently intelligible in all things necessary And my reason hereof saith he is convincing p. 92. and demonstrative because nothing is necessary to be believed but what is plainly revealed Which is granted him But he must add plainly revealed in Scripture and plainly there to the unlearned also otherwise it will not serve his purpose This Proposition therefore they also maintain that all points necessary to salvation must be plainly revealed in Scripture to learned and unlearned and ground it on this reason because God who requires from all Christians even the unlearned belief of such necessaries yet hath left them no other certain means of the knowledg thereof save only the Scriptures ‖ See Chillingw p. 71. Whitby p. 441. And if it be replied here That God hath appointed and referred them to a perpetual living Guide the Church for the expounding and declaring to them the true sense of ambiguous Scriptures Many things they object against it §. 39. n. 2. 1st they earnestly dispute that this Guide the Church that they are referred to is not infallible but that their's the Scripture is so γ. γ â—ly they ask many questions about such Guide as they conceive unanswerable How in a division of these living Guides ξ See Mr. Stillingft p. 101.508 c Chillingw p. 93. Whitby p. 430. c. the unlearned may com to know which are the right and which is the true Church Or this found how to know what are her definitions and decrees what the sence of these decrees c see many of them collected in 3 Disc § 86. contending that the unlearned in any such division of Guides have no certain means to know the true from the false nor the sence of their definitions more easily than the sence of the Scriptures δ. 3. δ Lastly they say ‖ See Mr. Chillingw p 61 104 171. That if God had left Christians in all Ages to learn Necessaries from their other Guides he would at least in the Scriptures have directed Christians to repair to these Guides for learning of them ε. ε And again for the divisions hapning among these Guides well fore-seen by him he would have told them in the Scriptures what party in such a case they ought to follow and adhere to as that they should always adhere to the Church of Rome or to the Vicar of Christ or to the most General Councils and in dissenting votes here to the major part thereof c. And indeed this assertion that God hath left no other certain or sufficient means to any sort of Christians since the Apostles times whereby to attain the knowledge of necessaries to salvation save only the Scriptures seems to be the main pillar on which Mr. Chillingworth and his followers sustain the Protestant Religion and the Reformation ‖ See Chillingw pref Before I return an answer to these ‖ 30. c. comp c. 2. §. 155.156 I have two things to note to you 1st That the devolving the decision of Controversies not upon the sufficiency only but upon the clearnesse §. 40. n. 1. of the rule of Scripture 1. and declining any constant adhesion to the Churches judgment in the Exposition of it seems not a little prejudicial to the Protestants cause in that this is observed of old by Tertullian Austin Vincentius Lirinensis and other Fathers ‖ Tertull. De pâ—aescriptione adversns Haeretic S. Aust Ep. â—22 contr a Maximinum l. 1. Vincent Lir. c. 35. to have bin the way that all former heresies have taken declining the Church and its Tradition and pretending the Scriptures as the support of their Doctrines Of the old Hereticks thus Vincentius Lirinensis Sive apud suos sive alienos c. nihil unquam penè de suis proferunt quod non etiam Scripturae verbis adumbrare conentâ—r Lege Pauli Samozateni opuscula Priscilliani Eunomâ—i Joviniani reliquarumque pestium cernas infinitam Exemplorum congeriom prope nullam omitti pag nam quae non novi aut veteris testamenti sententâ—i fucata colorata sit Then enquiring in this case ‖ Contra Haereses c. 35. quonian modo in Scripturis sanctis â—atholici homines veritatem â falsitate discernent He answers ‖ c. 38. Hoc scilicet facere magnopere curabunt ut divinum Canonem secundum universalis Ecclesiae Traditiones juxta Catholici dogmatis regulas interpretentur And the same thing is also observable in that new-revived most dangerous Heresie of Socinianism which draws up for it self against Church-authority much-what the same Plea as is here above made by these Protestants some of which that you may compare them I have transcribed you here out of Volkelius De vera Religione l. 5. c 7. a little contracted There then he saith Quae de fido in Christum statuenda sunt ex sacris literis patere Chaâ—itatem quo que in sacris literis ita descriptam esse ut quicunque eam ex animo colere mentemque advertere velit ignorare non possit quid sibi sit in omnibus vitae partibus sequendum praesertim si sapientiam a Deo petat quam ille nemini denegat Again Deum qui religionem Christianam usque admundi finem vigere voluit curasse etiam tale aliquid perpetuo
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
time and 3 persons Yet 1 doth he so expound this universal Testimony ‖ See ib. n. 2.8.10 as to signifie only the consent of the most in most places in all or most times For else saith he †§. 5. n. 2. there would be no Hereticks at any time in the World Viz. If those only should be held such necessary Articles of our saith which all none excepted in all times do hold And again 2 he makes use of the Churches Councils for convincing Heresies against this faith Viz. of the four 1st General Councils saying That all the parts of this faith are compleatly comprehended in the Scriptures as explained by the Writers of the three first ages and definitions of the â—our first Councils so that in sum he who imbraceth all the Traditional Doctrines proposed by them embraceth all the necessary faith thus universally delivered which cannot come to the fifth age c. but through the fourth and third and so can be no Heretick See 7. § 6 7 8. n. His words there n. 7. are Of the Scriptures of the Creed and of those four Councils as the Repositories of all true Apostolical Tradition I suppose it very regular to affirm that the intire Body of the Catholick Faith is to be established and all Heresies convinced or else that there is no just reason that any Doctrine should be condemned as such And see what is cited out of him concerning these Councils before § 19. and of Heresie § 14. n. 10. But here since he admits Councils for convincing Heresie why rests he in the four first and why admits he not all Councils in whatever age that are of equal authority for the same discovery since many new errors against tradicive Faith may arise after the four first and the Church's later Councils accordingly may testifie and declare the same Faith as occasions are administred against them If it be said that what is traditive in any latter age wherein some later Council is held was so in the third or fourth and so all Heresie is sufficiently convinced by those ages then so were the Definitions of the four first Councils traditive in the first second or third age And therefore what need hath Dr. Hammond to add for conviction of Heresie these four first Councils which were held after the three first Centuries The sum is For convincing Heresie either the testification of all lawful General Councils is authentical or not that of the four first But if the Doctor allow all lawful General Councils to be so as something seems said by him to this purpose Here 's § 14. n. 1.2 Catholicks are at accord with him herein concerning the Nature and Trial of Heresie and the dispute only remains whether any of those Councils that have heretofore defined or testified any such Point of Faith traditive which is opposed by Protestants be such a lawful General Council Concerning which see in 1 Disc § 36. n. 3. c. § 50. n. 2. § 57. c. Thus Dr. Hammond restraining conviction of all Heresie within the time of the first Councils But Bishop Branhall ‖ In Reply to Bp. Chalced. c. 2. p. 102. seems to be yet more free I acknowledge saith he that a General Council may make that revealed Truth necessary to be believed by a Christian as a point of Faith which formerly was not necessary to be believed that is whensoever the Reasons and grounds produced by the Council or the authority of the Council which is and always ought to be very great with all sober discreet Christians do convince a man in his conscience of the truth of the Council's definition And in vindication of the Church of England p. 26. When inferiour Questions not Fundamental are once defined by a lawful General Council all Christians though they cannot assent in their judgements are obliged to passive obedience to possess their souls in Patience And they who shall oppose the authority and disturbe the peace of the Church deserve to be punished as Hereticks Here though the Bishop makes not the opposers of the Councills definition for the reason of opposing it Hereticks because he holds that no error but that which some way overthrowes a fundamental Truth can be Heretical and though in his holding that Councils may not prescribe what things are fundamental nor oblige any to assent to their judgment in what they do define further than their reasons convince them He as the rest leaves Hereticks undiscoverable yet he grants that all are to submit for non-contradiction to the determinations of L. G. Councils even in all inferiour points not fundamental and that the opposers deserve to be punished as Hereticks which if observed by Protestants would sufficiently keep the Churches peace and then concerning the past definitions of such Councils see what is argued with him in 1 Disc § 36. n. 3. c. This for Heresie § 55 12ly For Schism Neither do they enlarge it so far as Catholicks That any separation upon what cause soever from the external Communion of all particular former Churches or of our lawful Ecclesiastical Superiors or of the whole Church Catholick is schism but restrain it to a separation culpable or causless ‖ Chillingw p. 271. holding that some separation from them may not be so § 56 But they leave us here again in uncertainty between these Superiors and Inferiors which of them shall judge when such separation is causeless when otherwise and so uncertain of Schism or also they affirm that the Inferiors are to judge when their Superiors require unjust things as conditions of their Communion and so when a separation from them is lawful or culpable Of which thus Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ p. 292. Nothing can be more unreasonable than that the society imposing certain conditions of Communion should be judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no And the same thing may thus be produced from other Protestant-Tenents For they hold that the whole Church is infallible only in absolute Necessaries or Fundamentals errable in other matters of faith that its Governors collected in their supâ—emest Councils may also enjoyne such errors as conditions of their Communion that these errors at least some of them may be certainly and demonstratively discernable by Inferiors and these complained of and not amended by Superiors that they may lawfully separate in the sence explained before § 20. from such Communion wherein these are imposed Here therefore inferiors judge when the separation is just when causless and upon this account surely no separation will ever be I do not say Schism but discovered to be Schism if the separatist is to Judge when it is so But if the Superiors are to Judge when a separation from them and from their definitions imposed is culpable or causeless it will either be always judged such which is the Catholicks Doctrine or such a granted-just cause will be removed by these Superiours and so there will be no
supernatural verities which God hath revealed in Christ his Son 2 ly The use of such holy Ceremonies and Sacraments as he hath instituted and appointed 3 ly An Vnion or connexion of men in this Profession and use of these Sacraments under lawful Pastors and Guides appointed authorized and sanctified to direct and lead them in the happy ways of eternal Salvation A particular person or Church therefore having the two first properties yet failing in the last a due union and connexion with the whole under its lawful Superiors of which see 2 Disc § 24. wants something necessary to the Being of a Member of the Catholick Church And see also l. 1. c. 13. where he denies Schismaticks to be of the Church i. e. Catholick because Though they retain an entire profession of the truth of God as did saith he the Luciserians and some others in the beginning of their Schism yet they break the Unity of the Church and refuse to submit themselves and yeild obedience to their lawful Pastors and Guides and their Communion and conjunction with the rest of Gods people is in some things only and not absolutely in all wherein they have and ought to have fellowship Thus Dr. Field and much what the same you may find in Dr. Ferne ‖ The Case between two Churches p. 48. quoted before in 2 Disc § 24. who on this account makes Presbyterians Schismaticks Next see Dr. Hammands Treatise of Schism where he makes * that Vnity of the Catholick Church of which Schism is a breach to consist In the preserving all those Relations wherein each Member is concernd one towards another amongst which is that of subordination the Vnity whereof consists in a constant due subjection and obedience of all inferiors to all their Superiors c. ‖ C. 3. §. 3. and * the denying this obedience in any particular lawful command of these Superiors or the casting off all obedience together dethroning them c. to be Schism ‖ C. 3. §. 9. But this lawful command and so Schism in disobeying it may be in no Fundamental point Lastly thus Bishop Branhall ‖ Reply to Chalced p. 8. That all Schism is about Essentials of Religion is a strange paradox Many Schisms have arisen in the Church about Rites and Ceremonies about precedency about Jurisdiction about Rights and Liberties of particular Churches about matters of fact Obstinacy in a small matter is enough to make a Schisme From all these I think it is clear that a separation from the Communion of the Church Catholick or our lawful Superiours for any thing true or lawfull the practice or belief of which is injoyned by her as a condition of her Communion though this be not in Fundamentals is Schisme and inconsistent with being a true member of the Catholick Church learned Protestants consenting And then to learn in matters controverted and doubtful what is true and what is lawful we know to whose judgment Inferiours and Subjects are directed to repair and if they will sit in Moses's chair themselves and judge it and happen to mistake I leave them to read their doom in D. Hammonds c. 2. of Schisme § 8. Now which way soever they turn sure to Sin remaining in Errour and Schisme on the one side if they desert upon this judgment the Churches Communion and by flying from that advancing to lying and Hypocrisy on the other side i. e. if they externally profess contrary to their persuasion This from § 75. concerning some Protestants restraining Schisme to a departure in the Essentials of Religion § 61 But the same persons though they contract Schisme thus in the case of Inferiours yet in another way they enlarge it where Catholicks do not admit it namely to the Church Governours themselves Affirming 1 st ' That they even in the supremest Body of them Lawful General Councills may err in non-fundamentalls and impose unjust conditions of their Communion followed with an Excommunication of non-conformists And 2 ly That so often as they do so they in giving such just cause of separation incurr the guilt of Schisme ‖ Ap. Laud P. 133.142 and thereby do become divided themselves from the Communion of the Catholick Church from which they would divide others †Stillingfleet P. 356. c. 359. For instance should a General Council consisting both of the Eastern and Western Churches and Generally accepted § 62 before the times of Luther require assent to a Substantial Conversion in the Eucharist to the lawfulness of St. invocation to the Sacrifice of the Mass c. as they must grant that if both these Churches did not yet possibly they might because Protestants say 1 That the whole may err in non-fundamentals and 2 That these points are such they affirme That thus the Governours of the whole Christian world would become Schismatical and no longer members of the Church Catholick Mr. Stillingfleets words to this purpose are these ‖ p. 356. ' Suppose any Church though pretending to be never so Catholick doth restrain her Communion within such narrow and unjust bounds that she declares such excommunicate who do not approve all such errours in doctrine and corruptions in practise which the Communion of such a Church may be liable to i. e. when the errours and corruptions are such as are dangerous to Salvation that Church becomes thereby divided from the Communion of the Catholick Church and all such who disowne such an unjust inclosure do not so much divide from the Communion of that Church so inclosing as returne to the Communion of the primitive and universal Church And p. 359. he saith Whatever Church makes such extrinsecall opposed so essentiall things the necessary conditions of Communion so as to cast men out-of the Church who yeild not to them thereby divides it self from the Catholick Church and the separation from it is so far from being Schisme that being cast out of the Church on those termes only returns them to the Communion of the Catholick Church and p. 617. he saith That he cannot possibly discerne any difference between the Judgment of the Catholicks concerning the Donatists which Catholicks pronounced them Schismaticks and no members of the Church Catholicks And of the Protestants concerning the Church of Rome Thus he But here 1 st from this assertion that that Church which requires unjust things as conditions of her Communion doth hereupon divide her self and so becomes divided from the Church Catholick and again that those are unjust conditions of Communion which Protestants have stiled to be so It followes 1 st That since de facto the present Eastern and Greek as well as Western and Roman-Churches do require as conditions of their Communion and even in their publick Lyturgies several things which Protestants call unjust therefore the Eastern as well as Western according to their thesis must stand divided from the Church Catholick and therfore now only the Reformed are that Church Catholick the perpetual existence of which
Church we believe in our Creed 2 ly Since both these Eastern and Western required the very same conditions of Communion as they do now before Luthers dayes it followes that then they were also no less than now Schismaticall and so falne from Catholick for this that all people that are their Subjects conform to such conditions or some not conform alters not their guilt who then imposed such things or if it do it seems then the greater when all do conform and are misled by them and upon this again it followes that there was then the Protestant Church not yet born no Catholick Church at all contrary to the Articles of our Creed the whole being involved in Schisme if all then conformed Of which conformity the Arch-bishop saith ‖ p. 296.297 and Mr. Stillingfleet the same ‖ p. 618 That he that believes as that Church believed speaking of the Roman and so may all those be presumed to believe that live in the Roman Church with a resolution to live and die in it is guilty more or less of the Schisme which that Church first caused by her corruptions and now continues by them and her power together and of all other damnable opinions too in point of misbelief and of all other sins also which the doctrine and misbelief of that Church leads him into And afterward That he who lives in a Shismatical Church and communicates with it in the Schisme and in all the Superstitions and Corruptions which that Church teacheth nay lives and dyes in them if he be of capacity enough and understand it he must needs be a formal Schismatick or an involved one if he understand it not Thus he Or if some then did not conforme to what these Guides required yet it followes at least that there were then no known Ecclesiasticall Governours and leaders no Bishops in or of that Church Catholick that then was for we know of none such that in the age before Luther opposed such a conformity and that it was made up of Laicks and Inferiours i. e. made up only of some Sheep that were departed and strangled from their sheepheards or rather the sheepheards from them absurdities that need be no further aggravated But 2 ly to what is said It is answered 1. That neither can the supreme Guides of the Church Catholick in an approved Council at any time require unjust conditions of their Communion of which see before § 21. §. 63. n. 2. And what St. Austin ‖ Epist 118. saith of general Church practices is as or more true of her doctrines Si quid horum per orbem frequent at or cred it Ecclesia hoc quin it a faciendum or credendum sit disputare insolentissimae insaniae est 2. Nor though this should be granted and also that they excommunicate those that refuse to conforme can they thereby become guilty of Schism For 1 Schisme I mean such as separates and divides from the Catholick Church can never be of a much major and more dignified part in respect of a less and Inferiour subject to it i. e. the main body be a Schismatick from some single member thereof for this main body in any division is rightly taken for that whole see 2 d. Disc § 25. from which a separation is Schisme and to which every member ought to adhere as to the body and the head here upon earth to which it belongs The sin of Schisme I say is of a member departing from the Body not of the Body separating from a member or separating a member from it to which each member ought to conforme otherwise a division in the Church indeed may be seen but on what side the crime of Schisme is cannot by any certain Index of it be known And St. Austin's ‖ De unitat Ecclae c. 4. mark of Schismaticks Quorum communio non est cum toto sed in aliquâ parte separatâ will be fallacious and nothing worth Meanewhile it is not here denyed that the dividing of one or several Superiours from an Inferiour part if it be for any thing wherein such part not they doth agree with the whole may be Schisme but then that which makes this Schisme is the departure of such Superiours from their Superiours or from the whole with which this part coheres and when any Superiour makes any such division from his Subjects he is no longer their lawfull Suâ—eriour but that larger body and those Superiours of his to which his Subjects are joyned and from which he divided 2 Again since Schisme is alwaies a relinquishing of and departure from the external and visible Communion of the Church these Governours cannot be said to depart from that Communion which they still retaine in the same manner as formerly and which is the only visible Communion of the Church at the time of such excommunication External members of the Church therefore they still remaine and so no Schismaticks though all the same persons or many of them by some other mortall sin may be at the same time no internal members of it 3. And as they cannot be rightly called Schismaticks or persons divided from the Church-Catholick §. 63. n. 3. So neither can such Superiours by imposing some error on mens belief or by inflicting an unjust Excommunication be therefore said to be the cause of a Schism or an actual separation in others as they are often charged ‖ Ap. Laud P. 133.142 unless to be excommunicated be such for the Church concurs to no other separation If any so Excommunicated doth not quietly submit thereto and acquiesce therein with patience but proceed so much further as to set up or joyn himself with a Communion diverse from that of the former Church which he is expelled from or presumeth to exercise out of the Church those Ecclesiastical Functions which she hath though wrongfully suspended here indeed begins a faulty separation and a Schisme but by the fault of the excommunicated not of the Church that unjustly Excommunicates him but doth not thereby necessitate him to any such further removal or discession from it Had he rested in the place where the Church left him the Church had been faulty indeed he innocent but on no hand a Schisme and if he will not stay here but set up an Anti-communion and fall on acting against the Church that expelled him here he cannot defend the doing a wrong because he hath suffered one or justly disburden on the Church that fault of his to which no fault of theirs necessitated him Saepe sinit divina providentia saith St. Austin ‖ De verâ Religione c. 6. expelli de congregatione Christianâ etiam bonos viros Quam contumeliam vel injuriam suam cum patientissime pro Ecclesiae pace tulerint neque ullas novitates vel Shismatis vel Haeresis moliti fuerint docebunt homines quantâ sinceritate charitatis Deo serviendum sit c. Neque ullas novitates vel Schismatis Therefore
Church or in such representation to be infallible But 2ly Neither can it be made evident that the universal Church de facto hath either by a formal act or by a tacit consent devolved either its infallibility or its whole power and authority on or given any commission to any General Council to appear in behalf of the universal Church which Commission must precede the being of such a Council and also is necessary not only to the first but toties quoties to every General Council but that the universal Church did ever agree in any such act is utterly impossible to be demonstrated either that it was or could be 3ly Neither suppose it had such a delegation yet can this representative upon this lay title to our Lords or to any divine institution of which there cannot be produced one tittle from Scripture of Christs conveying over the Churches power to it or any particular order from the Apostles concerning it but only to the Church's i. e. humane institution And if we enquire thus instituted what authority it hath The utmost saith Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ p. 510. that can be supposed is this That the parts of the Church i. e. such parts whom by their delegation and chusing of them the persons in the Council represent may voluntarily consent to accept of the decrees of such a Council and by that voluntary act or by the supreme authority enjoyning it such decrees may become obligatory Thus he And thus I think the authority of General Councils is sufficiently pared 1 Their authority only delegative from that Body which yet they pretend to bind by their acts 2. None of them a representative of the whole which neither hath nor can make any such representative 3. Commissioned by some parts of the Church only 4. The promises of divine assistance as to infallibility not made to them if any made but only to the whole diffusive Body of the Church Catholick from whose laws let us but take away Councils Protestants are secure enough 5. Nor possible by the Church diffusive to be made over or assigned to them 6. These not of our Lords nor Apostolical but only humane institution 7. Obligatory only to those parts of the Church who voluntarily consent to accept of their Decrees One would suspect that General Councils have been no great friends to Protestantism when they put in so many bars to keep out their Decrees from annoying the Reformation Men seldom vilifie an Authority that favours them § 92 To this I answer 1st That the Church Governours whenever assembled in Council do act by the self same authority received from our Lord and from their Divine Institution by which they act singly in their several charges and that all the rest of the Church Catholick are their subjects obliged in all duty to them as much when con-as dis-joyned For as Dr. Hammond answers the Catholick Gentleman ‖ p. 27 28. in clearing of himself that his mentioning of Schism against Bishops Metropolitans and Primats involved also Schism against the Councils compounded of all these It is evident that this Power which severally belongs to these Bishops is united in that of the Councils compounded of them and so the despising of that the power of such Councils is an offense under the first sort of Schism and a breach of the subordination to all the rancks of our Ecclesiastical Superiours What authority then and whence they had it singly they have united Neither is this their authority either in their several Provinces or in their Synods delegative save from Christ and his Apostles § 63 2. Next That they are not pretended to have their infallibility in necessaries by any assignment from the Church diffusive but that they have it immediately from the divine promises made principally and primarily to them to whom is committed the feeding of our Lords sheep for ever and the guiding them in the right way of which see Disc 1. § 7.14 and that the Church diffusive is therefore unerring for ever in necessaries because these Guides are so and the reason why the gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church the building is because in the chief place they shall not prevail against these Pastors and Teachers the Rocks and Foundations whereon it is built And if such promise made primarily to them then surely made to them in this their most comprehensive capacity when all joyned together If at any time the Church in the Acts ‖ cap. 15 28. might use the stile Visum est Spiritui sancto nobis then in their general assembly and when they were collecti in unum ‖ ver 25. every smaller meeting of them or also every single person seeming muchless capable thereof and if this inerrability necessary to them in any manner at all most necessary in these highest Courts to which ultimately all others do appeal and whose Laws all are bound to obey See before § 8. § 94 3ly As to the convening and composure of this conjunct Judicature of the Clergy I answer 1st That these Church Governours are by our Lord's and Apostolical constitution placed in a due subordination one to another †See Disc 2. §. 23 24. and several Superiours indued with power to assemble them in greater or lesser Bodies as the business requires and times permit these Superiors being sometimes assisted herein by the secular powers as in the times after Constantine yet sometimes also without them as in the ages preceding Constantine the Diocesan Synod being convened by the Bishop Provincial or National by the Metropolitan or Primat and General by the Prime Patriarch and Bishop of the chief Apostolick See For why not an Ecclesiastical person have the right of calling a General Council as well as the Metropolitan of a Provincial Synod the Primat of a National and as Dr. Field ascends higher the Patriarch of a Patriarchal ' For it is evident saith he †p. 668. p. 518. that there is a power in Bishops Metropolitans Primates and Patriarchs to call Episcopal Provincial National and Patriarchal Synods yet the last of which consisteth of the Bishops living under the temporal Government of several Princes and that neither so depending of and subject to the power of Princes but that when they are enemies to the faith I add by the same reason or enemies to the Orthodox faith they may exercise the same without their consent or privity and may subject them that refuse to obey their summons to such punishments as the Canons of the Church do prescribe in cases of such contempt or wilful negligence Thus he 2. Next That these conjunct Proceedings and Judicature of the Church-Guides in greater causes do appear also to be sufficienly allowed and authorized by our Lord and his Apostles both * from those Texts which mention and refer to a conjunct authority as from Mat. 18.17 tell the Church which signifies a presence of more than one of those who were to
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
c. 7. or if distinct a very small quantity of the blood with very great caution given in the bottom of a spoon For the second the Cross and Pictures and a due veneration of them are used as well in these as in the Greek and Roman Church See for the veneration of pictures in the Abyssine Church according in most things with the Egyptians Thom. a Jesu l. 7. p. 380. And the Priests and Religious are said to carry alwayes a Cross in their hands †Roger's Terre Saincte p. 348. And for the use of crossing see the Liturgies For the third Monastick Vows and Celibacy of the Clergy The first of these cannot be denied to be practised in them all §. 179. n. 1. and from this therefore the lawfulness of the second I mean of an injunction of Celibacy to the Clergy is justified as hath been shewed before § 164 and a necessity of such Celibacy jure divino is not affirmed by the Roman Church But for this second The practice in these Churches is much what the same as in the Greek viz. that persons married are freely admitted to be Priests but none after made Priests suffered to marry which being a yoke that few where liberty to take wives before-hand is granted have a firm mind to undergo hence it so happens that most of the secular Clergy in these other Churches as well as in the Greek are de facto married meanwhile †Thom. a Jesu l. 7. c. 9. the Regulars that are Priests do live alwayes in Celibacy and so do all the Bishops that are chosen out of Regulars as they are so chosen most frequently and in some Churches as in the Abyssine †Terre Saincte p. 347. and I think in the Greek they only can be-chosen Bishops For the fourth Auricular or Sacramental Confession §. 179. n. 2. and penance though such confession in few or none of these Churches wherein the Church-discipline in such a commixture of Mahometanism and Heathenism is much decayed is so strictly observed as in the Roman or yet as in the Greek Church either as to their making it so often as they receive the Communion or as to an enumeration of their particular faults when they make it yet it seems not to be altogether omitted or disused as with Protestants it is Zaga Zabo an Abyssine Bishop saith †Apud Damianum à Goes de Ethiopium morth it is used by the Abyssines and to give it in Brerewood's words ‖ Enquiries p. 166. That presently upon commission of sin they resort to the Confessor and at every Confession though it were every day receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist Again that Mulieres gravidae ante partus tempus semper confitentur corpus Domini confessae accipiunt ut infans capiens inde nutrimentum ex ejus communicatione sit sacratus And They have great respect saith the Fr. Recollect †Terre Saincte p. 361. to all the Sacraments and as for Confession they appoint rigorous penances and those publick for publick offences And with these Authors may those quoted by Daille †De confessione auriculari l. 4. c. 1. to say the contrary well agree whilst they speak of several parts of a vast Country or of an usual omission of it by some of these Sonthern Christians before they receive for all receive frequently viz. on all Festivals †Thom. a Jesu p. 371. and of a perfunctory performance of it only in general by many when they do it So Thom. a Jesu out of the Bishop of Sidon's Relation †p. 387. saith of the Jacobites and Armenians Sacramentum confessionis rarissimè not nunquam apud nationes illas frequentatur multique not omnes communicant sine auriculari confessione And of the Cophthites †p. 361. Moris non est ante vigesimum aut circiter annum unquam Sacramentum paenitentiae recipers And †Ib. p. 416. Sacramentum Confesâ—ionis auricularts ut est apud Ecclesiam Romanam Confirmationis extremae Vnctionis ferè non agnoscunt Sacramental Confession therefore in these Churches seems rather de facto much neglected than de jure not allowed or required and looks rather like a custom by the malignity of time somewhat defaced than never at all known or used And this neglect of Confession perhaps may partly arise from a different judgment they have of mortal sin the only necessary matter of confession whilst they account some few of the greatest only such § 180 Yet for external penances and austerities especially in the Monasticks and Clergy of these Eastern and Southern Churches they are observed to be very great and one of the chiefest causes of their dislike and contempt of the Latine Church besides the difference which they have in several other Ceremonies of Religion to arise from hence that they see many of them in such corporal severities more remiss See Rogers Terre Saincte l. 2. p. 335. And Thom. a Jesu l. 6. p. 284. Species austerioris vitae quae in eorum Hieromonachis Metropolitis Archiepiscopis frequenter cernitur Latinos contemnendi praebet occasionem c. So the Abyssine Religious and Bishops †Roger Terre Saincte l. 2. p. 347. go barefoot wear hair-cloth never eat flesh and in Lent which they begin three dayes after the Purification and other Fasts eat no Fish or white-meats make only one meal a day without any Collation at Sun-set drink no wine though when they happen to be in a Country that affords it as their own doth not use disciplines carry great weights about their bodies See much what the same abstinences of the Greek Bishops and Monks †Ib. p. 337. Goar Eucholog p. 407. who also keep four Lents or solemn Fasts in the year adding to ours that of Advent another from the first of August to the Assumption of our Lady another from the Octave of Whitsuntide to S. Peter's day the same is said of the Maronites †Ib. p. 426. the same * Ib. p. 336. or more of the Armenian Bishops and Religious never eating flesh not indulging themselves in their Lents fish white-meats or so much as oyl or any thing boiled Hence are all these much displeased with the Western liberty of using fish and wine and Collations in Lent and of several Religious Orders eating flesh out of it From what hath been said then may be discovered the defects of that summary account which after a long discourse Dr. Field in l. 1. c. 1. p. 75. gives of the Agreement both of the Greek § 181 and other Eastern Churches with the Protestants in all the principal modern Controversies where he thus informs his Reader 1st saith he They all deny and impugne that supreme universality of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction which the. Bishop of Rome claimeth Of this see below § 186. the Greeks allowing though not so much as the Pope claimeth yet more than I think many Protestants will consent to 2ly
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
true That the Church of England blindeth men to peace to her determinations reserving to men the liberty of their judgments on pain of excommunication if they violate that peace For it is plain on the one side where a Church pretends infallibility the excommunication is directed against the persons for refusing to give internal assent to what she defines But where a Church doth not pretend to that the excommunication respects wholly that overt Act whereby the Churches peace is broken And if a Church be bound to look to her own peace no doubt she hath power to excommunicate such as openly violate the bonds of it which is only an act of caution in a Church to preserve her selfe in unity but where it is given out that the Church is infallible the excommunication must be so much the more unreasonable because it is against those internal acts of the minde over which the Church as such hath no direct power And p. 55. he quotes these words out of Bp. Bramhall †Schism guarded p. 192. To the same sence We do not suffer any man to reject the 39. Articles of the Church of England at his pleasure yet neither do we look upon them as essentials of saving faith or legacies of Christ and his Apostles but in a mean as pious opinions fitted for the presâ—rvation of unity neither do we oblige any man to believe them but only not to contradict them By which we see what vast difference there is between those things which are required by the Church of England in order to peace and those which are imposed by the Church of Rome c. Lastly thus Mr. Chillingworth †p. 200. of the just authority of Councils and Synods beyond which the Protestant Synods or Convocations pretend not The Fathers of the Church saith he in after times i. e. after the Apostles might have just cause to declare their judgment touching the sence of some general Articles of the Creed but to oblige others to receive their declarations under pain of damnation what warrant they had I know not He that can shew either that the Church of all ages was to have this authority or that it continued in the Church for some ages and then expired He that can shew either of these things let him for my part I cannot Yet I willingly confess the judgment of a Council though not infallible is yet so far directive and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to afford it an outward submission for publick peace sake Thus much as the Protestant Synods seem contented with so I allow Again p. 375. He saith Any thing besides Scripture and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it Well may Protestants hold it as matter of opinion but as matter of faith and religion neither can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it themselves nor require the belief of it of others without most high and most schismatical presumption Thus he now I suppose that either no Ptotestant Church or Synod will stile the Son 's coequall God-head with the Father a plain irrefragable indubitable Scripture or consequence thereof about which is and hath been so much contest or with as much reason they may call whatever points they please such however controverted and then what is said here signifies nothing § 36 Prot. Be not mistaken I pray especially concerning the Church of England For though she for several points imposed formerly by the tyranny of the Roman Church hath granted liberty of opinion or at least freed her subjects from obligation to believe so in them as the Church formerly required yet as to exclusion of your doctrin she professeth firmly to believe the 3. Creeds and concerning the additions made in the two latter Creeds to the first Dr. Hammond †Of Fundamentals p. 90. acknowledgeth That they being thus settled by the universal Church were and still are in all reason without disputing to be received and imbraced by the Protestant Church and every meek member thereof with that reverence that is due to Apostolick truthes with that thankfulness which is our meet tribute to those sacred Champions for their seasonable and provident propugning our faith with such timely and necessary application to practice that the Holy Ghost speaking to us now under the times of the New Testament by the Governors of the Christian Churches Christs mediate successors in the Prophetick Pastoral Episcopal Office as he had formerly spoken by the Prophets of the Old Testament sent immediately by him may finde a cheerfull audience and receive all uniform submission from us Thus Dr. Hammond of the Church of England's assent to the 3. Creeds She assenteth also to the definitions of the 4 first General Councils And the Act 1. Eliz. †cap. 1. declares Heresie that which hath been adjudged so by them now in the definitions of these first 4. General Counclls your tenent hath received a mortal wound †But lastly the 4th Canon in the English Synod held 1640. †Can. 4. particularly stiles Socinianism a most damnable and cursed Heresie and contrary to the Articles of Religion established in the Church of England and orders that any convicted of it be excommunicated and not absolved but upon his repentance and abjuration Now further than this namely excommunication upon conviction No other Church I suppose hath or can proceed against your Heresie It being received as a common axiom in the Canon Law that Ecclesia non judicat de occultis And cogitationis poenam nemo patitur And Ob peccatum mere internum Ecclesiastica censura ferri non potest And in all Churches every one of what internal perswasion soever continues externally at least a member thereof till the Churches censures do exclude him § 37 Soc. The Church of England alloweth assenteth to and teacheth what she judgeth evident in the Scripture for so she ought what she believes or assenteth to I look not after but what she enjoynes Now I yeeld all that obedience in this point that she requires from me and so I presume she will acknowledge me a dutiful Son Prot. what obedience when as you deny one of her chiefest and most fundamental doctrins Soc. If I mistake not her principles she requires of me no internal belief or assent to any of her doctrins but only 1st silence or non-contradiction †See Disc 3 § 84. n. 2. n. 4. or 2ly a conditional belief i. e. whenever I shall be convinced of the truth thereof Now in both these I most readily obey her For the 1st I have strictly observed it kept my opinion to my self unless this my discourse with you hath been a breach of it but then I was at least a dutiful subject of this Church at the beginning of our discourse and for the 2d whether actual conviction or sufficient proposal be made the condition of my assent or submission of
separation at all This concerning some Protestants restraining Schism to culpable or causeless separation § 57 Again some of them there are who straiten Schism yet farther ‖ See Stillingf p. 331.357.359 251 290. compar p. 54.56 Whitby p. 424. and making it a separation only from other Christians or Churches in such things wherein it is absolutely necessary to be united with them which is thus far true then state this necâ—ssary union to consist only in the belief of those Fundamental Articles of Faith or Doctrine which are absolutely necessary to Salvation or essential to the being of a Church § 58 Where they hold it not Schism to separate from all particular Churches of the present age for a Doctrine universally held and imposed as a condition of their Communion because they say an error may be so imposed But only Schism to separate from the Primitive and Vniversal Church for Doctrine 1 st That can be made appear to have been Catholick and universally received in the manner expressed before § 52. by the Church of all ages successively from the Apostles to the time of such separation And 2 ly That can also be proved a Doctrine necessary to Salvation and essential to the being of a Church * For the first of these Mr. Stillingfleets words ‖ P. 371. to this purpose in answer to the unlawfulness of reforming former Catholick Doctrines are It is not enough saith he to prove any Doctrine to be Catholick that it was generally received by Christian Churches in any one age but it must be made appear to have been so received from the Apostles time not to say that A. D. 1517. such and such Doctrines were looked on as Catholick and therefore they were so But that for 1517. years successively from the Apostles to that time they were judged to be so and then saith he we shall more easily believe you And p. 357. he saith That we are not to measure the Communion of the Catholick Church by the judgement of all or most of the particular Churches of such an age And * for the 2 d. In the 2 d. Part c. 2. proving Protestants not guilty of Schism p. 331. he saith Whoso separates from any particular Church much more from all for such things without which that can be no Church separates from the Communion of the Catholick Church but he that separates only from particular Churches any or all as to such things which concern not their being is only separated from the Communion of those Churches not the Catholick And therefore saith he supposing that all particular Churches have some errors and corruptions in them though I should separate from them all for such errors but what if for some truth though this not Fundamental I do not separate from the Communion of the whole Church unless it be for something without which those could be no Churches And p. 358. No Church can be charged with a separation from the true Catholick Church but what may be proved to separate it self in something necessary to the being of the Catholick Church and so long as it doth not separate as to these essentials it cannot cease to be a true Member of the Catholick Church This is freely granted But what are these Essentials to the being of the Church-Catholick p. 357. he saith That the Communion of the Church-Catholick lies open to all such who own the Fundamentals of the Christian Faith And p. 251. he saith All that is meant by saying that the present Church he means Catholick is infallible in Fundamentals is that there shall always be a Church for that which makes them a Church is the belief of Fundamentals and if they believe not them they cease to be so That therefore which being supposed a Church is and being destroyed it ceaseth to be is the formal constitution of it but thus it is as to the Church the belief of Fundamentals makes it a Church and the not belief of them makes them cease to be a Christian Church Well But what are these necessaries or Fundamentals of the Christian Faith that we may know how long a person or Church retaineth the Communion of the Catholick See then concerning this p. 53. 54 55. These are such points saith he as are required by God as necessary to be explicitly believed by all in order to attain salvation And which are they p. 56. Nothing ought to be required as a necessary Article of Faith but what hath been believed and received for such by the Catholick Church of all ages And afterward What hath been admitted into the ancient Creeds Here then I take his Tenent to be That no more is necessary to render any person or Church free from Schism and a true Member of the Catholick Church and continuing in its Communion than the true belief of all Fundamentals or points absolutely necessary to be believed for attaining Salvation § 59 But here also 1 st These leave us uncertain how particularly to know and distinguish these Fundamentals and Essentials wherein only is Schism from other points that are not so or they do infold them all within the compass of the Creeds where also they contend that they must not be extended to all the Articles thereof whence it will follow that one departing from the Churches Communion for requiring his assent as a condition thereof in respect of some of these Articles yet will be no Schismatick as they state Schism Nor none a Schismatick that is not even in a Fundamental an Heretick Again since several Doctrines there are that are delivered by all former ages which yet are not Fundamental or Essential to Salvation or to the being of a Church thus the separating from all particular Churches or from our spiritual Superiours for any doctrine taken for such will not be Schism So one that separates from the Communion of his Superiors for their requiring his assent and conformity to the Episcopal Government of the Church though he is a Schismatick in Dr. Hammonds account ‖ Schism p. 163. yet must be none in Mr. Stillingfleets unless he will make Espiscopacy essential to the being of a Church concerning which I refer you to his Irenicum and so pronounce the Presbyterian and Transmarine reformed Congregations no Churches of Christ The same may be said of any separating from the external Communion of his Superiors requiring of him consent and conformity to the Definitions of the first four allowed General Councils and the constitutions of the universal Church of the first and purest Ages whether in Government or other the like observances and practises which separation is by Dr. Hammond ‖ Schim p. 156. 160. declared Schism but cannot be so upon Mr. Stillingfleets theses unless all these will be maintained by him Fundamentals and Essentials to the being of the Catholick Church I mean as to faith necessary for her attaining Salvation Lastly Mr. Stillingfleet saith ‖ P. 356. a Church enjoyning some dangerons errors as