on their own side as to decline a trial by any other way save by the Scriptures only Add to this that several such strange and damnable Opinions arose after this Rule written even in the Apostolical times From which Errors and Heresies from time to time by the intervening definitions and diligent search of the Rule and traditive Exposition thereof made in those supremest Ecclesiastical Courts that the times afforded the Church hath bin hitherto preserved Mean-while what satisfaction or comfort can a Christian § 11 in these present distractions of the Church receive from such persons who when asked whom we shall have to end our controversies 1st tell us ‖ Chillingw p. 115. and â—92 Whitby p. 104. 98. * That these if clear Scripture intelligible to every one decide them not are not controversies in any thing necessary and so needlesse to be ended and therefore one would think it not much material also on what side they are held Again * That the Plea for an infallible Guide to secure us from wandring out of the way to Heaven is invalidated by the plainnesse and easinesse of the way which we cannot misse unlesse we will And we now secure then 2ly changing their former note tell us That some of the present Controversies are such For example the Controversie of Transubstantiation St. Invocation and Images as that unless we believe them on that side as the Protestants state them we become if we practice according to our belief guilty of most gross idolatry and if it be idolatry surely then it destroys the very essentials or being of a Church 1 And then again that we in such a danger may not think of retiring to and relying upon our Guides in the third place tells us that in the not seeing this Rule of Scripture to be clear and manifest in these Controversies on the Protestant side and in the not perceiving the Protestant Reasons brought for it to be Demonstrations thereof both those great Councils that have defined the contrary to them and the greatest part of Christianity that now follows these Councils all Scripture being in these supposed for a Rule want or use not common Reason § 12 This of their first Answer restraining these Texts 2. Or made to all the succeeding Church-Guides but condition and our Lord's Promises of Infallibility only to the Apostles and committing the succeeding times only to the Infallibility of the Apostles Writings But yet these not being secure here whilst some of the Texts as hath been shewed clearly enough promise Divine assistance also to the Apostles Successors which assistance can be none or nothing worth if not extended so far as to preserve them unerring in Necessaries they yet further allow from these Texts a Promise of Indefectibility in Necessaries to be made to the Catholick Church of all Ages after the Apostles taken in general as it is set down in the first Proposition ‖ §. 1. And not only to her but to her Guides also and Clergy But then they state these Promises as made to the Guides not to be absolute as they are to the Church but conditional only ‖ Chilling p. 176 Stilling p. 511 519 520. which condition they endeavour to shew also out of these Texts where such Promises are made As * in that John 14.16 And 16.23 The Comforter shall abide with you for ever and lead you into all truth True say they if you love me and keep my Commandments John 14.15 And * in that Mat. 28.20 I will be with you unto the end of the world True If you teach what I have commanded you * In that Luke 10.16 He that heareth you heareth me True so often as ye speak my words not your own Therefore thus Mr. Chillingworth where he sets down several irrational ways as he calls them of ending a Controversie ‖ p. 130. § 7 8. descants on these and such like Scriptures We could saith he refer the matter to any Assembly of Christians assembled in the name of Christ seeing it is written Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them We may refer it to any Priest because it is written The Priests lips shall preserve knowledge The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses's Chair c. To any Preacher of the Gospel to any Pastor or Doctor for to every one of them Christ hath promised he will be with them always even unto the end of the world and of every one of them it is said he that heareth you heareth me c. To any Bishop or Prelate for it is written Obey your Prelates and again He hath given Pastors and Doctors c. lest we should be carried about with every wind of Doctrine To any particular Church of Christians seeing it is a particular Church which is called The House of God a Pillar and Ground of Truth and seeing of any particular Church it is written He that heareth not the Church let him be unto thee as a Heathen and a Publican But these Means Mr. Chillingworth disallows because saith he they would fail us and contradict themselves This then they say that as these Scripture-promises are applied to the Catholick Church in general of all or any Age after the Apostles they grant them absolute But § 13 as applied to any particular Churches or their Guides since it is certain that such particular Persons and Churches may err even in Fundamentals and do somtimes contradict one another the Promises made to them must be understood to be only conditional and that before that any yield from these Texts any Obedience to them either of assent or also if in a matter of great moment of non-contradiction he must first look to it whether they have performed the condition of the promised assistance kept themselves to Christ's words kept his Commandments c. wherein also he cannot take theirs but must use his own Judgment and thus are these promises voided as to any certain benefit that the Subjects of the Church may expect by them and as to any certain Obedience which the Clergy can require for them § 14 To this way of expounding these Texts whereby in making the promises to belong conditionally to every man of the Clergy they would make them belong Reply That our Lord's promise of indeficiency in necessaries made to the Clergy is absolute absolutely to none of them I return this Answer 1st That by their representing Christ's promises only conditional in the manner above-mentioned ‖ § 12. they seem to unsettle the very Foundations of Christianity whilst from these Texts so expounded we can have no certainty of the Infallibility of the Apostles themselves to whom these things were said unless we be first assured of their performance of the Condition 2ly Seeing that themselves collect from these Texts an absolute promise of an indefectibility as to the knowledge and belief of all Necessaries which is the same as
Laity which is the only Church Catholick the Pillar and Ground of Truth and the visible external Communion thereof to be continued in See his Instit 4 l. 1. c. 2. § upon the Article Credo sanctam Catholicam Ecclesiam ' Ecclesia saith he ideò Catholica dicitur seu universalis quia non duas aut tres invenire liceat quin discerpatur Christus quod fieri non potest 4 § In Symbolo ubi profitemur nos credere Ecclesiam id non solùm ad visibilem de quâ nunc agimus refertur sed ad omnes quoque electos Dei therefore this Article relateth to a Church visible and visible in all Ages Quia nunc de visibili Ecclesiâ disserere propositum est discamus vel uno Matris that it is termed a Mother Elogio quam utilis sit nobis ejus cognitio immo necessaria quando non alius est in vitam ingressus nisi nos ipsa concipiat in utero nisi pariat c. Adde quod extra ejus gremium nulla speranda est peccatorum remissio c. such a visible Mother-Church then it seems there is in all Ages some where or other as that none can enter into life that are not numbred among her children and inclosed within her bosom 7. § Quemadmodum ergo nobis invisibilem solius Dei oculis conspicuam Ecclesiam credere necesse est ita hanc quae respectu hominum Ecclesia dicitur observare ejusque communionem colere jubemur i.e. Communionem externam visibilem Ecclesiae visibilis 10. § Cujus authoritatem spernere vel castigationes ludere nemini impunè licet multo minus ejus abrumpere unitatem authoritatem castigationes he must mean of the Clergy and the spiritual Governours thereof Sic enim Dominus ejus authoritatem commendat ut dum illa violatur suam ipsius imminutam censeat Neque enim parvi momenti est quod vocatur columna firmamentum veritatis domus Dei. Quibus verbis significat Paulus ne intercidat Veritas Dei in mundo Ecclesiam visibilem esse fidam ejus custodem and that in all Ages else intercideret veritas quia ejus ministerio operâ voluit Deus puram verbi sui praedicationem conservari Vnde sequitur discessionem ab Ecclesia Dei Christi abnegationem esse 8. § Proinde quatenus eam agnoscere nostrâ intererat Dominus certis notis quasi Symbolis nobis designavit 10. § Symbola Ecclesiae dignoscendae verbi praedicationem sinceram Sacramentorumque observationem ex Christi Instituto See § 9. posuimus 11. § Ne sub Ecclesiae titulo impostura nobis fiat ad illam probationem seu ad Lydium lapidem exigenda est omnis Congregatio quae Ecclesiae nomen obtendit 2. l. 4. § Minimè permovere nos debet inanis hic fulgor Romanensium ut Ecclesiam esse recipiamus ubi verbum Dei non apparet 7. § Quis ausit eum coetum nullâ cum exceptione Ecclesiam appellare ubi verbum Domini palà m impunè conculcatur c. Thus Calvin in this place but how constant elsewhere to this doctrine I say not of the authority of and the obedience due to a permanent visible Church which is Columna Firmamentum veritatis and which is Governed by Christs Orthodox Ministers of the Word and Sacraments which Church he affirmeth to be the Reformed and not the Roman Concerning the Church then Which is It he and the Roman Catholicks differ but not in the Obedience due to the Church if he may name it Lastly were Protestants in this matter altogether silent yet those essential Notes or Marks they give of the true Church The true preaching of Gods Word and right Administration of the Sacraments always to be found in the Church do infer a Clergy to whom only both these Offices do belong as well as a people always Orthodox § 30 But here again so long as these Divines do still together with the former deny the promise of such a perpetual divine assistance to Superiour persons Reply Where That the subordinate Clergy can be no Guide to Christians when opposing the Superiour nor a few opposing a much major part or Synods of the Clergy in respect of Inferiors or to a major part of a Synod in respect of a lesser that holdeth or teacheth contrary which Superiours and major part only in such cases must be the Christians Guide a thing warranted by as universal a Tradition and Practice as any Fundamental whatever of Church-Government and whilst they do affirm this assistance continued only to some Clergy or other always but how inconsiderable a party for number or dignity in respect of the rest they know nor matter not In saying this they in effect say no more than the former This Clergy which they affirm unfailing in necessaries being in such a case only private persons not Guides to others no not to their own Flocks who according to the Traditive Constitution of Church-Government are not to hear their own private Pastors teaching contrary to the definitions of Superiour Prelats or Councils or in a Council a lesser part voting contrary to a major not to hear an Arrian Bishop teaching contrary to the Council of Nice nor the Patriarch Nestorius and Dioscorus and their Adherents voting contrary to the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon of this see what is said more at large in the second Discourse § 23. c. And therefore if the Promises are interpreted in this their manner the people in following the Superiour the major part the Traditive Rule of Obedience always observed in the Church somtimes will be tied to obey only those of the Clergy to whom Christ denies such assistance and to disobey those who have it § 31 Neither matters it much as to constitute them a Guide any more for this though this supposed Orthodox Clergy in whom our Saviours promise is said to be preserved be all too of one distinct Communion and one particular Church or Nation and these too the whole Clergy of that Church Because the whole Church through the whole world is but one body governed by one Law of Christ neither hath any against the whole more reason to adhere to his own particular Church when separating as to a Guide because his own than to any other unless he hath some greater assurance of its non-erring than of any others and besides what reason in this kind he hath to take that particular Church wherein he lives for his Guide the same have all other Christians living elsewhere to refuse it for theirs and do adhere to their own particular Church and thus if he by such obedience light on truth they by the same obedience will be necessitated to Errour Again if suppose twenty six Bishops of several Nations opposing an Oecumenical Council cannot be a Guide to all Christians much less can they if all these of one Church or Nation because here is more dependence one on
vanish those fancies ◠Of every General Council's receiving a Commission to make its meeting authentick from some formal act or tacit consent of the Church diffusive of the assistance of infallibility if any had to be made over to it by assignment from the Church diffusive of its acting not by any divine right but only humane delegation and of the several parts of the Church being obliged to its decrees by their choice and consent only not upon necessity 3ly Again It is asked how such an Ecclesiastical infallibility as is placed in a General Council Q. 3. can be said to be serviceable or at least necessary to the Church which subsisted § 98 for the first 300. years without any such infallible Guide And it is asked also by what infallible Guide in the long intervals of these Councils Christians are secured § 99 To the first I answer That this infallibility is to be supposed to accompany this Body of the Clergy taken collectively not only when met in a General Council but out of it whenever and however they shall manifest a concurrence in their judgment and agreement in their doctrines whether by several Provincial Councils assembled or some one Provincial Council assembled confirmed by the See Apostolick and allowed by other co-ordinate Churches or by communicatory letters of Churches to one another in the intervals of greater meetings and thus was infallibility resident and preserved in the Guides of the Church for the first 300. years Of this matter thus Mr. Thorndike †Epilog 1 l c. 8 p. 54. speaking of the times before Constantine The daily intercourse intelligence and correspondence between Churches without those Assemblies of Representatives we call Councils was a thing so visibly practised by the Catholick Church from the beginning that thereupon I conceive it may be called a standing Council in regard of the continual setling of troubles arising in some part and tending to question the peace of the whole by the consent of other Churches concerned which setlement was had and obtained by means of this mutual intelligence and correspondence The holding of Councils being a way of far greater dispatch but the express consent of Churches obtained upon the place being a more certain foundation of peace c. Thus he And see what is said before Disc 1. § 18. To the second That in the intervals of Councils if any new error dangerous to the faith and condemned by no former General Council doth molest the Church she by some of the forenamed wayes wherein she is unerrable if there be no convenience of assembling a General Council suppresseth it but if an error formerly condemned and crushed by a general Council begin to exalt it self and grow again that there needeth no more to quiet it than that the present Church Governours do put in execution the former unerring decrees of those Councils 4ly Again it is asked Q. 4. How lawful General Councils can be maintained all unerring § 100 which Councils experience hath shewed to have contradicted one another To which I answer That he who saith so either takes some Council to be a lawful General one that is not so in the judgment of the present Church Catholick as stated before § 11 12. 2. Disc § 23. c. Or takes some of their definitions to contradict which do not so in the judgment of the present Church Catholick Or urgeth things in some ages commonly received or practised in which there is a great latitude as things then defined But if the judgment of the Church in these ought to be preferred before some private members thereof she denies such contradiction in matters of faith to be in any of the General Councils that she receives 5ly Again it is asked Q. 5. If a General Council should err in the defining of something not necessary and again § 101 if it can be proved that no exact distinction can be made of such from necessaries how any Christian can be secure for any particular point of his faith that both such Council and himself do not err in it I answer 1st That if what is supposed should be granted yet still is such Christian as believes all the Council proposeth secure that his faith is deficient in nothing necessary And that Protestants think the like security sufficient in their own faith For they holding the sence of Scripture clear even to the unlearned in all necessaries and believing all the Scripture saith though they cannot exactly distinguish necessary points therein from others yet affirm their faith to be secure because actually not erring in any point clear and so also not in any point necessary 2ly That as to the Principal points of faith called necessary they are both by Councils sufficiently discerned from non-necessaries and proposed as necessaries and so by Christians believed as such In these particulars therefore they are certain of their not erring and as to other points of their faith that it is sufficient for Christians to know that if necesiary they do not err in them though which in particular are necessary and so certainly not erred in they know not But meanwhile do those who urge thus an uncertainty in the faith of Catholicks in attaching their judgment to Councils which in not necessaries are supyosed liable to error make themselves any better provision for the Protestants faith in remitting them from Councils unto their own judgments which in necessaries also they grant are liable to error at least upon their not using due industry their being swayed by passion interest c. which every humble man surely will suspect himself of sooner than a Council 6ly Again It is much pressed That upon the pretence Q. 6. that a General Council is infallible § 102 no error of such Council can ever be corrected or remedied neither by a particular person or Church or yet by another Council General I answer If the Council be as it is pretended infallible no need of correcting an error where is none If it be fallible yet if so only in non-necessaries no great harm if Christians in such a point be misled but great if private men throwing off the Guide upon such pretence they should so come in some necessary point to miscarry But indeed for General Councils to be fallible in necessaries also this I grant would be a thing most mischeivous to the Church but that they shall never thus err see what is said before § 6. Disc 1. § 7.14 And indeed the objection here i. e. the ruine which such error would bring upon Christianity considering the obedience commanded to these Councils is a sufficient Argument that thus they never err nor consequently need reformation § 103 But meanwhile those who urge this that the error of a General Council in an universal obligation of belief to it can never be rectified or reformed consider not That on the other side in admitting a reformation of any its supposed errors no truth
to some dissenting parties Thus they argue as if they should say If the Law cannot be understood much less the Judge that is appointed to explain it for also we have many Comments on the Law none on his Sentence or as if the sence of those many Canons of Councils that are urged against Protestants were not granted by them both sufficiently clear and accused by them as evidently erroneous Lastly * whether their decrees have been confirmed by the Pope And then for this it must be known also whether the Pope confirming them was a lawful Pope * whether not Simonically elected which but once hapning there follows from it the illegality of all his Successors because these chosen by some Cardinals that were created by him who are no legitimate Electors and upon this account saith Mr. Stillingfleet †p. 125. there hath been no legal Pope since Sixtus the Fifth And here again return all these questions concerning the Pope's Baptism Ordination c. with a right intention of the Priest in doing them which were asked formerly concerning the Bishops These and many more such like Queries are made by persons studying acuteness in throwing down the Pillars of a former setled faith to make way for introducing a more free and unconfined i. e. a more sceptical and arbitrary or latitudinarian Religion And since from any of these Queries a quarrel may be made against a Council as not lawful there will never want for any past Council some pretence or other of disallowing it when stating Doctrines or giving Laws contrary to our inclination or interest and how easie were it for a Socinian from several of these to quarrel with that of Nice See below Disc 4. § 18. c. To all which I return this answer 1st That a rational not-possibly-fallible § 115 certainty or assurance of the lawfulness of any Council or of the forementioned particulars whereby this lawfulness may be known is by no side affirmed necessary 2ly That as for a non-morally fallible certainty in respect of several of the particulars such as these whether all the Bishops that sate in the Council of Nice were truly and lawfully baptized ordained c. none simoniacally elected none come to the Council with prejudice none corrupted or over-awed in giving his vote c. this is sufficient that where any of these do fail the cognizance of Tradition yet any Christian in general may be rationally assured I mean as to the much major part of such Council for more needs not that that divine providence and assistance which is supposed to preserve the Church's lawful General Councils from not erring in necessaries doth consequently either preserve such Councils as are taken by this Church for lawfully general from all such defects as do render them not capable of his promise of not erring Or if any forepassed Councils reputed lawfulâ—y General have had such defects doth continue the same priviledge of not erring also to these Councils because such their defects are undiscernable to the Church Otherwise the Church's error in not discerning lawful Councils would render the divine favour in assisting lawful Councils useless and unbeneficial unto her § 116 And this answer is no more than is thought reasonable and given by Protestants in other cases So Mr. Chillingworth †p. 78. up a doubt proposed whether a Penitent doing his own best indeavours when absolved of his sins by one that goes for but really is no Priest or by a Priest but without an intention of absolving him receives any benefit thereby thinks this a good answer That God's goodness will supply all such defects as to humane indeavours were unavoidable And therefore though his Priest were indeed no Priest yet to him he should be as if he were one and if he gave absolution without intention yet in doing so he should hurt himself only not his Penitent And Protestants upon supposition that God hath by no other way clearly revealed the points necessary to salvation do from the same goodness of God prove their fundamental Doctrine that all necessaries to salvation are clearly revealed in Scripture where as I conceive the supposition to fail so the arguing good upon the common Principle that Deus non deficit in necessariis § 117 3. So far as the former questions are moved concerning a sufficient certainty I suppose Protestants will affirm that they have a sufficient certainty concerning some Councils that they were lawfully General as concerning the four first whose Definitions also they retain in their Creed what ground therefore of their certainty of these Councils that they were lawfully General they will return to a Socinian asking the former questions of them whether this ground be a General Church-Tradition or any thing else the same may be returned to the same questions concerning the rest that have been held lawfully General by the common Tradition of later times since the sitting of such Councils Add to this that notwithstanding in general they allow some obedience due to lawful General Councils yet if they deny a sufficient certainty of knowing any such this is in effect to release all Christian obedience to any Council in particular § 118 4ly I answer That for solution of the former questions such as are more material as touching the sufficiency of the representative the lawfulness of their proceedings their Confirmation by the See Apostolick acceptation by the Church diffusive such as â—s necessary c. private Christians have sufficient certainty from the testimony that after the sitting of such Councils the continued Tradition of the Church Catholick or of its Governors taken in the sence explained before § 8.12 Disc 2 § 23. or also met in later Councils delivers thereof in which tradition he may securely rest and supersede that quest for satisfaction of the former doubts with which others must needs be much perplexed who have not the humility to acquiesce in the resolutions of their forefathers § 119 5ly Since the Church Catholick or its Governors as stated before †§. 2.6 of all ages and therefore that of the present age is an infallible Guide in necessaries therefore whatever former Councils and their definitions the present Church or its Governors do accept and own Christians may be assured from this that such Councils have not erred in necessaries and either were lawfully general and obliging or at least by this acceptation of the present Church are rendred equivalent thereto the act of this Church her allowing their decrees being of the same strength and vigor as is her new decreeing them And thus for such Councils the former inquiries become frustrated Note that I understand the acceptation of the present Church Catholick or its Governors in the sence explained before § 11. c. Disc 1. § 38. 6. But lastly though a sufficient certainty by these wayes a Christian may have concerning what or how many have been lawful General Councils or equivalent thereto and so concerning their
§ 8. Reply § 9. 2. Or made to all the succeeding Church-Guides but conditional § 12. Reply That our Lords promise of Indeficiency in Necessaries made to the Clergy is absolute § 14. And this Indeficiency most rationally placed in the General Councils or other accord or consent of the Clergy equivalent to such Council § 15. Chap. 3. Some Protestant objections § 17. Answered § 18. Chap. 4. II. Other Protestant Divines granting the Clergy some or other of them alwayes unerring in Necessaries but this not necessarily the superior or Major part of them § 25. Reply That the subordinate Clergy can be no Guide to Christians when opposing the superiour nor a few opposing a much Major part § 30. Chap. 5. III. Other Expressions of Protestant Divines granting the Churches Prelatick Clergy as defining her doctrines or the General Councils of them to be unerrable in necessaries when these Councils accepted by the Church universal § 32. Expressions to this purpose * Of Dr. Potter § 33. * Of Bp. Bramhal § 34. Where Concerning what judgment of the Church sufficiently obligeth In respect 1. Of the Church Catholick diffusive § 36 n. 1. 2. Of Councils General § Ib. n. 8. Where Of the Freedome of the Council of Trent § Ib. n. 9. * Of Bp. Lawd § 37. Where Concerning what acceptation of Councils by the Church Diffusive is onely necessary § 38. * Of Dr Field § 40. Chap. 6. IV. Learned Protestants conceding the former Churches Clergy preceding the Reformation never so to have erred in defining Necessaries as that the Church Governed by them did not remain still True Holy and Catholick § 41. Chap. 7. V That according to this last Concession § 41. there seemes to be * a great security to those continuing still in the antient Communion § 48 As to avoiding Heresie or Schism Ibid. As to other gross Errors § 51. And * danger to those deserting it § 54. Where There Protestants Defence for it § 55. n. 1. And the Catholick Remonstrance Ib. n. 2. Chap. 8. VI. That according to the former Concession § 32. if so enlarged as ancient Church-practise 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 of our Lord in the Eucharist or Transubstantiation § 57. THE SECOND DISCOURSE Proceeding upon the Concessions of Learned Protestants That the Pastors of the Church some or other in all Ages do infallibly guide their Subjects in Necessaries to search which in any Division of these Pastors are those to whom Christians ought to adhere and yield their Obedience The CONTENTS Chap. 1. PRotestants grant 1. That there is at this present an One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church § 1. 2. That the present Pastors and Governours thereof have authority to decide Controversies § 2. 3. That these Governors some or other of them shall never err or miss-guide Christians at least in absolute Necessaries to salvation § 3. 4. That they and the Churches governed by them stand alwayes distinct from Heretical or Schismatical Congregations § 5. Chap. 2. Catholicks further affirm 5. That if these Pastors guide unerringly in Necessaries the people are to learn from them what or how many points are necessary so far as the knowledge thereof is necessary to them § 6. 6. Again That the Necessaries wherein these Ecclesiastical Governors are infallible Guides ought not to be confined to some few points absolutely necessary but extended to all such points of Faith as are very beneficial to Salvation § 9. 7. Concerning the exact distinguishing of necessaries from non-necessaries 1. That there seemes no necessity that the Church guides should be enabled exactly to distinguish them § 12. 2. That they may infallibly guide in them though not infallibly distinguish them § 14. 3. That they guiding infallibly in all necessaries and no distinction of these made ought to be believed in all points they propose except an infallible certainty can be shewed to the contrary § 15. 4. That these Governors do distinguish and do propose as such all those more necessary points which it is requisite for Christians with a more particular explicite Faith to believe § 17. 8 That Christians submitting their judgment to the present Church-Governors in deciding all necessary matters of Faith ought also to submit it to them in declaring the sence of the Fathers or of the Definitions of Councils and former Church concerning the same Matters § 19. 9. That supposing these Guides to err in some of their Decisions yet their Subjects by the concession of Learned Protestants ought to yeild the Obedience either of silence or also of assent to them in all such points whereof they cannot demonstratively prove the contrary § 20. 10. From whence it follows that none may adhere to any new Guides but only so many as can demonstrate the Errors of the former § 21. Chap. 3. 11. Granted by all that these Church Governors may teach diversly and some of them more or fewer may become erroneous in Necessaries and misguide Christians in them § 22. 12. In such dissenting therefore That there must be some Rule for Christians which Guides they ought to follow and that this 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. Where Of the Major part concluding the Whole in the ancient Councils § 25. n. 2. And Of the Magnitude of the Defection of the Church-Prelacy in the time of Arrianism § 26. n. 2. 13. That accordingly both in Councils their defining Matters of Religion and in the Church's acceptation of their Decrees the much Major part must conclude the Whole and the opposing of their Definitions also be Heresie and separation from their Communion Schism if an Opposition or separation from the Whole be so § 27. n. 4. 14. As for the Protestant Marks whereby in any Division to know these true Guides viz. A right teaching of God's Word and a right Administration of the Sacraments that these are things to be learned from these true Guides first known § 28. Chap. 4. An Application of the former Propositions in a search which of the opposite present Churches or of the dissenting Ecclesiastical Governors thereof is our true Guide § 30. Motives perswading that the Roman and the other Western Churches united with it and with the Head thereof St. Peter's Successor are this true Guide 1. Their being the very same Body with that which Protestants grant was 150 years ago the Christian 's true Guide and the other Body confessing themselves in external Communion departed from it § 33. 2. Their being that Body to which if we follow the former Rule recited Prop. 12. we ought to submit § 35. 3. Their being that Body that owns and adheres to the Definitions and Decrees of all the
former Councils such as the Church of preceding Ages hath received as General or obliging as well those Councils since as those before the Sixth or Seventh Century which later the other Party rejects § 37. Chap. 5. The pretended Security of those Protestants who deny any certain living or Personal Guide infallible in Necessaries affirming 1. That all necessary Matters of Faith are even to the unlearned clear in the Scriptures and the Controversies in non-necessaries 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
infallible yet how can any know infallibly which are lawful General Councils because of the many conditions required to make them such in some one of which he can never be infallibly certain that any one of them hat not failed § 114. Chap. 10. 15. Q. Lastly Catholicks pretending a Divine Faith of the Articles of Christian Religion to be necessary to Salvation and all Divine Faith necessarily to be grounded on Divine Revelation It is asked upon what ground a Christian by a Divine Faith believes all those Articles of his Faith that are defined by particular Councils Where if said from the Testimony of the present Church which is in the former manner i. e. by divine Revelation infallible The question returns whence this Testimony can be proved to be in such a manner infallible without making a Circle in proving this present Church to be so infallible from Gods Word written or unwritten and then again proving infallibly such to have been Gods Word from the infallible testimony of the present Church Nor can the testimony of the Church be proved to be infallible in such a manner as to ground divine Faith upon it from the Motives of credibility or from any thing else but only from a divine Revelation i. e. from Gods Word because divine Faith can never resolve it self into any ground that is not divine Revelation § 120. To which is answered 1. That the object of a divine Faith is alwayes in it self infallible § 123. 2. That divine Faith alwayes ultimatly resolveth it self into divine Revelation and that into some one wherein it ultimately resteth without a processe in infinitum or turning in a Circle § 124. n. 1. 132. 143 144. 3. That divine Faith is alwayes wrought in Christians by the operation of Gods Spirit § 124. n. 2. 4. That from the operation of this H. Spirit may be produced in Christians a sufficient certainty of divine Faith whatever uncertainty be in the extrinsecal proponent thereof § 125. 5. That Church-Tradition in delivering unto us the divine Revelation is only the Introductive not the object of a divine Faith § 126. 6. That there in no absolute need either of it or any other extrinsecal infallible Introductive or proponent for a Christian 's attaining a divine Faith § 127. 7. Yet that there are those morally-certain grounds produceable for this Faith and all the Articles thereof as they are believed in the Catholick Church which no other Religion besides the Christian nor in Christianity no other Sect or seducing private Spirit can pretend to § 135. That a rational certainty or morally-infallible ground of a Christians Faith thus far at least that the Scriptures are the Word of God and consequently whatever is contained therein infallible is affirmed by all § 136. 8. But further that an infallibility in the Guides of the Church as perpetually assisted by the H. Ghost for all necessaries wherein the true sence of Scriptures or verity of Tradition Apostolical is questioned and disputed is believed by Catholicks From which infallibility of these Church-Guides clearly revealed to them in Scripture and by Tradition Apostolical they retain a firm Faith of all those points which are not in Scripture or Tradition as to all men so clearly revealed Whilst others denying the infallibility of these Church-Guides and only allowing that of Scripture miscarry in their Faith concerning some of the other points or can have no firm ground of their believing them § 140. Shewed from the Precedents That no Circle is made in the Roman Catholick's resolving either of a divine and infused or acquisit and humane Faith § 143. c. Chap. 11. A Supplement to the 4th Chap. 26th § Wherein is shewed a Consent of the Doctrine and practice of the modern Eastern Churches with the Occidental in the chief points of present Controversie 1. Transubstantiation § 158. n. 2. 177. 2. Adoration of the Eucharist § 159. 177. 3. Sacrifice of the Mass § 160. n. 1. 177. 4. Invocation of Saints § 161. 5. Prayer for the Souls of the Faithful departed as betterable thereby in their present Condition § 162. 6. Communion in one kinde or of the Symbol of our Lords Body onely intinct § 163.178 7. A Relative Veneration of Images or Pictures § Ibid. 8. Monastick Vows And Marriage denied the Clergy after the taking of Holy orders § 164. and § 179. n. 1. 9. Auricular or Sacramental Confession § 165.179 n. 2. The Replies made hereto by Protestants considered § 182. c. THE FOURTH DISCOURSE Containing the Socinians Apology for the be believing and teaching his Doctrine against former Church-Definitions and present Church-Authority upon the Protestant-Grounds Divided into Five Conferences The first Conf. OF his not holding any thing contrary to the Holy Scripture § 2. The second Conf. Of his not holding any thing contrary to the unanimous sence of the Catholick Church so far as this can justly oblige § 13 The third Conf. Nor contrary to the Definitions of lawful General Councils the just conditions thereof observed § 18. The fourth Conf. Of his not being guilty of Heresie § 23. The fifth Conf. Nor of Schism § 28. THE FIRST DISCOURSE Relating and Considering the Varying Judgments of Learned Protestants concerning the ECCLESIASTICAL GUIDE CHAP. I. The Church Catholick granted by all in some sence unerrable in Fundamentals for ever § 1. Of Protestant Divines I. Some granting the Church Catholick unerrable in Fundamentals or Necessaries but not as a Guide § 3. R. That-the Divine Promises of Indefectibility or not erring in Necessaries belongs to the Church Catholick as a Guide or to the Guides of the Church Catholick § 6. § 1 FIrst that the Church Catholick of any Age whatever is unerrable in Fundamentals The Church Catholick granted by all in some sence unerrable for ever in Fundamentals or absolute Necessaries to Salvation both by Roman-Catholicks and Protestants is granted for otherwise in some Age there would be no Church Catholick Errour in such Fundamentals destroying the very Being of a Church § 2 But when from the Church Catholick it is by Catholicks ascended to the Governours or Guides thereof to whom this Church is committed by our Lord departed hence That they are also by our Lords promise and assistance unerrable in their Decrees They at least in a lawful General Council of them such as the times wherein such Councils are assembled do permit unerrable § 3 at least so far as to Necessaries Here the Protestants make a stop 1. 1. Some Protestant-Divines granting the Church Catholick unerrable in Fundamentals or Necessaries but not as a Guide and seem to differ one from another in 12 their Judgments Mr. Ch llingworth in his Answer to F. Knot and after him Dr. Hammond in his Answer to the Exceptions made against the Lord Falklands Discourse of Infallibility with their followers in this point among whom I number the two late Repliers ‖ See Mr. Stillingf p. 154 251 252 514 517.55 Whitby c.
9. and 20. affirm indeed the Church Catholick according to the former Proposicion to be always unerrable in Fundamentals or Necessaries But then by Church Catholick they mean such a Church as neither is nor can be any Guide to us carefully distinguishing between the Church Catholick and her General Councils and holding that even in Fundamentals all her Councils whatever except such as are in their way universally accepted ‖ See below § 36 38 Disc 3 §. 36. may err thought she cannot To this purpose See Mr. Chillingw cap. 3. § 39. discoursing on this manner I must tell you you are too bold in taking that which no man grants you that the Church Catholick is an infallible Director in Fundamentals § 4 For if she were so then must we not only learn Fundamentals of her but also learn of her what is Fundamental and take all for Fundamental which she delivers to be such In the performance whereof if I knew any one Church to be infallible I would quickly be of that Church But good Sir you must needs do us this favour to be so acute as to distinguish between being infallible in Fundamentals and being an infallible Guide in Fundamentals That she shall be always a Church infallible in Fundamentals we easily grant for it comes to no more but this that there shall be always a Church But that there shall be always such a Church which is an infallible Guide in Fundamentals this we deny For this cannot be without setling a known infallibility in some one known Society of Christians as the Greek or the Roman or some other Church by adhering to which Guide men might be guided to believe aright in all Fundamentals Much what the same he saith cap. 2. § 139. You must know there is a wide difference between being infallible in fundamentals and being an infallible Guide even in fundamentals Dr. Potter saith That the Church is the former That is there shall be some men in the world whilst the world lasts which err not in fundamentals for otherwise there would be no Church But we utterly deny the Church to be the later for to say so were to oblige our selves to find some certain Society of men of whom we may be certain that they neither do nor can err in Fundamentals nor in declaring what is Fundamental what is not Fundamental and consequently to make any Church an infallible Guide in Fundamentals would be to make it infallible in all things which she proposeth and requires to be believed And cap. 5. § 60. You suppose untruly that there is any that visible Church I mean any visible Church of one Denomination which cannot err in Points Fundamental § 5 VVhere you may observe that Mr. Chillingworthtaketh the Church-Catholick that is infallible only for some certain persons in some place or other professing Christianity who whilst the world lasts de facto do not err in Fundamentals and that as he affirms no Church of one Denomination to be infallible in Fundamentals so he holds neither any Council nor any visible Body of Ecclesiastical Magistrates whatsoever or how far soever extended that proposeth to Christians matters of Religion to be in fallible in Fundamentals as you may see quite through the third chap. of his Book and as is manifest also from his reasons against the one which are of like force against the other Therefore though he frequently names Church of one Denomination and not Councils yet you shall find that to this Church of one Denomination errable he opposeth not Councils un-erring but only some men in the world whiles the world lasts de facto not erring and to these it is and not to Councils or any Ecclesiastical Governors that he applieth our Saviours promise Yet what hinders but that the Church-Catholick in some times as it stands contradistinct to Heretical and Schismatical Churches may be in his sense a Church of one Denomination nay any Church that is so united as to give Laws and to have all its members involved in one external Communion though it be an aggregate of many particular Churches and those in several Nations truly is so and the Church-Catholick always is but One as we confess it in our Creed But one Body it is and therefore not uncapable of one name or denomination and hence all the Western Churches in the times of Luther having only one external Communion may be said to be a Church of one Denomination and so were for a long time both the Eastern and Western This Caution I thought meet to give you that his seeming limitation of one Denomination may not deceive you § 6 After him thus also Dr. Hammond in defence of the Lord Falkland's Discourse against the Exceptions ‖ c. 1. §. 5 6. p. 23. I shall saith he thus far consent with you First That the universal Church is in Fundamentals infallible But then this Infallibility must signifie no more or is to be no farther extended than that Christ doth and will so defend his Church that there shall be for ever till the end of the world a Church Christian on the earth i. e. that the whole Church shall not at once make an universal defection err from the foundation or do any thing by which there shall cease to be a Church on the earth But then 2ly I say that this very universal Church though it be in this sence infallible in Fundamentals is not yet a Rule or Canon or Guide or Judge infallible even in Fundamentals visible it is infallible it is but it is not a visible Judge or Rule infallible Thus Dr. Hammond Here you see these Authors make a distinction between the Church Catholick and the Body of her Governors or her General Council giving Laws and in allowing Infallibility in Necessaries to the Church Catholick remove it from the General Council because they think it not safe to allow the Church Catholick unerrable as a Guide § 7 But this their denying the Church Catholick to be unerrable as she is a Guide Reply seems utterly contrary both to our Saviour's Promises made to her in the Scriptures and also to the Concessions of other Modern Learned Protestants which see below § 25 c. 32 c. First As concerning our Saviour's Promises from which is collected the Church's Indefectibility all Where That the divine Promises of Indefectibility or not erring in necessaries belong to the Church Catholick as a Guide or to the Guides of the Church Catholick or most of them are expresly made to the Guides of the Church and therefore to the Church as a Guide that so these might be fet for ever to all Nations as a City on a Hill and as a Candle on a Candlestick ‖ Mat. 5.14 15. * See Mat. 28.19 20. Upon our Saviour's sending his Successors abroad to teach the Nations his promising to be with them i. e. with the Teachers of these Nations to the end of the world * See John
at all to the preservation of the Church which subsisted well without it for the first three hundred years having had for that space no General Councils and therefore it is vainly put Or 2ly If such unerring Guide necessary yet that Christians have no such Guide to repair to in the Intervals of these Councils ‖ Dr. Pierce his Answ to Cressy p. 6. c. 3ly γ as for these Supreme Councils γ it is urged that Experience hath shewed them not unerrable in deciding Controversies since they are found as well as particular persons and Churches somtimes to contradict one another See Chillingw p. 131. arguing in this manner If you say that these particular Clergy-men or Churches would fail us and contradict themselves so as we pretend have yours There have been Popes against Popes Councils against Councils Councils confirmed by Popes against Councils confirmed by Popes Lastly the Church i.e. Catholick of some Ages against the Church of other Ages 4. Lastly If such Councils granted unerring ‖ Chillingw p. 93. Stillingf p. 538 c. Whitby p. 432. δ. δ yet that no certain knowledg can be attained by private Christians which Councils is general and lawful which otherwise ε. ε what be their definitions and how many and what the true sense of their definitions which and many more like Objections see more fully solved Disc 3. § 86. c. To the first of these α. α I answer That this Inerrability in Necessaries accompanies the Clergy and preserves the Church in all times and did so in the three first Centuries § 18 Answererd R. to being annexed to the whole Body or much major part of this Clergy not only when met in a General Council which supposition the Objection proceeds upon but out of it also whenever and however they shall manifest a concurrence in their Judgment and Agreement in their doctrine whether it be by several Provincial Councils assembled or perhaps only by some one convened in the place more infested with some new and dangerous errour which Council afterward hath the ratification of the chief Pastor of the Church together with his Council and hath the tacit approbation or non-contradiction of other co-ordinate Churches Or whether by their Communicatory and Synodical Letters Or whether in their publick Liturgies and Offices Or in a General Consent in their publick Writings Catechismes and Explications of Christian-Doctrine In none of which as to Doctrine Necessarie the whole Body of the Clergy or that which in any dissent is to he accepted for the whole shall ever err § 19 To the second I answer That this Body of the Clergy remaining in all times if in the Interval of Councils any new Errour dangerous to the faith and not formerly condemned by any such Council To β. doth afflict the Church is vigilant by some of those wayes aforenamed wherein it is unerrable as the times afford convenience to suppress it So was Pelagianism crushed without a General Council by several Provincial ones and the joint Declarations of the Chief Prelates of the Catholick Church But if such Errour trouble the Church as hath been condemned by such former Councils here the same Governours within their several Circuits take care to put in execution the former unerring Decrees In both therefore the present Church-Guides are secure from Errour in any Necessaries whilst in respect of Errours fore-condemned they adhere to and follow the definitions of former Councils in new ones raised which are thought any way to hazard the Christian faith they unite afresh their common Judgment in some of the foresaid wayes as times permit either in one General or several inferiour Synods or other Intelligence or Correspondences of Churches such as may be equivalent to those Assemblies which are more Oecumenical § 20 To the third γ. To γ. It is denied That experience hath at any time shewed the latter Church or Council to have varied from or contradicted the precedent As for those points which are frequently alledged by Protestants to prove some such difference they are either Decrees of some Council that is declared by the Church Catholick unlawful or Tenents held indeed by a considerable part of the Church in several ages diversly but in none defined by her in the manner above-mentioned § 21 To the fourth δ. To δ. I answer That what or how many of former Councils are lawful and obligatory a Christian ought to rely upon and is sufficiently secure in the judgment of the Catholick Church taken in the sense explained before § 18. and below § 36 38 § 22 To ε. To ε. A Christians certain knowing all the Decrees of Councils and their sense 1. That though all the definitions of such lawful Councils are supposed in some kind necessary to some or other yet some are necessary to be explicitly known to one that are not so to another and that there lies no obligation on every one or on most to know them all but only when sufficiently proposed to him not to dissent from them 2. Next That experience shews that in all Churches the subjects thereof do or may sufficiently learn from the common Tradition therein those publick Doctrines and Articles the confession and practise of which is required from them At least a Christian using a diligence suitable to his calling may receive sufficient instruction from his particular spiritual Guides if these are members of the Church Catholick both concerning them and the true sense of them so far as these are necessary to be known Which particular Guides also are the less liable to mistake or to deceive him because as hath been faid they do no more than he proceed upon their own judgment but do hold themselves obliged to submit this to the common one of the Church a way of security of not erring themselves in what they teach others which the Guides of all other Sects disclaim 3. But yet when any hath suspicion of mis-information from these he hath other superiour Guides subordinate in authority one to another whom to consult and is obliged only to acquiesce in the supremest which is secure from erring in any necessaries as is explained in the answer to the first In which obeying of his Guides God who hath enjoyned it to them will never suffer him in necessaries to be misled by them This then is the Catholick course § 23 As for the greater security which Protestants pretend to be in their way of directing Christians for the knowledge of necessaries ‖ See Chillingw p. 376. 377. because the Rule which they refer men to for their Guidance the Bible or holy Scriptures are all true certain infallible but these Guides the Roman Party directs men to especially those particular Pastors beyond whom few go are not so they mis-relate the matter For 1st The Bible or Holy Scriptures are equally acknowledged an all-true certain and infallible Rule for the guidance of Christians by both parties
some of them enemies to the Christian Religion and divided into so many Communions that it is not visible to the eye of man how they should be regularly assembled I say here he adds ‖ Schisme guarded p. 352. That because it is not credible that the Turk will send his Subjects that is four of the Proto-Patriarchs with their Clergy to a General Council or allow them to meet openly with the rest of Christendom in a General Council it being a thing so much against his own Interest that therefore if these Patriarchs do deliver the Sense and Suffrages of their Churches by Letters or by Messengers this is enough to make a Council General And That as there have been General Oriental Councils Without the personal presence of a Western Bishop so there may be an Occidental Council I add General without the Personal Presence of one Eastern Bishop by the sole communication of their Sense and their Faith And for the calling also of this General Council §. 35. n. 2. he saith ‖ Ib. p. 356. That if the Pope have any right either to convocate General Councils himself or to represent to Christian Soveraigns the fit Seasons for Convocation of them either in respect of his beginning of unity or of his Proto-Patriarchate he doth not envy it him since there may be a good use of it in respect of the division of the Empire so good caution be observed And before p. 91. he saith That at present he will not dispute whether the Bishop of Rome by his reputed Primacy of Order or beginning of Vnity may lawfully call an Oecumenical or Occidental Council by power purely spiritual which consists rather in advice than in mandates properly so called or in mandates of courtesie not coactive in the exterior Court of the Church that considering the division and subdivision of the ancient Empire and the present distraction of Christendom it seemeth not altogether inconvenient That the Primitive Fathers did assemble Synods and make Canons before there were any Christian Emperors but that was by authority meerly spiritual they had no coactive power to compel any man against his will and the uttermost they could do was to separate him I suppose he meaneth who contemned their summons or their Canons from their communion and to leave him to the coming or judgment of Christ Ib. p. 120. He seems to allow the Church-Governours a right to summon Councils where there are no Christian Soveraigns to do it i. e. that will do it and to make Canons such as the Primitive Bishops made before there were Christian Emperors Only I hope he will consequently allow further what was done also by these Church-Governours in the Primitive times that if Ecclesiastical Governors have authority as need requires to summon such a Meeting they may appoint some place for it which place will always be in some Princes temporal Dominions and that if they may make Canons they may divulge and send abroad their Laws and Canons to the Church's Subjects upon spirituâ—l censures inflicted on the disobedient which must be also amongst some temporal Prince his Subjects for so did the Governors of the first Council ‖ Act. 15. appoint the place of their Meeting Hierusalem and sent abroad their Canons amongst the Emperors Subjects both contrary to the then secular Powers and this without entrenching on any ones Politick Rights The Bishop having condescended to thus much concerning General Councils §. 35. n. 3. he yields further ‖ Reply to Chalced presat That until such Council the most general that is procurable he submits himself to the Church of England wherein he was baptized or to a National English Syxod But here he makes too great a leap though perhaps he had some reason for it in removing his Submission immediately from a General to a National Synod of his own Church for between these lies a Patriarchal or Occidental Synod to which he ought to submit the just authority also of which above a National Synod he elsewhere both freely maintaineth ‖ Vindic. of the Church of England p. 258. and though not here yet elsewhere he also refers his trial to it There is nothing saith he Schism Guarded p. 136. that we long after more than a General Council rightly called rightly proceeding or in defect of that a free Occidental Council as General as may be But then we would have the Bishop to renounce that Oath to the Pope that hath been obtruded upon them Lastly Concerning the quality of Obedience due to such Councils even in non-fundamentals he saith ‖ Vindic. of the Church of Engl. p. 27. That as to Questions non fundamental when these are once defined by a lawful General Council all Christians though they cannot assent in their judgment are obliged to passive Obedience to possess their souls in patience And they who shall oppose the Authority and disturb the Peace of the Church deserve to be punished as Hereticks where also he makes this the fourth way of rendring ones self guilty of Heretical pravity I suppose because though the Councils Determination in his opinion makes no point Heresie yet at least it equals the crime of the Opposer to that of an Heretick I have been somewhat copious in giving you the condescensions of this Bishop §. 36. n. 1. not to make advantage of what a single Author indulgeth Reply Where Conc. what Judgment of the Church sufficiently obligeth but because they seem no greater than reason requireth and what all Protestants allowing a Church-Government ought to stand to and therefore I desire your leave before I proceed to some other quotations to reflect a little on this submission of the Bishop's and to see how far it truly performed will rationally carry him or others towards a present settlement in many of the points controverted 1st Then This I presume here ought to be granted me that in the Bishop's or others professing a submission to the General or Vnanimous accord of the Church Catholick in any Doctrine or Practise this accord ought not to be taken so strictly either for what is defined by Councils or accepted by the Church diffusive as that if any particular Person Church or Party perhaps his own that is held Catholick dissent in any thing from all the rest being a much major part in respect thereof and joined also with the supreme Pastor of the Catholick Church and Primate of the Patriarchs he shall account himself discharged from Obedience or deny such a Consent to be sufficiently General and Unanimous to oblige him Concerning which see more Disc 2. § 25. and before § 31. 2. This premised Come we now to the Bishops submissions §. 36. n. 2. which are promised 1 st To the present Church Catholick viz. To all things universally believed or practised by it 2 ly To Free General 3 ly Or also free Occidental Councils Which to review in their Order In respect of the Church
small so is learning there by reason of extreme poverty very much decayed ‖ See Roger. Recollect Terr Saincte 2 l. Tract 4 5. Thomas à lesu dé conv Gent. 6 l. p 285. So that he must now adhere to the Western who would adhere either to the major part of Christianity or to the learned And it seems a great tergiversation and distrust in their cause for any person or Church of this Western-flourishing Body to fly and retire to such remote Confederates some of them almost our Antipodes and to decline the judgment that is easily had of the same Western-Body which hath a Conclusive authority in respect of any part thereof for controversies arising within this Patriarchat and which was alwayes by reason of the Presidency of S. Peters chair the most dignified part of Christendom and is the most free at this present time in their exercise of Religion the most unmolested in their Government and Discipline the most flourishing in Learning and Records of Antiquity and lastly which by their numerous Clergy and Populacy and the extent also of several members of their Body into all those parts where these other Churches reside do seem by much the greatest part of Christianity 4. But 4ly how numerous soever these Eastern Christians be or how good their title to give their Suffrages in Councils yet §. 36. n. 7. there seems no great advantage that can arise to the Protestant-party hence all these Churches in their publick Liturgies Doctrines and Rites as to the Protestant-controversies much what agreeing with the Greek Church ‖ See 3d Disc §. 158. c. 177 c. and this again with the Roman 5. Lastly this consent and agreement of the Greek and other Eastern Churches or the greatest part of them with the Roman in the forenamed Controversies appearing in their Liturgies Writings common Practices and these not borrowed from the West between which and them there is known to have been for many Ages no great Friendship seems sufficient to render the Occidental Councils wherein these Points have been decided either General or Equivalent thereto without those Letters or Messages which the Bishop requires as necessary from these Churches which Letters depend on the assembling of some inferior Synods Diocesan or Provincial among them a thing in so great a Desolation not to be expected Yet before the Turks last Conquests in some of these Western Councils that have determined some of these points there hath been a considerable Representative of the Eastern Churches as in the Great Lateran Council under Innocent and in the Florentine So then stands the case with the Bishop and other Protestants that yielding submission to General Councils they cannot rightly on this account withdraw it from several Councils that have been assembled in the West in later Ages 3. But next this Bishop professeth himself to submit also to the Sentence of an Occidental Council §. 36. n. 8. if a free one so that we need not further trouble our selves to enquire after a more General * 3. Of Councils Occidental but search if any such free Occidental Council hath defined all or any of the present Controversies which Council he obligeth the Protestant Churches to acquiesce in and that with good reason For the same Authority hath a Patriarchal Council over the National Churches and Synods of the West as these claim over Provincial or Diocesan the authority of which National Synods see established in the Synod under King James 1603. Can. 139 140. And the same Authority of Patriarchal granted by Dr. Field and others Disc 2. § 24. Now Occidental Councils there have been many several of them before Luther's days one since that have decreed and given their Sentence in several if not all of those Points of Controversie of which yet the Protestants do still from a free Occidental Council seek resolution ‖ See below § 50. n. 2. The enquiry then remains concerning their freedom where also I suppose no greater freedom needs be proved than as to the particular Controversies defined against Protestants For a Council to which some violence is offered in one thing which perhaps is by some potent persons therein contended for yet may be left altogether free as to many other things wherein none have any particular or all an equal interest 1st Then If we enquire into the Western Councils before Luther that of Franckfort Mistakes being removed concerning which see Mr. Thorndikes ‖ Epilog l. 3. p. 363. Concessions the great Lateran Council and those five preceding it that defined a substantial conversion in the Eucharist the Council of Constance ‖ Of Idolatry § 57. and that of Florence I find nothing objected against their freedom nor any antifaction then in the Church as to the Points we speak of against whom there was any need to procure in the Council a stronger part or to over-awe any ones liberty Nor see I any necessity of force to be used upon the Fathers for voting those things lawful which were their daily practice or for voting such a thing a truth in their Meeting as that of a substantial conversion in the Eucharist which before their convening though agitated much and contradicted by some Inferiors yet not one Bishop in the Catholick Church of those times opposed And if the paucity of the number of Western Bishops in some of these Councils should be alledged as a prejudice to them the general acceptation of them by those times makes a sufficient amends for it Next if we take into consideration the freedom of that of Trent since Luthers time §. 36. n. 9. according to the particulars required by the Bishop ‖ Before §. 35 n. 1. there are four things sufficient to remove our jealousie of any violence used for the defining most of those points I will not say all to avoid some cavils controverted by Protestants concerning which only is our inquiry They 1st is That however some of those points may be pretended to have bin voted at first as it were surreptiously by a very small Body of Bishops and many of those of one Nation yet both a full Body of Bishops afterwards in the Conclusion of the Council unanimously agreeing ratified these and the General Body of the absent Prelaces of all the Western Churches except Protestants and those of France amongst the rest accepted them The 2d That Soave no friend to this Council yet testified that as to the Protestant or Lutheran controversies the votes of the Fathers of that Council were very unanimous without any cloak-bag expected from Rome without any dispute or contracts either between themselves or with the Pope though about some other points there was much See Soave p. 230. where speaking of the Councils using ambiguity of expression in some matters wherein was some diversity of opinion among the Fathers so to satisfie all But saith he that which hath been related in this particular perhaps did happen in
Church-Governours in it whose judgments can be had to be sufficient though some lesser party continue to contradict I think several Controversies that are yet agitated will appear formerly decided and the Church's Peace not so difficult to be setled For in the Church Catholick within this last thousand years have been assembled many Councils so General as the times permitted and as the Callers thereof could procure and these her Councils have made many Definitions contrary to the Protestant Doctrines and yet she hath not hitherto though importuned by several pretending Demonstrators of the contrary to these Definitions assembled her self in any other Synod equal to the former to recall such Councils or their acts such a tacit admission being all that the Archbishop requires ‖ See before §. 327. Nay when later Councils have been called from time to time yet in these she hath altered nothing concerning those Definitions in the former Nay a much major part at least of the Church Catholick have also out of Councils in their publick VVritings Doctrines and Practises not only not contradicted but owned the Legality of these Councils and the truth of their Decrees Now may we not hence conclude that the whole Church Catholick I mean whose judgment we can procure hath in such a sence as is necessary admitted and accepted them And that nothing hath been or is brought in that she takes for a demonstration to the contrary to what she hath defined And here may we not conclude that according to the Archbishop's sence these fore-past and so long unquestioned Councils are to be esteemed infallible Or if this we may not presume what hopes have we left of ever knowing the Church Catholick's mind her acceptation or non-acceptation of any thing or of enjoying at all as to Necessaries this her infallible Guidance promised us by Protestants in stead of that of her Council's VVe have waited now above 400 years since the Conciliar determination of Transubstantiation no Council equal to those which passed it hath been assembled by the Church Catholick to retract it I ask Hath not the Church then already sufficiently accepted it though some in some times have offered to her their seeming demonstrations against it In the expectation of new domonstrations of a new Assembly such as shall be called by the whole Church Catholick and not by the Pope and of a Council more full and compleat than any former for a thousand years have been wherein the Cophtites Melahites Armenians Abyssines Russians c are to have a part I ask what shall poor Christians do for a Guide that may secure them at least in Fundamentals If first The most supream Guides that they have and have had and such acceptation of their Acts as hath been may not be securely relied on and then such an infallible Guide as is promised them instead thereof can never be had Unless these Divines also will here retreat and make use of the Answer that is mentioned before § 8. viz. that nothing at all that is or can come into controversie is necessary to be decided § 39 But If the past Councils need an acceptation of the whole Catholick Church to render them infallible more than the acceptation that is fore-mentioned what must it be 1st Must it be that of another Council assembled by the Church For such thing the Archbishop mentions But how shall we know again of this Council whether the Church Catholick sufficiently accepts it And what if it accepts this no more amply than the former Or are there any such new Evidences or Demonstrations now discoverable in matter of Faith that are not as liable to be mistaken in one Council as in another in a later as in a former If you say Yes Because a Demonstration in the Archbishop's sence ‖ is such as being proposed to any man and understood the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent unto it I answer Such a Definition suits not with Theological but Mathematical Demonstrations such as this that twice two makes four for what or how few Theological Truths are they that all in their right wits and understanding the Terms immediatly assent to when proposed Or what Judge in these matters can promise such Evidence as that none having the use of Reason shall deny his Sentence Lastly As to one Council's accepting of another where can we stay if we may not in the first For will not this second Council be rendred as uncertain to us for it's Definitions and as liable to Appeals upon other new Evidences and Demonstrations pretended against it as the former was For when in it's Definition against these false ones that are already examined it corroborates the former yet this hinders not but that some other Evidences may be produced against it and against the same Definition that may be true Or 2ly Must it be such an acceptation of the whole Catholick Church out of Council that no person or at least Church contradicts such former Council This also is unreasonable For some not only Persons but Churches and these very considerable I mean in comparison of some other Churches though not in respect of the main Body of the Catholick Profession may stand condemned of Heresie and Schism by some former Council and therefore do become uncapable of any right now either of Voting in or accepting of a future Council I mean in such a manner as that their Vote and acceptation are any way necessary to the validity thereof Or such Persons or Churches if not condemned of former Heresie yet may be by the much greater and more considerable part of the present Council for some new Doctrine of theirs against the former traditive Faith of the Church either suspended from sitting and voting with them or admitted to vote as in a thing perhaps not so clear in former tradition yet when they are in the number of Suffrages much inferior in this case neither their contrary Vote in the Council nor their non-acceptation of it afterward are of any effect as to the annulling of the Acts of such Councils Otherwise no new Tenent can be condemned by the Church if those who hold it being a considerable number will not concur to vote or to accept the condemnation thereof Some Arrian Bishops never accepted the Council of Nice nor now the Socinians Unless therefore the former acceptation of the Church Catholick though perhaps deficient in some persons or also Churches may suffice to render or declare the judgment of that Council infallible who can be assured but that this Nicen Council erred in a point Fundamental if the Deity of our Saviour may be thought such The Church Catholick's acknowledged Infallibility in Fundamentals and her acceptation of Councils may not be obstructed with such unactuable Circumstances as that these can never in any particular come to be known This for the Archbishop § 40 Again thus Dr. Field ‖ l. 4. c. 2. concerning the present Catholick Church in any one Age As
we hold it impossible the Church should ever by Apostacy Of Dr. Field and miss-belief wholly depart from God in proving whereof Bellarmine confesseth his Fellows have taken much needless pains seeing no man of our profession thinketh any such thing Bellarmin's words are Notandum multos ex nostris tempus terere dum probant absolutè Ecclesiam non posse deficere Nam Calvinus caeteri Haeretici id concedunt sed dicunt intelligi debere de Ecclesiâ invisibili So we hold that it never falleth into any Heresie So that he is as much to be blamed for idle and needless busying himself in proving that the visible Church never falleth into Heresie which we most willingly grant Bellarmin's words are Probare igitur volumus Ecclesiam visibilem non posse deficere nomine Ecclesiae non intelligimus unum aut alterum hominem Christianum sed multitudinem congregatam in quâ sunt Praelati Subditi urging also afterward out of Eph. 4.11 the Ministries of Pastors Doctors c. never to fail in the Church quae Ministeria saith he non possunt exerceri nisi se Pastores Oves agnoscant From all which I collect that of such a visible Church-Government consisting of Prelates and Subjects it must be that Dr. Field affirms Ibid. That in things necessary to be known and believed expresly and distinctly it can never be ignorant much less err nor never fall into any Heresie As also afterward c. 4. In all Ages he acknowledgeth a Church that not as a Chest preserves only the Truth as a hidden Treasure but as a Pillar by publick Profession notwithstanding all Forces endeavouring to shake it publisheth it to the world and stayeth the weakness of others c. CHAP. VI. IV. Learned Protestants conceding the former Church's Clergy preceding the Reformation never so to have erred in defining Necessaries as that the Church governed by them did not remain still True Holy and Catholick § 41. § 41 IV. SUitably to their Concessions set down in the last Chapter these Learned Protestants do not assume the confidence to pronounce IV. 4. Learned Protestants conceding the former Churches Clergy preceding the Reformation never to have so erred in defining Necessaries as that the Church governed by them did not still remain True Holy Catholick The joint Body of the Governors of any precedent Age of the Church how corrupt soever they have been in their Conciliary Definitions to have erred or to have misled the people in Necessaries Essentials or Fundamentals of Religion whether in respect of Faith or Holiness notwithstanding that they have placed in these very times the Reign of Antichrist Whence it may be presumed that the Church shall not see nor suffer hereafter worse times than those past And that all these Governors in any succeeding Age shall not miss-guide the people in Necessaries or Fundamentals whom in the times of Antichrist they have not misled so Therefore Bishop Bramhall ‖ Vindic. 2 c. p. 8. Reply to Chalcedon p. 345. holds the present Roman a true part of the present Church Catholick and frequently affirms the Reformed as to Essentitials in Faith not to have separated from it And Dr. Potter speaks thus of the present Roman Church ‖ §. 3. p. 63. The most necessary and Fundamental Truths which constitute a Church are on both sides unquestioned and for that reason learned Protestants yield them the Roman the Naeme and Substance of a true Church Dr. Field also ‖ Des 3. pt p. 880. thus apologizeth for this Tenent at least for the times before Luther Because some men perhaps will think that we yield more unto our Adversaries now than formerly we did in that we acknowledge the Latine or Western Churches subject to Romish Tyranny before God raised up Luther to have been the true Churches of God in which a saving Profession of the Truth of Christ was found I will 1st shew that all our best and most renowned Divines did ever acknowledge as much as I have written And so he proceeds to urge several Authorities to confirm it And thus Mr. Thorndike ‖ Epilog Conclusion p. 416. saith Though I sincerely blame the imposing new Articles upon the Faith of Christians and that of Positions § 42 which I maintain not to be true yet I must and do freely profess that I find no position necessary to salvation prohibited none destructive to salvation enjoined to be believed by it the Roman Church And therefore I must necessarily accept it for a true Church as in the Church of England I have always known it accepted seeing there can no question be made that it continueth the same visible Body by the succession of Pastors and Laws that first were founded by the Apostles the present Customes that are in force being visibly the corruptions of those Customs which the Church had from the beginning I suppose he means being the same Customs which the Church had from the beginning though in some manner corrupted For the Idolatries which I grant to be possible though not necessary to be found in it by the Ignorance and carnal Affections of Particulars not by command of the Church or the Laws of it I do not admit to destroy the salvation of those who living in the Communion of this Church are not guilty of the like There remaines therefore in the present Church of Rome the Profession of all the Truth which it is necessary to the Salvation of all Christians to believe either in point of Faith or Manners So he saith concerning Prayer to Saints That those who admit the Church of Rome to commit Idolatry therein can by no means grant it to be a Church the very being whereof supposeth the Worship of one God exclusive to any thing else And l. 3. c. 23 Concerning Communion in one kind he saith That they in the Church of Rome who thirst after the Eucharist in both kinds do receive the whole Grace of this Sacrament in the one kind is necessary to be believed by all who believe that the Church of Rome remains a Church though corrupt and that Salvation is to be had in it and by it 2. Again For the Essentials or Necessary Doctrines in order to Holiness these learned Protestants grant § 43 that Holy is an Attribute unseparable from Catholick Credo Sanctam Catholicam Ecclesiam And that the Church cannot be the one unless it be the other and as in the whole so in the parts that no particular Church is a part of the Catholick that hath not the Holiness of the Catholick Of which thus the Archbishop ‖ p. 14◠If we will keep our Faith the whole Militant Church must be still Holy For if it be not so still then there may be a time that a falshood may be the Subject of the Catholick Faith which were no less than Blasphemy to affirm For we must still believe the Holy Catholick Church And if she be not still Holy
then at the time that she is not so we believe a falshood under the Article of the Christian Faith Of this more needs not be said § 44 3. Again If under such Governors the visible Church preceding the Reformation is allowed to have been Catholick and Holy from these it must needs be granted also not to have been Heretical or Schismatical Which Churches Protestants contra-distinguish to the Catholick Church and all the Members of it and in which Churches dividing from the Vnity of the Catholick no salvation can be had by those who if either knowing or culpably ignorant of these sins of such a Church do not actually desert such a Communion For this likewise see the Quotations out of the Archbishop before § 367. and out of Dr. Field before § 40. Bellarmine saith he is to be blamed for idle and needless busying himself in proving that the visible Church never falleth into Heresie which we most willingly grant And l. 1. c. 7. he saith That the name of Catholick Church distinguisheth men holding the Faith in Unity from Schismaticks whom as also Hereticks though he there affirms to be in some sort of the Church taken more generally as it distinguisheth men of the Christian Profession from Infidels yet not of the Church Catholick or fully and perfectly of the Church with hope of Salvation ‖ l. 1. c. 14. p. 21 c. 7 p. 13. The Common Prayers also used both in the Roman and Protestant Churches on Good Friday shew the same Oremus saith the one pro Haereticis Schismaticis ut Deus eos ad Sanctam Matrem Ecclesiam Catholicam atque Apostolicam revocare dignetur Have Mercy Lord saith the other upon all Jews Turks Infidels and Hereticks and so fetch them home to thy Flock that they may be saved among the remnant of the true Israelites and be made one Fold under one Shepherd But in the trans-ferring these Good Friday Collects out of the former Missal into their new Common-Prayer-Book 't is observable that though the Reformed retained Hereticks yet they omitted Schismaticks and 2 ly changed the former Expression of revoca ad Sanctam Matrem Ecclesiam Catholicam Apostolicam into Fetch home to thy Flock c. As if the mention of our Holy Mother the Catholick Apostolick Church might occasion in the people some Mistakes See also Bishop Bramhal's Vindication of the Church of England c. 2. p. 9 27 28 before § 34. And thus Mr. Thorndike in his Letter concerning the present state of Religion ‖ 208. ' When we say we believe the Catholick Church as part of that faith whereby we hope to be saved we do not profess to believe that there is such a company of men as professing Christianity but that there is a Corporation of true Christians excluding Hereticks and Schismaticks and that we hope to be saved by this faith as being members of it of that Corporation And this is that which the stile of the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church signifies as distinguishing the Body of true Christians to wit so far as Profession goes from the Conventicles of Hereticks and Schismaticks For this title of Catholick would signifie nothing if Hereticks and Schismaticks were not barred the Communion of the Church Thus he § 45 In the former passages you may observe that the Authors fore-quoted speak not of some or other in the Church before Luther to have bin Catholick and consequently holy c. but of the visible Church consisting of the ruling Clergy and the subject and conforming Laity according to the publick doctrines and Definitions thereof as these being not deficient in the Essentials of the Church Catholick either as to Faith or Holiness for such a Church Catholick they believe always to be whose doctrine and definitions discipline and external visible profession maintained by the Governors thereof is Catholick And if in any other sense we call it a Catholick-Church when we hold its Governours and Doctrines mean-while Heretical and Schismatical viz. by reason of some that may be found herein Catholickly perswaded we may as well call that an heretical Church the Doctrines and Doctors of which are Catholick if perhaps some only in it be heretically affected To go on Therefore Dr. Field proceeds also so far as to own the Western Church that was before Luther § 46 for the Protestants true Mother for indeed where could he find at that time a Church any whit better to call Mother and to confesse ‖ l. 3. c. 6. ' That she continued the true Church of God until our time And To those saith he that demand of us where our Church was before Luther began We answer it was the known and apparent Church in the world wherein all our Fathers lived and died wherein Luther and the rest were baptized and ‖ 3 Part p. 880. wherein a saving profession of the truth in Christ was found In order to which he so far justifies the publick service also of those dayes which our Fathers frequented even the Canon of the Mass it self as to say ‖ Append. 3 l. p. 224. ' That the using therof no other was used in those days than is now is no proof that the Church that then was was not a Protestant Church and that both the Liturgie it self and the profession of such as used it shew plainly that the Church that then was never allowed any Romish errour And again so far justifies he the doctrine of that Church which he owns as Catholick and the Protestants Mother as to affirm ‖ 3 l. p. 81. That none of those points of false doctrine and errour which the Roman Church now maintaineth and the Protestants condemn were the doctrines of that Church before Luther constantly delivered He must mean constantly for the present Age before Luther for in that Age he acknowledgeth it Catholick or generally received by all them that were of it but doubtfully broached and devised without all certain resolution or factiously defended by some certain only c. It seems therefore that look how many Doctrines of those now condemned by Protestants may appear to have bin in the Church §. 47. n. 1. I say not here the Catholick but the Latin Church for of this he speaks before Luther not doubtfully broached but in her Councils resolved in her publick Liturgies conformed to and generally received Generally not as including every single person for so perhaps were not the doctrine of the Trinity or of Christs Incarnation received but so generally received by the then Western Church-Governors as is necessary for the ratification of the Decrees of their Representatives met in Councils for more than this cannot rationally be required so many he will acknowledge for Catholick and in obedience thereto shew a filial Duty to this his Mother And therefore after this to defend the discession of the Reformed from and their present non-communion with the present Western Church he seeks to relieve
a manifold Idolatry in her worshipping the Eucharistical Bread the Relicks and Images of Saints and making Prayers to them were they not the same in the Church before Luther and the same their effect Or if the same Errors then light are now become grievous Upon what account Is it upon a more evident Conviction Christians may have now than heretofore that such are Errors But what ground can we have to say that they now culpably and convincibly err in these who no more than those before Luther can be accused for holding any Errors save such as are the Publick Faith of the Church now authorized as much as that before Luther and who to preserve themselves from erring make use of the securest way that Reason can imagine or that Christians are prescribed whilst for the sence of the Scriptures controverted in such Points they chuse not to rely on their own judgment but on that of the supremest Guides of the Church and Judges of divine Truth that are afforded them here on earth and so if they err yet take the wisest course to miss erring that Religion or Reason can dictate To which Guides also all the Subjects of this former Communion believe submission of their private judgment to be due and to be commanded which is a very plausible one if an Error From whence also it follows that till they are convinced of Error in this one Point of Submission not to be due they are not capable of being convinced in any other where it is required Nay yet further to the Obedience of which Guides at least for silence and non-contradiction they are obliged even by the Doctrine of Learned Protestants ‖ See Disc 3. § 44. where-ever they cannot demonstrate the contrary which demonstration is a degree of Conviction surely very few can pretend to § 52 1. It is said indeed by Protestants ‖ Stillingf P. 330. Archbishop Lawd § 21. n. 5. That all Particular Churches or the whole Catholick Church in some age or ages may universally hold some Tenent that is an Error but then granted by them That any such universally held Error can never destroy the Essence or Being of the Church Catholick or render it non Catholick because thus in such age the Church Catholick would fail Now from this I collect my security ni holding any Tenents though they should happen to be Errors which were universally held in the Church before Luther that as they destroy not the Church it's being still Catholick so neither do they expell me from still continuing in the bosom of the Church Catholick And hence for example I am secured that I am no Idolater if not swerving from the Church's Doctrines because the Church whilst Catholick as she is affirmed to be is not such But in joining with a Church that pretending to reform holds the contradictories of these former universal Tenents I am not here secure but that some of these Tenents may be such Errors as exclude this new Church from being a part of the Catholick and me if adhering to it from being a Member thereof as the maintaining by the Arrians and others of some Tenents contrary to the universal Doctrines of the former Church hath separated them from the Church Catholick I say for any Tenent I can shew to have been spread over the whole Catholick Church at Luther's appearance I am secured by Protestants that in holding this I am free from Heresie or being rendred thereby extra-Catholick But then I am not so in my entring into a new Society that contradicts this Church and such Tenents except in such Points of the truth of which I am infallibly certain 2. Again it is affirmed by Protestants ‖ That a Separation may be made without Schism § 52 from the external communion of all particular Churches some of which or all which I say See Stillingf p. 331. Chillingw c. 5. §. 52 55 56 59. must be the Catholick of some age for some Points if held and imposed by them viz. Those Points wherein the Essence and Union of the Church Catholick consisteth not because in such the Church Catholick may err but cannot without Schism for other Points viz. such as constitute the necessary Faith of the Church Catholick wherein she erreth not for so she would cease to be Catholick Now from hence also I gather that I continuing in the external communion of all those particular Churches can never be non-Catholick or guilty in concurring in any Schism for my holding and conforming to any of the Church's universal Tenents because none such can destroy the Church from being Catholick still ‖ But in my separation from all these Churches imposing such Tenents I am not secure because some of these Tenents as Protestants grant may possibly be such as are some part of the necessary Catholick Faith and so my separation if made on such account is Schism § 54 This security then they seem to enjoy who live and die in the Communion of the unreformed And danger to those deserting it Western or Roman Church before or since Luthers times they being acquitted thereby from Heresie and Schism or any other error damnative to them who therein follow their spiritual Guides not against Conscience But the like I see not how any may promise to himself in living and dying in a new-raised Communion and in deserting the former especially if deserting it for any former general doctrines and practises thereof which if not enjoin'd he here left to his free liberty hath no reason for these to withdraw himself from the Communion of the whole but if enjoyned ought in these to submit to the judgment of the whole especially so many as cannot demonstrate against it ‖ See 2 Disc §. 20. to submit at least so far as if not to assent yet not to contradict All which are transgressed in following the Reformation where such a person for the sence of the Scriptures controverted and for his denying conformity to the doctrines delivered by the Church as matter of Faith either relies on his own judgment or in submitting to a Guide follows inferior against Superior Governors or Synods or a Minor against a much major part Lastly follows those who have refused conformity to the external Communion even to the Liturgies and publick service of the whole former Catholick Church whether Eastern or Western and have set up a new one against them of their own which are all manifest breaches of the unity of the whole I say I see no security any can have in such a new Communion excepting that which invincible ignorance affords which in such an apparent decession from former Churches and Councils God knows how few especially of the Learned that peruse the Writings of former times it may shelter The most moderate §. 55. n. 1. and plausible defence which Protestants or to speak more particularly which the Church of England makes for her discession Where A brief Relation of the
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
acknowledge as much as C. G. or any man the authority of a General Council against the dissent of a Nation much more of a particular Bishop And The Belief and Practises we forsook were not Doctrines defined by the Church saith Dr. Ferne ‖ Divis Eng. and Rom. Ch. p. 59. Upon such Concession concerning Councils universally accepted and upon these appeals made to them here are referred to the examination of all disinteressed §. 56. n. 3. and conscientious Christians these Considerables following the design of this discourse 1. The first Considerable is Whether the necessary points wherein our Lord is supposed perpetually so to assist his Church or her general Councils universally accepted as that she is infallible and doth not err in the decision of them and consequently whereto all her subjects are obliged to yield their assent ought not to be extended so far as to comprehend some at least of those points I mean either the Negative or Affirmative of them the disputes about which as things of the highest moment have so miserably afflicted the western Churches now for so long a time The necessary consequence of the doctrine of Transubstantiation as many Protestants maintain is the committing of Idolatry in worshipping a piece of bread for our Lord Christ Is not this point then necessary and Fundamental to Christian Religion that in a Council meeting to decide it the contrary to Transubstantiation should be therein determined For the Affirmative can never be determined in such a Council where the Negative is necessary to be believed If the belief of Gods essential Attributes is a necessary and fundamental point of faith is not the defining the contrary and giving some of them to a creature in allowing Saint-Invocation a thing with which Protestants charge the Roman Church erring in a Fundamental and if it be then cannot a General Council universally accepted so define The same may perhaps be said of many other points Merit of works VVorship of Images Communion in one kind according to what esteem many Protestants have of these errors aggravated also by their fancy that the Pope is Antichrist But suppose none of them to be in necessaries yet they being affirmed by the more moderate Reformed to be-errors very grievous damnable c. then may not a right belief of them be thought necessary so far as that the Catholick Church and such a Council may be presumed to receive from our Lord a continual preservation in a right Faith of them if the Error in them be pretended so grievous And I desire that for this Dr. Hammond's words quoted below § 59. may be well weighed As likewise this to be considered ‖ Of Heresie §. 13. whether it is not all reason that the Church or these Councils not private men or Inferiors should judge of this Necessity 2ly If this may not be granted §. 56. n. 4. that any of these modern Controversies are about Necessaries or the points such that the Church Catholick or her General Councils universally accepted in their Definitions cannot err in them and so an assent to such Definitions be due from her Subjects The Second Considerable is VVhether at least when such Councils define them all particular Persons and Churches ought not to yield the external Obedience to them of Silence and not any further opposing or contradiction without these private men's or also Church's reserving still to themselves lest some Truth should be thus oppressed new Remonstrances and Demonstrations and a Liberty if upon these Remonstrances the Church Catholick neglect to assemble another Council or it called err again in the result a Liberty I say especially if it be a Church National to reform for themselves such Errors of Councils For with such Reservations what signifie their former appeals to or to what purpose any Meeting of such Councils when as 1st The present Controversies are not allowed to be in Necessaries in all which the Roman Church and Reformed are said by them to be already fully agreed 2 And then they will yield neither any internal nor external Obedience to any such Conciliary Decrees in the stating of non-necessaries But if such an external submission of non-contradiction be thought fit to be allowed though that internal of assent cannot be obtained yet this seems to secure the Church's peace for thus a Controversie once defined cannot be revived to the disturbance thereof and if they say some Truth somtime may happen thus to suffer yet being in a non-necessary as they say it is it may be spared Neither had this Duty been duly performed by our Ancestors do I see how the past Reformation as to many points could have found any entrance And therefore though some of the formerly recited appeals of Protestants promise fairly for such an absolute submission to Councils yet the Archbishop seems to allow no more than a conditional one and with an If or Vnless still annexed I pray you look in him § 32. p. 227. Far better saith he is that Inconvenience viz. of tolerating an Error till another General Council meet than this other that any authority less than a General Council should rescind the Decrees of it unless it err manifestly and intolerably And again Ibid. No way must lie open to private men to refuse Obedience till the Council be heard and weighed as well as that which they say against it yet with Bellarmine's Exception still here misse-applied ‖ De Concil l. 2. c 8. Bellarmine constantly denying that a General Council lawfully proceeding and confirmed by the Pope can err in any matter of Faith the Bishop here affirming it so the Error be not manifestly intollerable Nor is it fit for private men in such cases as this upon which the whole Peace of Christendom depends to argue thus The Error appears Therefore the Determination of the Council is ipso jure invalid But this is far the safer way I say still when the Error is neither-fundamental nor in it self manifest to argue thus The Determination is by equal authority and that secundum jus according to Law declared to be invalid Therefore the Error appears 3ly If this submission of non-gainsaying at least §. 56. n. 5. may be once granted the third thing recommended to a diligent Examination is Whether not only the Roman but all the Occidental Churches joined with the Western and Prime Patriarch the Exordium Vnitatis as S. Cyprian ‖ Cyprian de Vnit Ecclesiae with Bishop Bramhall's approbation stiles him ‖ Schism Guarded p. 4 25. and the Councils that have been heretofore assembled in the West be not for the Doctrines wherein we find the Greek Churches also consenting with them in such a sence the whole as that any Christian especially a Member of the VVestern Church ought to take these for their supream Guide in defect of any greater Meeting and ought to yield obedience of Assent to them in defining Necessaries or in not Necessaries of non-contradiction
from one another all concurring in the same judgment for a corporal Presence and a substantial mutation Or can there be any new Light in this Point since there are no new Revelations attainable in these present times which those were not capable of Or if there could is not much the major part of the present Clergy and Ecclesiastical Governors of Christianity still swayed on the same side against any present evidence pretended If we consider saith Dr. Hammond ‖ Of Heresie §. 13. n. 2 3. Gods great and wise and constant Providence and Care over his Church his desire that all men should be saved and in order to that end come to the knowledge of all necessary Truth his promise that he will not suffer his faithful Servants to be tempted above what they are able nor permit Scandals and False Teachers to prevail to the seducing of the very Elect his most pious godly Servants If I say we consider these and some other such like General Promises of Scripture wherein this Question about the Errability of Councils seems to be concerned we shall have reason to believe that God will never suffer all Christians to fall into such a temptation as it must be in case the whole Representative should err in matter of faith I add to define therein any thing contrary to the Apostles depositum and which Christians may not safely believe or without idolatry practise and therein find approbation and reception among all those Bishops and Doctors of the Church diffused which were out of the Council And though in this case the Church might remain a Church and so the destructive gates of hell not prevail against it and still retain all parts of the Apostle's Depositum in the hearts of some faithful Christians which had no power in the Council to oppose the Decree or out of it to resist the General approbation yet still the testimony of such a General Council so received and approved would be a very strong Argument and so a very dangerous temptation to every meek and pious Christian and it is piously to be believed though not infallibly certain That God will not permit his Servants to fall into that Temptation Thus Dr. Hammond whose words I desire may be seriously considered with application to this great Controversie of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass We do not believe saith the same Doctor ‖ Ibid §. 14. n. 6. that any General Council truly such ever did or shall err in any matter of Faith ‖ See before §. 56. n. 2. We are most ready in all our differences to stand to the judgment of the truly Catholick Church and its lawful Representative a free General Council ‖ Vind. c 2. p. 9. Or in defect of that a free Occidental Council ‖ Schism Guarded p. 136 saith Bishop Bramhal It seems very fit and necessary for the peace of Christendom that a general Council supposed thus erring should stand in force till evidence of Scripture or demonstration make the Errors to appear as that another Council of equal authority reverse it Saith Arch-Bishop Lawd ‖ p. 227. Again An Argument necessary and demonstrative is such saith he as being proposed to any man and understood the Mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent unto it So it is not enough to think on to say it is demonstrative the light of a demonstrative Argument is the evidence which it hath in its self to all that understand it Well but because all understand it not If a quarrel be made as was by Berengarius four or five times Who shall decide it No question but a General Council For if it be evident to any man then to so many learned men as are in a Council doubtless And if they cannot but assent it is hard to think them so impious that they will define against it And if that which is thought evident to any man be not evident to such a grave Assembly its probable it s no Demonstration and the Producers of it ought to rest and not to trouble the Church ‖ Pag. 245 246. Thus Arch-bishop Lawd How then I say in the present point can the reformed reviving the former Arguments of Bertram Scotus Erigena Berengarius c. still trouble the Church again with urging of them after the judgment of so many Councils already passed upon them If the reformed tie us to obedience as of assent when the Council brings evident Scripture or Demonstration so of Silence when we cannot bring it against the Council and after our bringing what we think Demonstrative tie us to stand to the judgment of the Council whether it be so or no From hence it follows that as we may not gain-say a second Council after our Demonstrations proposed and disallowed by it so we may not gain-say the former or the very first Council if we produce no new demonstrations but such as were considered by such Council and rejected Now if Councils are thus to judg of Demonstrations brought against their former Decrees and the Contradictour to acquiesce in their judgment Can any desire a fairer Judicature by Councils in any matter for silencing future disputes if not for uniting variety of opinions than there have already bin of this And is there any reason that Protestants should refer themselves in this point as they do to the judgment of a new Council If all these Councils successively erred in this point so manifestly as that they could not lawfully oblige their subjects especially bringing no new Arguments to silence the next and the next to that of such Councils as ever we can hope for may err so too and the same obedience of silence be denied to them whilst one pretended Evidence or Demonstration quelled another new one starts up and demands satisfaction § 60 But if these Councils be invalid for establishing the belief or at least the non-opposition of a substantial Conversion Let us see the proceedings of the Reformation here to repeal their Acts and establish the contrary to them After all these Councils forenamed and that of Trent added to them A. D. 1562. a Synod is called at London of two Provinces only of the West consisting of about twenty four Bishops and two Metropolitans And by these against all the former Councils abovesaid it is decreed ‖ Article 28. That the change of the substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture and overthrows the nature of a Sacrament If then the rest of Christendom have no more then Protestants here say they have for many ages they have had no Sacrament of the Lords Supper amongst them Next in obedience to this their decree they tie their subjects not to silence or a non-contradiction of it but to subscribe ‖ Synod 1603 Can. 63 that they acknowledge it i. e. confess believe it to be agreeable to the Word of God i.e. to be true
non posse ut Christi Corpus tanto intervalio a nobis disjunctum in coenâ revera comedamus Idcirco ille ipse qui sententiae istius author est fatetur se hoc Mysterium nec mente percipere nec liguâ explicare posse And thus also Rivet ‖ Animad in Grot. p. 85. against it Si Corpus Christi non est in Sacramento quantitativè i. e. corporally or secundum modum corporis non est omnino quia Corpus Christi ubicunque est quantum est aut non est Corpus Now if it be said here that though the Real Presence of Protestants to the worthy Receiver admits indeed some seeming contradictions yet doth the Roman Real Presence to the Symboles suâ—â—er many more 1st I answer that a Tenent involving one true contradiction is as far removed from Truth as that which involves a hundred And 2 ly That I know no just bounds but that if ineffable incomprehensible may be used for salving three or four seeming impossibilities so it may be for forty § 69 As for the Fears suggested by some ‖ Still p. 117. 567. Tillots p. 275 That if the judgment of all mens sences is not to be relied on in the matter of the Eucharist then it will be impossible to give any satisfactory account of the grand Foundations of Christian Faith For what assurance can be had of any Miracles c Why not the Apostles be deceived in Christ's being risen from the grave For might it not be an invisible Spirit under the Accidents of Christ's Body And since hearing may fail as well as sight may not we thus question all Church-Tradition That nothing is to be admitted by us as certain which admitted we can be certain of nothing c. As for such Tragical Consequences I say they need not much terrifie us § 70 For 1st If it be not true in the Eucharist I suppose it is in another instance that under the outward accidents and appearances to the sences of one body was contained the substance or presence of another viz. under the external appearance of men the persons of Angels so that the sences of all men that looked upon them were actually mistaken Gen. 18.19 And so would so many more as had beheld them Doth it follow now from this deception of Sence or Reason here which cannot be denied that after this it is impossible to give any satisfactory account of the grand Foundations of Christian Faith or that any assurance can be had of Miracles c. Or lastly That we can be thence-forward certain of nothing If not how follows it from the like supernatural Operation supposed in the Eucharist An Argument drawn from our Sences is not from any of these supernatural effects deceiving sence weakned for proving any Truth save only in so many Particulars wherein we have or pretend divine Revelation concerning such deception of our sence If then there be such Divine Revelation for a deception of sence or natural reason in the Eucharist I hope all will see these aggravating consequences to be vain But 2ly If this Revelation be mistaken yet cannot that deception of sence which is only believed upon its supposal be from hence justly extended to any other thing where this is not supposed So that whether such Revelation be or be not Catholicks and the truth in such hasty and unweighed Argumentations are much wronged This from § 62. I have annexed though somwhat besides the design of this Discourse that the reluctances of our Sence or Natural Reason may do no prejudice to our Faith and humble submission in this great Mystery to the Traditions of the Church and Definitions of Councils The End of the first Discourse THE SECOND DISCOURSE Proceeding upon the Concessions of Learned Protestants That the Pastors of the Church some or other in all Ages do infallibly guide their Subjects in Necessaries to search which in any Division of these Pastors are those to whom Christians ought to adhere and yeild their Obedience THE CONTENTS CHAP. 1. PRotestants grant 1st That there is at this present an One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church § 1. 2ly That the present Pastors and Governors thereof have authority to decide Controversies § 2. 3ly That these Governors some or other of them shall never err or miss-guide Christians at least in absolute Necessaries to Salvation § 3. 4ly That they and the Church governed by them stand always distinct from Heretical or Schismatical Congregations § 5. Chap. 2. Catholicks further affirm 5ly That if these Pastors guide unerringly in Necessaries the People are also to learn from them what or how many Points are necessary so far as the knowledge thereof is necessary to them § 6. 6ly Again That the Necessaries wherein these Ecclesiastical Governors are infallible Guides ought not to be confined to some few points absolutely necessary but extended to all such points of Faith as are very beneficial to Salvation § 9. 7ly Concerning the exact distinguishing of necessaries from non-necessaries 1. That there seems no necessity that the Church guides should be enabled exactly to distinguish them § 12. 2. That they may infallibly guide in them though not infallibly distinguish them § 14. 3. That they guiding infallibly in all necessaries and no distinction of these made ought to be believed in all points they propose except an infallible certainty can be shewed of the contrary § 15. 4. That these Governors do distinguish and do propose as such all those more necessary points which it is requisite for Christians with a more particular explicite Faith to believ § 17. 8. That Christians submitting their judgment to the present Church-Governors in deciding all necessary matters of Faith ought also to submit it to them in declaring the sence of the Fathers or Definitions of Councils and former Church concerning the same Matters § 19. 9ly That supposing these Guides to err in some of their Decisions yet their Subjects by the concession of Learned Protestants ought to yield the Obedience either of silence or also of assent to them in all such points whereof they cannot demonstratively prove the contrary § 20. 10. From whence it follows that none may adhere to any new Guides but only so many as can demonstrate the Errors of the former § 21. Chap. 3. 11. Granted by all that these Church-Governors may teach diversly and some of them more or fewer may become erroneous in Necessaries and miss-guide Christians in them § 22. 12. In such dissenting therefore that there must be some Rule for Christians which Guides they ought to follow and that this 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. 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 time of Arrianisme § 26. n. 2. 13. That
accordingly both in Councils their defining Matters of Religion and in the Church's acceptation of their Decrees the much Major part must conclude the whole and the opposing of their Definitions also be Heresie and separation from their Communion Schism if an Opposition to or separation from the whole be so § 27. n. 4 14. As for the Protestant Marks whereby in any Division to know these true Guides viz. A right teaching of God's Word and a right Administration of the Sacraments that these are things to be learned from these true Guides first known § 28 Chap. 4. An Application of the former Propositions in a search which of the opposite present Churches or of the dissenting Ecclesiastical Governors thereof is our true Guide § 30. Motives perswading that the Roman and the other Western Churches united with it and with the Head thereof S. Peter's Successor are this true Guide 1st Their being the very same Body with that which Protestants grant was 150 years ago the Christian 's true Guide and the other Body confessing themselves in external Communion departed from it § 33. 2ly Their being that Body to which if we follow the former Rule recited Prop. 12. we ought to submit § 35. 3ly Their being that Body that owns and adheres to the Definitions and Decrees of all the former Councils such as the Church of preceding Ages hath received as General or obliging as well those Councils since as those before the Sixth or Seventh Century which later the other Party rejects § 37. Chap. 5. The pretended Security of those Protestants who deny any certain living or Personal Guide infallible in Necessaries affirming 1. That all necessary Matters of Faith are even to the unlearned clear in the Scriptures and the Controversies in non-necessaries needlesse to be decided § 38. 2. That all Necessaries are clear in Scripture because God hath left no other certain Means Rule or Guide of the knowledge of them save the Scriptures § 39. n 1. Not any certain living Guide 1st Which is infallible as their Guide the Scriptures are § 39. n. 2. 2ly Which the unlearned in any Division can discern from the false Guides or know their Deerees better than the Scriptures 3ly From whom the Scriptures direct them to learn Necessaries or tell them what Church or Party they are to adhere to in any Schisme made In which infallible Guide if there were any such as being a thing of the greatest concernment the Scriptures would not have been silent Ibid. Reply 1. That Evidence of the Scriptures hath been the usual Plea of former Hereticks in their dissenting from the Church 2. That as to the main and principal Articles of the Christian Faith the sufficiency of the Rule of Scripture is not denied by Roman Catholicks but only the clearness thereof as to all mens capacities questioned And another Guide held necessary It is replied then I. Concerning the Clearnesse of Scripture 1. That some Controversies in Religion since the writing of the Scriptures have been concerning points necessary As those Controversies concerning the Trinity the Deity and Humanity of our Lord the necessity of God's Grace c. § 43. 2. That the more clear all Necessaries are in Scripture still with the more securitie may Christians relie for them on the Church's judgment from which also they receive these Scriptures § 41. 3. That there is no necessity that all Necessaries should be revealed in Scriptures as to all men clearly § 41. 1. Because it is sufficient if God hath left this one Point clear in Scriptures that we should in all difficulties and Obscurities of them follow the Directions and adhere to the Expositions and Doctrines of these Guides § 41. 2. Sufficient if God hath by other Apostolical Tradition at least clearly revealed to these Church-Guides all such necessary Truths to be successively communicated by them to his people § 44. 3. Sufficient if God hath by Tradition at least clearly revealed to these Church-Guides the sence of such Scriptures as are in points necessary any way obscure Ibid. 4. Sufficient if God in the Scripture hath clearly enough revealed all necessary Truths to the capacity of these Church Guides using due means though he hath not to the capacity of the unlearned for from those these may learn them § 45. II. Concerning a living Guide 1. That where the Scripture especially several Texts compared is ambiguous and in Controversy the Christians Guide to know the true sence cannot be the Scripture but either the Church's or their own judgment § 46. n. 1. 2. That it is not necessary that God in the Scriptures should direct Christians to what Guide they are to repair § 46. n. 2. Or to what Church-Prelates or Party in any Schism Christians for ever ought to adhere § 47. n. 2. 3. Yet that God hath given Christians a sufficient direction herein in his leaving a due subordination among these Governors whereby the Inferiors are subjected to the Superior and a part unto the whole § 47. n. 3. And that Christians may more clearly know the sence of their Definitions in matters controverted than the sence of the Scriptures § 48. THE SECOND DISCOURSE CHAP. I. Protestants assenting 1. That there is at this present an One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church § 1. 2. That the present Pastors and Governours thereof have Authority to decide Controversies § 2. 3. And that their Governors shall never err or mis-guide Christians at least in absolute Necessaries § 3. 4. And that they with the Church governed by them do stand always distinct from Heretical and Schismatical Congregations § 5. § 1 1st THat there is an One Holy Catholick Apostolick Church in this Age and at this present time All Proposition 1 I suppose grant § 2 2ly That this present Church that is in its Pastors Prop. 2. and Governors is appointed for a Guide to Christians and hath Authority to decide Controversies is unquestioned also among several learned Protestants ‖ See Disc 1. §. 3◠c. And I think is a part of the 20 th Article of the Church of England which Article saith The Church hath Authority in Controversies of Faith And what can it mean but for deciding them or who decide them but the Ecclesiastical Governors § 3 3ly That these present Governors in this present Age either * collectively taken as they are assembled in a Council Prop. 3. the Decrees whereof are universally accepted by those Governors of the Church diffusive that are absent from it or * disjunctively taken for some visible Society or other of them at least somtimes lesser somtimes greater shall never misguide Christians at least in absolute Necessaries to salvation is also acknowledged by learned Protestants ‖ See Disc 1. §. 25. c. And seems to be the clear sence of the 19 th Article of the Church of England which affirms ' The visible Church of Christ to be a Congregation of faithful men ‖ See Art
greater necessity * that these Church-Governors should be enabled exactly to distinguish these Prop. 7. as to all particulars Or * that Catholicks should learn such distinction from their Governours than that Protestants should learn it from the Scriptures And the Answer which Protestant give for a non-necessity of this latter viz. Because who believes all the Scripture believes all Necessaries revealed in it they may take for a non-necessity of the other because who believeth all that the Church defineth believeth all Necessaries defined by it neither again can the Protestants justly require any certainty explicitness or distinction of faith concerning the Proposals of the Church which distinction c. themselves do not maintain or think necessary concerning the Proposals and sence of Scripture So if the Protestant Divines grant a sufficient certainty as they do ‖ See Mr. Chillingw p. 160. in a Christian's faith who believes all Fundamentals from the Authority of Scriptures * tho mean-while he knows not from the same Scriptures which or how many they are nor either the Protestant-Guides or their followers out of these Scriptures can make any certain catalogue of them and * though they also may in the sense of many Texts of Scripture err and mistake so that they only build a sufficiency of their faith upon this hypothetical certainty that if the point be necessary they using a due industry cannot err in the sense of such Scriptures because all necessaries God hath in these Scriptures clearly revealed Then they cannot deny the same sufficient certaînty of a Catholicks faith that believes all fundamentals from the Proposal of his Ecclesiastical Guides if these Guides be granted in these infallible tho' neither he nor these Guides should certainly know for all points which or how many these fundamentals be § 13 Very vain therefore seems that discourse of Mr. Chillingworth c. 3. § 57. so far as it is made use of to this purpose to shew upon the non-distinction of fundamentals or the supposed liability of Church-Guides to err in non-fundamentals the uncertainty or unsufficiency of a Catholicks faith As also ridiculous that arguing of his where when Catholicks say they are certain concerning every particular point proposed by the Church that if it be a fundamental she errs not in it i.e. errs not in what she determines concerning it or errs not in determining any thing against it He faith They say that they are certain that if it be a fundamental truth the Church doth not err in it i. e. in holding it which faith he is in plain English to say you are certain it is true if it be both true and necessary § 14 2ly Neither doth it follow from these Church-Guide's supposed inability exactly to distinguish Necessaries from non Necessaries that therefore they are or can be no infallible Guide in all Necessaries that is in teaching and prescribing them though they should not be so in distinguishing them and in their teaching nothing besides togesher with them Nor is that consequence of Mr. Chillingworth's ‖ p. 105 150 true That if there be a Society of men infallible in Fundamentals they must be so also in declaring what is Fundamental or necessary what not unlesse upon this supposition that the declaring thereof is also a thing Necessary as I suppose he meant it For I may be certainly by the divine goodness preserved from error in many truths which yet I do not certainly know that they are truths And again further may certainly know somthing to be a truth and teach it to others and yet not further know it to be a truth so absolutely necessary as perhaps it is To use Mr. Chillingworths simile ‖ p. 159. A Physicians in his using of a medicine consisting of twenty Ingredients of which medicine he is certain that the whole receit hath in it all things necessary to the cure of such a disease yet may not exactly know whether all the Ingredients thereof are absolutely necessary or only some of them necessary the rest only profitable and requisite ad melius esse or some only necessary some profitable and the rest superfluous yet not hurtful As also the Protestants grant that the Church in delivering the Scriptures delivers all necessary truths therein yet without punctually knowing what or how many they are § 15 3ly It seems most reasonable that a Guide of whose not erring in Necessaries 3. I am secure But neither I nor it can exactly distinguish such from non-Necessaries should be believed by me in all it proposeth though in some Proposals it should be liable to error I must add one exception indeed If that in no particular which it proposeth I am infallibly certain of the contrary for then in such I am sure that the Tenent of this Guide can be no fundamental Truth because not truth But first this Exception is unserviceable to all those which are the most as can plead no such infallible certainty for so many stand obliged still to the former belief 2ly such exception can rationally be made use of by none in the matters we speak of for who can presume himself thus certain in a matter of faith or in his own sense of Scripture though the literal expression be never so clear where so many learned and his Superiors comparing other texts c. understand it otherwise and are of a contrary judgment For it is the same as if in a matter of sense a dim-sighted person should professe himself certain that an object is white when a multitude of others the most clear-sighted that can be found having all the same means with him of a right sensation pronounce it black or of another colour § 16 Now this case only excepted I say such Guide ought to be believed by me in all it proposeth And this upon a triple account 1st because otherwise I expose my self to error in something necessary to which error in not following this Guide I am very liable for though I have besides this Guide a Rule infallible yet my sence thereof is not so in points that are controverted 2ly because this is such a Guide as learned Protestants grant that Gods Command doth oblige me to obey its judgment where I have no certain evidence of the contrary of its decrees ‖ See below §. 20. And also common reason obligeth me to follow a better judgment than my own especially when I do it as with due humility so with sufficient safety because thus it must be only a non-Necessary that I can err in and as I am certain if a fundamental that it is true what it delivers so not certain if it be no fundamental that then it is not true 3ly because though somthing superfluous may possibly be determined by this Guide yet considering the former notion of Necessaries ‖ §. 9. to which there seems good cause that the infallibility of this Guide be extended who will undertake to exclude any particular Church-definition
from being in some of the fore-named respects necessary especially when he must do this against better Judgments whilst these Guides consulted about any particular decrees of theirs will never professe or grant to him to have passed it but as thought in respect of some times places or persons Christian-faith or manners edification of particulars or Government of the Church necessary This concerning the reasonablenesse of believing in all points those who are infallible in all Necessaries § 17 4ly Though these Church-Guides should be granted not to be enabled by the divine assistance so far as to distinguish exactly Necessaries 4. from non-Necessaries in all points so that nothing should be redundant in their definitions or proposals Yet it seems rationally concluded That they are always so far divinely assisted not only in their decisions not to err in Necessaries but also in their judgment to discern and distinguish them from others not necessary to be so much pressed and in their diligence to propose them as that they shall never fail in the discerning or proposing in their Creeds Catechisms and other publike teaching all more absolute necessaries or all points requisite to be explicitly believed for all things defined are not necessary to be by all known or to all taught never fail in proposing these I say so clearly and entirely to all the subjects of the Church even the unlearned as that none can be ignorant thereof without his neglect to hearken to such a sufficient Proposal which is in all times made by the Church § 18 The Reason of this Indeficiency of Church-Guides in the Proposal of such Necessaries is Because it seems most just and is on all sides accorded that all Necessaries wherein an explicite faith is required of all Christians should be to them by some means or other sufficiently proposed And then the dispute concerning this sufficient Proponent lying between the Scriptures and the Church for what other external Proponent can be devised of these two as to several of these Points the latter must be it 1st Because experience shews the sense of Scripture not evident to all in many great Articles of faith which Articles yet are cleared by the Church-Guides ‖ Stillingf p. 58 59. So that tho' it be true which Mr. Chillingworth saith ‖ p. 18. 160 â—6 That he who believes all that is Scripture believes all Necessaries yet so it is that in many places of Scripture and that about points thought necessary when variously interpreted many unlearned especially know not what to believe for the Scripture-sence in such places and thus fail in the explicit belief * of some part of Scrirture and so perhaps * of some Necessaries in it 2ly Because before the penning of the New-Testament-Scriptures this office of the Proposal of all divine necessary truths to the people belonged to the Church-Guides to Timothy Titus and others Nor seems their authority by the writing of the Christian faith diminished by which Writings also they are still more enabled compleatly to perform their former duty 3ly Because these Scriptures also refer us in controversies and in learning our faith to the direction of these Guides See § 3. 4ly Because the illiterate within the Church-Catholick to whom also God is not deficient in the revelation of all necessary faith cannot have this from Writings but must receive it from their Guides and Pastors as also they did in all those times before Christ when the Holy Scriptures remained only in the hands of the learned or also before any of them were penned § 19 18. If we ought to submit our judgments to these present guides in their deciding what are necessary matters of Faith Prop. 8. according to the fifth Proposition preceding ‖ See §. 6. it seems reasonable that so we ought also to submit * in their expounding all former Writings concerning the same matters that are pretended any way ambiguous and so cannot end the Controversie made about their sense whether these be the Writings of the Scriptures or Fathers or former Councils of the Church And also * in their declaring which of former Councils are Legal and Obligatory So that the ultimate determination of doubts * concerning all former Determinations and Definitions of former Church in such matters of necessary Faith as well as * concerning new questions when Controversie is raised in them ought to be referred to these present Judges and their determinations hereupon so far as we can have them to be peaceably acquiesced in For if we ought to receive all that they deliver to us as matters of necessary Faith we ought also and may as securely credit them when declaring what in these Necessaries was the Faith of their Predecessors § 20 9ly Protestants also agree that though these Guides may erre in some Points not necessary yet their Subjects ought to yield their silence and by no means to contradict them Prop. 9. or as some more judicious Protestants do yield yet further ought to submit their Judgments also and yield their Assent to them even in those Definitions wherein these Guides are liable to Error whenever not these Guides do prove to them their Conclusions so much is thought unreasonably exacted but when their Subjects cannot demonstratively prove the contrary In this matter thus Dr. Jackson in stating the Question whether the Injunction of publick Ecclesiastical authority may oversway any degree of our private perswasion concerning the unlawfulness of any Opinion or action ‖ On the Creed l. 2. § 1. c. 5. It is most evident saith he ‖ Ibid. c. 6. from the former places alledged ‖ Eph 4.11 Heb. 13.17 Luk. 10.16 Ioh. 20.23 Ib. concerning the Commission of Priests and Ministers that the lawful Pastor or Spiritual Overseer hath as absolute authority to demand Belief or Obedience in Christ's as any Civil Magistrate hath to demand Temporal Obedience in the State or Prince's Name And Our Disobedience i. e. Dissent or non-submission of Judgme is unwarrantable unlesse we can truly derive some formal contradiction or opposition between the injunction of Superiors and express Law of the most High Every Doubt or Scruple that the Church's Edicts are directly or formally contrary to God's Law is not sufficient to deny Obedience Again We may not put the Superior to prove what he commands but he is to be obeyed till we can prove the contrary If Pastors are only to be obeyed when bringing evidence out of Scripture what Obedience perform we to them more than to any other man whatsoever For whosoever shews the express undoubted Command of God it must be obeyed of all If we thus only bound to obey then I am not more bound to obey any other man than he bound to obey or believe me The Flock no more bound to obey the Pastor than the Pastor them And so the donation of spiritual Authority when Christ ascended on high were a donation of meer Titles This he this others ‖
due to this much greater though some smaller part dissenting and that an Opposition of their definitions in matter of faith becomes heresie and a separation from their Communion upon their requiring an approbation of and conformity to such their decrees becomes Schism if an opposition to or separation from the whole be so § 28 14. As for that way or those marks that are given usually by Protestants ‖ See Calv. Instit l. 4 c. 1. §. 9. by which Christians are to discern Prop. 14. in any division of them the Society of the true Church Guides whether these happen to be more or fewer of a higher or lower rank than the other as they say somtimes they may be the One somtimes the other from the false namely these two 1 The right teaching of the Christian doctrine 2 And right Administration of the Sacraments 1st If any are directed to finde out by these marks those Guides not only whose Communion they ought to joyn with but from whose judgment they ought to learn which is the same true Christian doctrine and which the right administration of the Sacraments i.e. are by those marks first known to find out those persons by whom they may come to know these marks as for example if one that seeks a Guide to direct him what he is to believe in the Controversie of the Consubstantiality of God the Son with the Father is first to try if Consubstantiality be true and then to chuse him for his Guide in this point that holds it The very Proposal of this way seems a sufficient confutation of it For what is this but to decide that first themselves for the decision of which they seek to anothers judgment And there is no question but after this they will in a search pitch on a Judge that decides as they do but then this is seeking for a Confederate for a Companion not seeking for a Guide for a Governour When they can state the true doctrine themselves their search for a Guide to state it is at an end and they may then search rather to whom to teach it than of whom to learn it T is granted indeed §. 29. n. 1. supposing the marks above-named were only to be found among the right Church-Guides which is not so ‖ See §. 29 n. 2. that these right Guides may be discerned from false by this mark i.e. by the truth of that doctrine which they reach by so many as can attain the certain knowledge of this true doctrine by some other means or way as by the Holy Scriptures Fathers c. Nor is private mens trying the truth of the Doctrine of these differing Guides by these denied here to be lawful nor denied that the Proposal of such a trial to the People may by the true Guides even by the Apostles be made use of with good success because the Scriptures c. may evidence to some persons intelligent in some Controversies less difficult the truth of those Doctrines which some of the learned out of great passion or interest may gainsay But then for all such points wherein a private man's trial by Scripture is very liable to mistake and the sense thereof not clear unto him as no private person hath reason to think it clear in such points of Controversie wherein the Church-Guides examining the same Scriptures yet do differ among themselves and perhaps the major part of them from him here he must necessarily attain the knowledge of his right Guide by some other Marks prescribed him for that purpose and not by the truth of that doctrine or clearness of those Scriptures for instruction in the truth or sence of which he seeks such a Guide Unsound therefore is that Position of Mr. Stillingfleet's Rat. Account p. 7. That of necessity the Rule I suppose he means and by it the Truth of Faith and Doctrine must be certainly known before ever any one can with safety depend upon the judgment of any Church And very infirm that arguing of his and so all that he afterward builds upon it where he deduceth from this Proposition conceded That a Church which hath erred cannot be relied on in matter of Religion therefore men must be satisfied whâ—ther a Church hath erred or no before they can judge whether she may be relied oâ— or no for though this be allowed here that such Church as may be relied on hath amongst other properties or sure marks this for one that she doth not or cannot err yet many other Mark or Properties she may have by which men may be assured she may be relied on who are not first able to discern or prove all her Doctrines for truth or demonstrate her not erring Such arguing is much-what like to this That Body which casts no light cannot be fire therefore a man must first be satisfied whether such a body gives light before he can judge whether it be fire Not so because one blind and not seeing the light at all yet may certainly know it is fire by another property by its scorching Heat Or like this No Book than contains any false Proposition in it can be the Book of Holy Scripture therefore men must be satisfied whether such Book contain any false Proposition in it or no before they can judge whether it be the Book of Holy Scripture or no. Not so for men ordinarily by another way viz. universal Tradition become assured that such Book is Holy Scripture and thence collect that it contains nothing in it contradictory or false and so it is for the true Church or our true Guide that though she always conserveth Truth yet men come to know her by another way and of her first known afterward learn that truth which she conserveth But 2ly These Protestant Marks viz. Truth of Christian doctrine and right Administration of Sacraments §. 29. n. 2. if we could attain a certain knowledge of them another way and needed not to learn them from the Church yet are no infallible Mark of that Catholick Body and Society to which Christians may securely adhere and rank themselves in its Communion because such Body when entirely professing the Christian Faith yet still may be Schismatical and some way guilty of dissolving the Christian Vnity as Dr. Field amongst others freely concedes Who ‖ Of the Ch. l 2. c. 2. p. 31. 33. therefore to make up as he saith the Notes of the true Catholick Church absolute full and perfect and generally diginguishing this Church from all other Societies adds to these two the entire profession of saving Faith and the right use of Sacraments a third Mark viz. an Union or connexion of men in this Profession and use of these Sacraments Under lawful Pastors and Guides appointed and authorized to direct and lead them in the happy ways of eternal Salvation Which Pastors lawfully authorized he ‖ l. 1. c. 14. grants those not to be who though they have power of Order yet have no power of
Jurisdiction neither can perform any Act thereof quae Jurisdictio descendit Ordinatis à Superiore as he notes in the Margin out of Bonavent And then we for the trial of the lawful Jurisdiction of such Pastors leaving these other Marks must return to the former Rule delivered § 23. CHAP. IV. An Application of the former Propositions in a search which of the opposite present Churches or Ecclesiastick Governors thereof is our true Guide § 30. Several Motives perswading that the Roman and other Western Churches united with It and the Head thereof S. Peter's Successor are It 1st Their being the very same Body with that which Protestants grant was 150 years ago this Guide § 33. 2ly That Body to which Christians ought to submit if the Rule delivered Prop. 12. ‖ §. 23. be observed § 35. 3ly That Body that owns and adheres to the Definitions and Decrees of all those former Councils which the Church of preceding Ages hath received as General or obliging as well those since as those before the sixth or seventh Century § 37. § 30 A Perpetual being of these Spiritual Guides infallibly directing in necessary Controversies and the due subjection Christians have to and dependance on them being thus asserted in the former Propositions The next Enquiry will be which or where now is this present visible Society and Church consisting of such a governing Clergy and right instructed People of which learned Protestants ‖ See before Prop. 3. §. 3. seem to accord with Catholicks that some where now it is that in no age nor at any time it ceaseth and that it always hath been hitherto and ever shall be infallible in necessaries Now General Council or Representative of the present Church Catholick united in one body we see there is none at this present but the same present Governors there are that do constitute and sit in these Councils when called only these now not united but dispersed through the several Nations of Christendom And these present Governors as to this Western part of Christendom which indeed is by much the more considerable the Eastern being so greatly debilitated and consumed by the heavy yoke of Mahometans are divided into two chief Bodies or Communions One body of them there is * which adhereth to the Prime Patriarch of the universal Church the Bishop of Rome and so hath done from their first Christianity acknowledging a due subordination unto him and * which also generally admits for its present Tenents and Belief the Doctrines of the Councils which have been celebrated in the Church in former ages not only those of a few of the first Councils which stated matters of ancient Controversie concerning the Trinity the Natures and Person of our Lord c. now fixed in the common Creeds but those of all the rest since which have stated Matters of later Debate and many also of those Points which are at the present disputed by Protestants ‖ Disc 1. §. 50. n. 2. * which admits I say the Doctrines of all these Councils even to the present times some few only excepted either which the Roman Patriarch with the greatest part of the West never approved or which greater Councils coming after them have annulled and in particular of the last Council that hath been held in the Church that of Trent which was purposely assembled about and hath decided most of the present Protestant Controversies To which great Body in the West I may join the Eastern Churches as agreeing with it and not remonstrating against its Conciliary Decrees in most of the Doctrines questioned by Protestants ‖ See Disc 3. §. 158. and in their present publick Service and Rites all as dissonant if not more from the Protestant's present Doctrines and Practices as the Roman is and I think all considered of the two the Union of the Reformed more difficult to the Oriental Churches § 32 Another Body of present Governors there is that is within the profession of Christianity but not allowed by the former to be within the bounds of the Church Catholick as the Church Catholick all grant is or may be much narrower than Christianity because all Hereticks or Schismaticks are Christians but not Catholicks Who having heretofore together with the rest in their Forefathers held a Communion with and acknowledged a subordination to the Western Patriarch and having also submitted to all those later Councils to which the rest till a litle before the last Council that of Trent yet have since now somwhat above a hundred years renounced external Communion with the said Patriarch and the Churches adhering to him i. e. to continue therein any longer upon those terms upon which their Fore-Fathers formerly enjoyed it and have withdrawn their Obedience from the former Councils preceding their Reformation that have bin held in the Church for almost this 1000 years I mean such as have been of Note and whose Decrees are extant and which have stated any matter of Controversie the entire Acts of none of which they can own and stand to Even those two Councils ‖ Conc. Constantinop sub Copronymo Francoford which they urge as favouring them in matter of Images being against them in some other points and the Doctrine also of those times wherein most of these Councils were held being as they say much corrupted Many of them chiefly supporting and justifying this their strange discession from their Mother the Church with a strong conceit that she had been for many former Ages turned a Whore ‖ Rev. c. 17 and out of a strange imagination they had of an Antichristian General defection happened not from the Church Catholick though that but too apparent in Mahometanisme but in it ever since the fifth or sixth Century or some also say higher according to the time wherein the Church's common Doctrines or Practices began first to displease them Yet this Fancy after that by divine permission it had had its full influence in incouraging so great an Innovation and change in Religion as would hardly have been so vigorously prosecuted upon any other Motive whatever Luther the first Reformer helping himself more with these words Antichrist and Babylon continually dropping from his Pen than by all his other Arguments This Fancy I say now of late begins to be by the more wise and learned amongst them laid aside After they had discovered the Mischief also it began to work in the shaking of Episcopacy and several other Necessary and Apostolical Constitutions in the Government of the Church which they more sober would have to be retained still in the new Model of Religion but the other more zealous to be ejected with the rest To satisfie your self in which matter you may view H. Grotius ‖ Notes on the Apocalyps and Mr. Thorndike's ‖ Right of Church in the review p. CLVI c. and Dr. Hammon'ds ‖ In his premonition concerning the Apocalyps new Schemes of Antichrist and his Kingdom
they removing it again with the Catholick Doctors quite out of the Pale of the Church and freeing the Reformed of their former Fears Which rectifying of so pernicious a Mistake of the first Reformers by a more sober posterity well considered may I hope in time much conduce to the Re-union of that Body which by this Great Engine of Satan chiefly hath been heretofore so unhappily divided § 33 In such a Division then to prosecute our Enquiry viz. who or where these Governors be that are our present Guide and that seem so much authorized by both sides in the former Propositions First If this Question had bin made by any 150 years ago there had bin no difficulty to resolve it For that Body here first named was then the whole or the only Catholick Church as to the VVest further than which he that would then have gone for choice of his Religion would have fared worse ‖ See Disc 3. §. 26. c That Body therefore then must have bin conformed to or the whole deserted as indeed it was ‖ See 1 Disc §. 55. n. 4. Now this Body is not changed in its Liturgies in its common Doctrines in its Rites since that time from what the whole was then VVitness the Reformation it self which was made against these very Doctrines and Practices that are now ‖ 1 Disc §. 47. 50. n. 2. 36 n. 5. as imposed on them before the being of the Council of Trent though some ‖ Stillingf p. 268 370 Field p. 880. 187 224. perhaps to lighten the charge of Schism would fain perswade the contrary and I wish the only contest between the two present Churches were put upon the trial of this § 34 It is here apparent then which of these two at that time when as yet one of them was not had bin our lawful Guide and Mother Church and easily cleared what then were its doctrines Of which Guide Protestants also testifie That then it erred not in Necessaries See before Prop. 3. § 3. c. Disc 1. § 41. And that also in all other points Christians were to believe it so many as could not demonstrate the contrary See Prop 9 10. § 20 21. We therefore may promise the same security to our selves in following this part of the Catholick Church as the Protestants call it though it calls it self the whole still now as our Forefathers had in following the whole then And this resting still in this Body remaining the same with what once was the whole seems security enough to all those who if this Body were now so entire and universal as it was then durst not now attempt a separation from the whole or to those who are not able to demonstrate the former separation that hath been made just and necessary the tie of Obedience to and acquiescence in the doctrines of these Guides Being dissolvable by none save demonstrators of their Errors ‖ See 3 Disc §. 44. which among the Church's Subjects can never be but a very small Number § 35 2ly But besides this main Motive of submission to the first Body as our right Judge and Guide because we find it the very same with the Church Catholick that was 150 years ago whereas the second Body confess themselves a Church that is since separated from the external Communion of that other and a body reformed from the pretended Errors and Corruptions found therein i. e. from the Errors which some of the Subjects and of the Flock for such I reckon a particular person or Church in respect of the whole found in their Guides and Judges when themselves also were inferior to them both in their paucity of number and quality of place I say besides this in the second place If we will follow the Principle laid down in the 12th Proposition ‖ §. 23. i. e. in any Contradiction happening to adhere to the Superior persons and Synods as our true Guide and amongst these to a major part as our Guide sooner than to a Minor By which Rule the Christian world hath been preserved hitherto from all those which both sides agree to have bin Heresies and which Rule unless we follow we dissolve all Government and all Vnity of this Body of Christ and introduce flat Anarchy and Confusion whilst for a Monarchical Government of the Church Protestants will not hear of it and in an Aristocratical or Government consisting of many it cannot be presumed but that there will be some Dissenters which if they may be followed against the others I ask by what Rule of Government was it that the Arrian Eutychian and Nestorian Bishops shops were forced to yield and were divested of their Pastoral authority or guiding any longer by the rest of the Bishops in the Council of Nice Ephesus and Chalcedon Lastly if we will be guided by the Church Catholick out of Council as we are in it Thus also we must needs acknowledg the first of these Bodies for our true and rightful Judge For it is apparent that this first is a much major part of the Church-Governors joyned also with the prime Patriarch of Christianity and so to be preferred by us before a minor separated If you would know then which of these two present Bodies of Ecclesiasticks you are to obey out of a Council First do you imagine them now met in a Council and next that in this Council every one delivers concerning things debated that which is his present judgment when called to the Council and this is but reasonable since there is no likelihood of new demonstrations to be made in the Council which already in so much writing on all sides these Bishops have not seen and since former tradition and not argument is the chief rule of their proceedings and no example is found in any Council past wherein its members have concluded any thing contrary to the preceding common faith of that Age wherein such Council was held Especially imagine what their sentence might be concerning this point whether the former Councils that have bin may have erred in their Definitions which one point stated negatively ruines Protestantism And then if your conscience weighing the present perswasions and practices of Christian Prelats doth convince you that the Votes of the one side would be very inconsiderable in it to the number of the other as likewise that S. Peters Chair concerning which Chair the Church's ancient Maxime hath bin Sine Pontifice Romano nihil finiendum ‖ See in Athan Apol. 2. Epist Julii Innocentii Ep. 91. apud August would join with this major part against the other what remains but that you here follow the same Body in the Interval of a Council which you must have followed in the time of a Council unless also you will reverse the common Laws of Councils § 36 Note that this is spoken of the Great Body of the Western Churches contained under the Roman Patriarch which do yet by Gods permission enjoy all
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
as Dr. Field It is that forme of Christian doctrine and Explication of the several parts thereof ‖ Of the Ch. P. 375. which the first Christians receiving of the same Apostles that delivered to them the Scriptures commended to posterity Thus he This then being the Tradition that is chiefly vindicated by the Roman Church it is not the deficiency of Scripture as to all the main and prime and universally necessary-to-be-known Articles of faith as if there were any necessity that these be supplied and compleated with other not written traditional Doctrines of Faith that Catholicks do question but the non-clearness of Scriptures for several of these points such as that they may be miss-understood which non-câ—earness of them infers a necessity of making use of the Church's tradition for a true exposition and sence is the thing that they assert and wonder that after the appearance of so many grievous Heresies and should deny For as to the Scriptures containing all the chief and material Points of a Christian's belief what Article of Faith is there except that concerning the Canon of Scripture which Protestants also grant cannot be learnt out of Scripture and excepting those Practicals wherein the Church only requiring a Belief of the Lawfulness of them it is enough if they cannot be shewed to be against Scripture I say what Speculative Article of Faith is there for which Catholicks rest meerly on unwritten Tradition and do not for it alledge Scripture I mean even that Canon of Scripture which Protestants allow A thing observed also by Dr. Field ‖ l. 4. c. 20. but too much extended This is so clear saith he That there is no matter of Faith 't is granted no principal point thereof delivered by bare and only Tradition that therein the Romanists contrary themselves endeavouring to prove by Scripture the same things they pretend to hold by Tradition as we shall find if we run through the things questioned between them and us they contrary not themselves in their holding several things to be delivered clearly by Tradition which are also but obscurely or more evadably contained in the words of Scripture Again ‖ Ib. p. 377. So that for matters of Faith saith he we may conclude according to the judgment of the best and most learned of our Adversaries themselves that there is nothing to be believed which is not either expresly contained in Scripture or at least by necessary consequence from thence and by other things evident in the light of Nature or in the matter of Fact to be concluded Thus he I say then not this whether the main or if you will the entire body of the Christian Faith as to all points necessary by all to be explicitly believed be contained there but this whether so clearly that the unlearned using a right diligence cannot therein mistake or do not need therein another Guide is the thing here contested § 41 For a particular Reply then to what is here said To α 1st I ask if all Necessaries be clearly revealed R. to α and all necessary Controversies clearly decided in Scripture even to the unlearned how have Controversies in Necessaries as concerning the Trinity our Lord's Deity and Humanity c. in several Ages arose and gained many Followers Here will they say that such Controversies are not in Necessaries How then came the first General Councils extolled by Protestants to put them in the Creed or to exact Assent to them upon Anathema which Councils they affirm in non-necessaries fallible and in what they are fallible unjustly imposing Assent Or will they say that they are in Necessaries and that the unlearned may easily discern and decide them and that not by Tradition but only Scripture How happened it then that heretofore so many learned unlearned when forsaking the Church's guidance erred in them But if they say this hapned for want of a due diligence in the search of the Scriptures thus they leave men in great perplexity when the Scripture is plain and only obscure to them through their negligent search and so when the point perhaps may be necessary Thus an illiterate Christian not discerning from clear Scripture whether Sociniansme or Anti-Socinianisme be the Catholick Faith which he is very sollicitous to live and die in and consulting them concerning it they tell him there is no other director left him besides Scripture whose Judgment he may securely follow the judgment of the Church or Councils here being waved by them because this judgment allowed or authorized will infer the Belief of some other points which they approve not Only this satisfaction they seem to leave him that if neither side be clear to him in Scripture neither much matters it which side he holds for truth For God say they hath there clearly revealed all necessaries But he enquiring further whether they do not firmly believe Anti-Socinianism and also ground their Faith of this upon the Clearness of Scripture in it And then it appearing to them clear in Scripture how they know but that it may be a necessary truth and so his salvation ruined if he believe the contrary Here what they can answer that will not more perplex him I see not Since so long as he may possibly fail in a due diligence though only required according to his condition he cannot be satisfied whether the point to every due Searcher be not clear in Scripture and also be not a Necessary Nor yet will they allow him any other certain Director in it but the same Scripture which appears to him ambiguous Hear what Mr. Stillingfleet interposeth in this matter It seems reasonable saith he ‖ Ration account p. 58. that because Art and Subtilty may be used by such who seek to pervert the Catholick Doctrine and to wrest the plain places of Scripture which deliver it so far from their proper meaning that very few ordinary capacities may be able to clear themselves to such Mists as are cast before their eyes the sence of the Catholick Church in succeeding ages may be a very useful way But why not a necessary way I pray upon the former supposa for us to embrace the true sence of Scripture especially in the great Articles of the Christian Faith As for instance in the Doctrine of the Deity of Christ or the Trinity Therefore you see in the greatest Articles Scriptures confessed not so plain especially to the unlearned and ordinary capacities § 42 2 ly If all Necessaries so clearly revealed in Scripture may we not so much the more securely and certainly rely on the judgment of our Ecclesiastical Guides and Teachers in them to whom they must needs be as or more plain than to us especially on their Judgment when assembled in a General Council on it for these Necessaries at least It seems no and that the case is now altered Even now Necessaries were so plain in Scripture as the unlearned using ordinary diligence could not mistake in them Now Necessaries are
these doctrines sufficiently revealed to the then-appointed Ecclesiastical Guides from whom both the present people and the future successors of these Guides both were and might rationally know they were to learn them and so had there bin no Scriptures might by meer Tradition have learned them sufficiently to this day for their Salvation This is a second way then of sufficient Revelation besides or without that in Scripture viz. All necessary Truth since the penning of the Scriptures only so manifested clearly to and so delivered clearly by the Church-Guides as they were manifested to them before Scripture 3ly Because as all the Christian Doctrines might before so the true meaning of some part of the same Scripture might after the writing allo of the New-Testament-Scriptures have bin clearly enough delivered by Tradition and by the first Scripture-Expositors to the Christian people that were then and so to Posterity though mean-while the Letter of such Scripture doth not so necessarily enforce this traditive sence as not to be possibly or somtimes probably capable of another This is a third way of sufficient Revelation viz. by the clear descending Tradition of the sence of those Scriptures which are in their Letter ambiguous § 45 But 4 ly Supposing it needful that all such Necessaries must be clearly revealed in the Letter of Scripture yet is this sufficient to save God's proceedings from tyranny if that they be with sufficient clearness revealed therein to the Church Guides alone and to the Learned that diligently read and compare the Scriptures together and use the helps of the comparings and comments of others and if that the illiterate people be remitted by God in all ages to learn these Necessaries from their Guides This is a fourth way of sufficient Revelation of Necessaries i. e. a revelation of them in Scripture such as must be clear to the Church-Guides in stead of that other revelation there of Mr. Chillingworth's such as must be clear to all To I answer §. 46. n. 1. that where the sence of the Scripture is ambiguous R. to β. and in Controversie which sence and not the Letter only is God's Word here their Guide to know this true sence of Scripture cannot be this by all allowed infallible Scripture which Protestants pretend but must be either the Church's judgment which they say is fallible or their own which all reasonable men I should think will say is more fallible To γ. See many of their Questions solved R. to γ. Disc 3. § 86. and concerning our understanding the sence of the Church's Definition better than the sence of Scriptures See below § 48. c. To δ. 1st It is not necessary §. 46. n. 2. R. to δ. that God should direct Christians in this matter by the Scriptures since they were sufficiently directed herein also before the Scriptures I mean before the writing of those of the New-Testament and since they might be sufficiently assured from those who were sent by our Lord to teach them Christianity in this point also that they were sent to teach them But 2ly It is maintained that God in the Scriptures hath done this §. 46. n. 3. and * hath told us ‖ Eph. 4.11 c. That he hath set these Guides in the Church for the edifying and perfecting thereof and for this in particular that the Church should not be tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of Doctrine with which Winds of contrary Doctrines the Subjects of the Church as Experience shews from age to age would have bin grievously shaken and dissipated but that these Governors from time to time by stating her Doctrines have preserved her Children from it And * hath told us again ‖ 2 Pet. 3.16 That the unlearned wrest some of the Scriptures that are plain it seems to the Learned in that these wresters are the unlearned to their own damnation therefore these are such Scriptures also as speak concerning Necessaries And * hath therefore given us a charge to obey these guides to whom is committed the Care of our Souls and to follow their faith ‖ Heb. 13.7 17. * And declared that he that heareth them heareth him ‖ Luke 10. add that he will be with them to the end of the world especicially when gaehered together ‖ Mat. 18.17 20. and would have the refractory to them excommunicated ‖ Mat. 18.17 And accordingly to this Warrant in Scripture and out of it in primitive Tradition the Church-Guides from age to age have met together setled the Churchches Doctrines exacted Conformity excommunicated Dissenters c Next to ε. Where they say That God foreseeing §. 47. n. 1. that Divisions would happen among these Guides R. to ε. would have told us in the Scriptures which in such case among the several Parties of them we ought always to follow and adhere to As that we should adhere to the Church of Rome to the Vicar of Christ to the most General Councils and in dissenting Votes to the Major part thereof c. To which purpose are those words of Mr. Chillingworth ‖ p. 61. If our Saviour the King of Heaven had intended that all Controversies in Religion should be by some visible Judge finally determined who can doubt but in plain terms he would have expressed himself about this matter He would have said plainly The Bishop of Rome I have appointed to decide all emergent Controversies For that our Saviour designed the Bishop of Rome I add or a General Counci to this Office and yet would not say so nor cause it to be written ad rei memoriam by any of the Evangelists or Apostles so much as once but leave it to be drawn out of uncertain Principles by 13 or 14. more uncertain Consequences He that can believe it let him And p. 104. He saith It would have been infinitely beneficial to the Church perhaps as much as all the rest of the Bible that in some Book of Scripture which was to be undoubtedly received this one Proposition had been set down in terms The Bishops of Rome with their Adherents shall always be the Guides of Faith c. And p. 171. he argues thus Seeing God doth nothing in vain and seeing it had been in vain to appoint a Judge of Controversies and not to tell us so plainly who it is and seeing lastly he hath not told us plainly no not at all who it is is it not evident he hath appointed none See the same thing urged by Mr. Stillingfleet Rat. Account p. 465. And see all this as it were translated only out of the Socinian Books before § 40. n. 1. To this 1st I answer §. 47. n. 2. That negative argning from Scripture 1. such as this a thing of so great concernment to all Christians if it were true would have bin clearly expressed in the Scripture but this is not found clearly expressed rherein therefore it is not true as
again he using the ordinary care of persons desiring instruction cannot but come to know its Councils and their definitions its doctrines and Laws which we find as the Leaders of all Sects do theirs so those of the Church Catholick are studious to divulge and publish so far as they are by him considering his condition necessary to be known and the profession or practice thereof required of him For Example In the Church of England who is there using the ordinary care necessary in matters of his salvation that first cannot easily discern this Church from the several other later and unheaded sects that are in this Kingdom and this Church known who may not easily attain therein to a knowledg also of its Articles of Religion and Canons its Synods or Convocations delivered by the common Tradition and by the Church-Guides and publick Writings daily inculcated so far as the understanding of them is to him necessary The same evidence therefore in these things must be allowed not to be wanting to those who have once found among the many Societies of Christians that Church which is their right Guide § 49 And litle reason have the reformed to affirm a necessity that all Necessaries should be made most evident even to the unlearned in the Scriptures if asserted on this account because such people have no means of attaining any certain knowledge of them from the Ministry of the Church And with litle reareason seem Mr. Stillingfleet and others to affirm which yet is used by many late Protestant-Writers as a main ground of evacuating the authority of the Church * that it is no easier a thing to know what the Church defines than what Scripture determines and That the same Arts that can evade the texts of Scripture will equally elude the Definitions of Councils Tillots Rule of saith p. 21. as if all writings were equally plain or equally obscure or if none free from therefore all equally liable to cavils Again * That the Argument of the willingness of all Protestants to submit their judgments to Scripture will hold as well or better for their unity as that of the readiness of all those of the Church of Rome to submit their judgments to the sence and determination of the Church will hold for their unity And this unity to be effected by the Scriptures he speaks of as to those matters wherein the sence of the same Scriptures is controverted amongst Christians for in such only it is that Christians for their unity seek to the decisions of the Church As if they undertook to defend this That a living Judge set up for the expounding of the dubious places of the Law to the sentence of which Judg all are agreed to assent yet is no more effective for ending controversies about the sense of the Laws and for uniting parties than the Laws themselves are without such Judge Mr. Stillingfleets words are ‖ p 101. Your great Argument for the unity of your party because whatever the private opinions of men are they are ready to submit their judgments to the censure and determination of the Church if it be good will hold as well or better for our unity as yours because all men are willing to submit their judgments to Scripture which is agreed on all sides to be infallible If you say that it cannot be known what Scripture determines but it may be easily what the Church defines It is easily answered that the event shews it to be far otherwise for how many disputes are there concerning the power of determining matters of faith c concluding thus so that upon the whole it appears setting aside force and fraud which are excellent principles of Christian unity we are upon as fair termes of union as you are among your selves Where doth he not say this in effect that the true Church being known and its authority granted infallible as that of the Roman Church is by its subjects Yet we can no more know what this Church defines suppose what the Church of Rome or of England defines concerning Transubstantiation St-Invocation Sacrifice of the Mass c. than what Scripture determines concerning these points and that Canons Catechisms c. authorized by a Church can no further clear any point to us than Scripture did formerly and that only the Church is so unfortunate in her publick interpretations of Scriptures that her Expositions are no plainer than the Texts and that only force or fraud unites her subjects in their opinions And if so what fault hath the Council of Trent made in its new definitions if after these it seems ‖ Stillingf p. 102. there is as much division and then liberty also of opinions as was before them Why do they accuse its decrees as plain enough but erroneous and not invalidate them rather as dubious and uncertain Why dispute they not whether these we have now extant be its genuine Acts Would it not be advantageous to the reformed to shew that this Council makes nothing against them In such unreasonable Contests hath Mr. Chillingworth by inventing many captious questions to weaken Church-authority engaged his followers As if though Catholicks allow several things in Councils obscurely delivered some proceedings in some things unjust the legality of some Councils disputed c yet there could not remain still enough clear and unquestionable both of Councils and their Canons both * to establish the most illiterate subjects of the Catholick Church in all such as is thought necessary faith whose obligation is not to believe all things defined but all things sufficiently proposed to them to be so and * to overthrow the past Reformation THE THIRD DISCOURSE CHAP. I. Roman-Catholicks and Protestants agreed 1. That the Scriptures are God's Word § 1. 2. That in these Scriptures agreed on it is clearly declared that the Church in no age shall err in Necessaries § 2. 3. That the Church-Catholick is contra-distinct to Heretical and Schismatical Churches § 4. 4. That Christ hath left in this Church Pastors and Teachers to keep it from being tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of Doctrine § 5. § 1 1st BOth Roman Catholicks and Protestants are agreed That there is sufficient certainty in the General Tradition of the Catholick Church descending to the present Age that the Bible or Holy Scriptures are the Word of God 2ly They are agreed That it is clearly declared in these Scriptures that the Catholick Church § 2 in no age shall err in Credends or Practicals necessary for obtaining Salvation From which Christians seem to be secured That in their approving § 3 and conforming to what is granted generally to be held by the Church-Catholick of any age whatsoever they shall incur no Error or Practice destructive of Salvation Whereas a hazard herein may be in their departing from the Doctrine or Practice of the Church-Catholick or of all the particular Churches of any age all or some of which must be the Catholick § 4 3ly
for ever must be so infallible the Church-Catholick being ever so and never consisting of People only without Pastors It is necessarily devolved also upon the much major and more-dignified part of this united Body of the Clergy to be so Because else the Catholick Church would not be One in its Constitution but a Body divided in it self and so which could not stand if two several Parties in such Council without any just subordination to one another might both pretend themselves to be the unerring Guide 6ly For these Church-Guides being affirmed unerrable in Necessaries Catholicks here do understand Necessaries § 9 not in so strict a sence as to be restrained and limited only to those few points of Faith that are so indispensably required to be of all explicitly believed as that salvation is not possibly consistible with the disbelief or ignorance of any of them But affirm they ought to be understood in a sence more enlarged comprehending at least all such points as are very requisite and beneficial to salvation either in respect of Christian Faith or Manners either for the direction of particulars or Government of the whole Society of Christians Of which see what is spoken more largely in the 2d Disc § 9. § 10 7ly Concerning the particular Manner or Measure of these Church-Governors when assembled in a lawful General Council their being affirmed unerrable or infallible 1st As Catholicks do not hereby understand them absolutely unerrable in any matter whatever which they may attempt to determine but only in such matters as appear to them of necessary Faith taken in the sence before-mentioned ‖ §. 9. Disc 2. §. 9. So neither do they hold touching these necessary points * any inherent habitual infallibility residing either in the whole Council or some Members thereof whereby they perceive and know themselves infallibly inspired as to such points after the same manner as the Apostles or Prophets did but only * an actual non-erring in those things which they define * from the promised Divine Assistance and super-intendent Providence constantly directing their Consultations into the Truth by what several ways or means it matters not to know or also * from the clear Evidence of former Revelation and Tradition of the point defined from which Evidence Protestants also grant that those may be certain for some divine Truths who are not infallible in all 2ly Catholicks affirm These Guides in all ages since that of the Apostles equally infallible and that the present Church doth not or way not pretend to any infallibility or exercise any authority consequent thereof which the ancient Catholick Church did not claim and also practise in the four first or other General Councils But yet as this ancient Church also required Assent under Anathema to its Definitions and inserted some of them into the Creeds and some of these also points of great difficulty and subtle discussion that so may the present or the future Church do the like § 11 8ly Catholicks affirm That of the several Councils that have been assembled in former ages to know which or how many of them have been lawfully general or in their obligation equivalent thereto any Christian without going about to satisfie himself in all those curious Questions moved by Protestants several of which are considered below § 86. c. may securely relie on the acceptation and acknowledgement or non-opposition of them and their Decrees * by the Church-Catholick of that age wherein they were held and of the ages following i. e. by the Teachers and Writers therein unanimously maintaining or not gainsaying the Doctrines of such Councils and by the Church's practice conforming to their Injunctions Or where some persons or Churches dissent from the rest * by the Major part of these Churches accepting them when these are united also with St. Peter 's Successor the always Prime Patriarch and Supreme Bishop of the Christian world the Bishop of Rome As for Example Catholicks hold that a Christian may securely embrace and obey the Decrees of those Councils as Generall or in their obligation equivalent thereto the Decrees whereof were accepted by the whole Church-Catholick tacitly at least in their Liturgies Writings Practices being conformable thereto or not dissenting therefrom at the Appearance of Luther and are accepted still both by the much major part of the Christian world and also ratified by the Supreme Pastor of the Church-Catholick § 12 The Reason of this 1 Because if a Christian may not securely rely on such an Acceptation a few persons or Churches resisting or standing out perhaps those who are condemned also of Heresie and Schism by such Councils This will void the obligation of all Councils whatever And upon the same termes the Arrian Bishops and their Churches that dissented will void the Obligation of the first General Council of Nice and those dissenting Persons and Churches of the Nestorians and Eutychians or Dioscorites some of which continue in the Eastern or Southern parts of the world unto this day will void that of the third and fourth General Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon See more of this Disc 2. § 25. c. And 2 Because considering the nature of a multitude such thing can hardly be but that some will dissent from the rest and therefore it seems as necessary to proceed according to the same Rule in the Church-Catholick's accepting the Council's Decrees as in the Council's making them viz. that the Vote of the much major part conclude the whole to render the actions of such great Bodies valid § 13 9ly Concerning the Acceptation of Councils by the whole or major part of the Church-Catholick this seems reasonable That though the representatives of some considerable part of the Church-Catholick should be wanting in some of these Councils especially when they are assembled for deciding some Controversies arising only in that of Christianity where the Council sits yet the certain concurrence of that absent part of the Church-Catholick in their doctrines with the decrees of such Councils should pass for a sufficient acceptation of them and such absence no way prejudice the obligation of such Decrees For it may well be presumed the members of such Churches if present would have voted in the Council what they hold out of it hold before it contradict not after it § 14 10ly Catholicks do hold all particular persons and Churches taken divisim as being only a part of and subordinatâ—â—â— to the whole ‖ See Disc 2. §. 23. as also all particular Bishops are only single members of the whole Body of them assembled in a Council to stand obliged in submission of their judgement and in obedience of assent to the Definitions and Decrees of the whole in these Supremests Courts thereof wherein it can give its judgement viz. it s lawful General Councils when these accepted also by the Church-Governors absent in the manner forementioned § 15 The Reason Because these Supreme Courts are secured for ever by our Lords
verbi gratiâ id sentire de Christo quod Photinus opinatus est i. e. in modern language to be a Socinian no small errour in ejus haeresi baptizari extra Ecclesiae Catholicae Communionem alium vero hoc idem sentire sed in Catholicâ baptizari existimantem ipsam esse Catholicam fidem Illum nondum Haereticum dico nisi manifestatâ sibi doctrinâ Catholicae fidei resistere maluerit illud quod tenebat elegerit c. § 19 And this is Dr. Hammonds Comment on the fore-quoted place of Titus how consonant to his own or other Protestants doctrines I know not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ‖ P. 761. self-condemned signifies not a man's publick accusing or condemning his own doctrines or practices for that self-condemnation being an effect and part of repentance would rather be a motive to free any from the censures of the Church who were already under them then aggravate their crime or bring that punishment upon them Nor yet 2ly can it denote him that offends and yet still continues to offend against conscience and though he be in the wrong yet holds out in opposition to the Church For besides that there are very few that do so and these known to none but God and if that were the Character of an Heretick then none but Hypocrites would be Hereticks and he that through pride and opinion of his own judgement stood out against the doctrine of Christ and his Church in the purest times should not be an Heretick this inconvenience would further be incurred that no Heretick could possibly be admonished or censured by the Church for no man would acknowledge of himself that what he did was by him done against his own conscience nor could any testimony be produced against him before any humane Tribunal no man being able to search the heart It is rather an expression of his separation from and disobedience to the Church and so an evidence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being perverted and sinning wilfully and without excuse For he that thus disobeys and breaks off from the unity of the Church doth in effect inflict that punishment on himself which the Church useth to Malefactors that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 13.10 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cutting off from the Church which when he being an Heretick and therein a Schismatick also doth voluntarily without the Judges sentence his very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a spontaneous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or excision And that this Doctor may not go alone see Dr. Fernes Comment on the same place ‖ The Case between the Ch. of Engl. and Rome p. 53. when he writ against Presbyterians accusing them of Schism from the Church of England The word Heretick saith he according to the use of it then implied one that obstinately stood out against the Church or that led any Sect After the strictest Sect or Heresie of the Pharisees Acts 26.5 After that which they call Heresie Acts 24.14 a factious Company divided from the Church so they called or accounted of Christians and Gal. 5.20 we have it reckoned among the works of the flesh Debates Contentions Heresie So here Heretick that leads a faction a sect or that wilfully follows or abets it A man therefore that is a Heretick contentious disobedient to the Order and authority of the Church reject for he is self condemned having both past the sentence upon himself by professing against or dividing from the Church and also done execution like that of the Church's censure and excommunication upon himself by actual separation or going out of the Church A fearful condition Thus he And something to the same purpose saith Dr. Hammond ‖ Of Fundamentals c. 9. §. 4. concerning the guilt of those who afterward deny or oppose the things defined and added to the Apostles Creed by the first Councils Though the Creed saith he in the ancient Apostolick form were sufficient for any man to believe and profess yet when the Church hath thought meet to erect that additional Bulwark against Hereticks the rejecting or denying the truth of those their additions may justly be deemed an interpretative siding with those ancient or a desire to introduce some new Heresies And the pride or singularity or heretical design of opposing or questioning them now they are framed being irreconcileable with Christian charity and humility is justly deemed criminous and liable to censures Again § 6. Though those who believed c. the matter of the Apostles Creed had all those Branches of Christian Faith which were required to qualifie mankind to submit to Christs Reformation yet he grants the wilful opposing these more explicit Articles added by Councils and the resisting of them when they are competently proposed from the Definition of the Church will bring danger of ruine on such persons Again § 8. This i of one Baptism and all the former additions in the Nicene Creed being thus setled by the universal Church were and still are in all reason without disputing to be received and embraced by the present Church and every meek member thereof Here then it seems that Heresie it is or something criminous equivalent thereto to oppose the Church's definitions and additions though the former Creed was sufficient to have been believed and professed in all times before them Lastly King James in his Answer to Card. Perron penned by Casaubon seems to have the same Notion of Heresie as also of Schism with the Roman Church and the Fathers making Heresie any departing from the Faith Schism from the Communion of the Church Catholick Credit vero Rex saith Casaubon ‖ Letter to Perron simpliciter sine fuco fallaciis unicam esse Ecclesiam Dei re nomine Catholicam sive Vniversalem toto diffusam mundo extra quam ipse quoque nullam Salutem debere sperari affirmat damnat detestatur eos qui vel jam olim vel postea aut a fide recesserunt Ecclesiae Catholicae facti sunt Haeretici aut à Communione facti sunt Schismatici Difference here about the Extent of the Catholick Church there is some but none that all opposition of its Faith is Heresie Again Nullam spem Salutis superesse iis qui à fide Ecclesiae Catholicae aut ab ejusdem Communione discesserint Rex ultro concedit I suppose here is meant the present Catholick Church and in any difference the main Body thereof its whole and integral Faith or any part thereof and its external Communion Otherwise if this meant of the Catholick Church collectively of all ages when in some ages several points of Faith were not yet defined and of every member thereof in those ages when in most points may be found some dissenters and of Points of Faith necessary inferiors being Judges a term applyed as any one pleaseth to more points or fewer Lastly of Communion internal which may be said now to be deserted now retained as any
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
is so great and considerable as to invalidate the ratification of the rest when not Nor see I how it can be reasonably defided yet a thing of greatest consequence unless herein the minor will be content to follow the judgment of the much major part concerning what Councils stand thus admitted or rejected which rule were it observed then both in a valid acceptance of the Councils held in the Western Church in latter ages Protestants will be cast and by the determinations of those Councils several of their Disputes ended Mean while upon these and other pretences so it is that of 16. Councils or thereabouts reckoned up by the Cardinal ‖ De Council l. 1. c 5. whose Decrees all the Western Churches wherein several of these Councils the most General that those times could afford were called for ending of some Controversies that both a rose in and troubled only the West of 16. Councils I say which the Western Parts generally accepted when Luther appeared and which all the rest of the Western Churches except these Reformers continue still to approve they allow none of them that have handled matters of Controversie wherein the present times are concerned after the four first or the 5 th and 6 th but then cutting off here the Canons made in Trullo even those wherein both East and West consented and so do allow none of any note that have been held in the Church for near this 1000 years there being none of the more famous of them and the acts whereof are exstant wherein something hath not been passed that is contrary to the present Protestant Tenents ‖ See 1 Disc §. 50. n. 2. § 38 9ly To the Decrees of these General Council also when universally acknowledged such which yet when so they say may err in non necessaries they grant indeed an obedience due by all Inferiors Persons or Churches And consequently to those Decrees in which they hold such Councils unerrable i. e. in necessaries if all these necessaries were certainly distinguishable from all other points that are not so they must allow due an obedience of assent § 39 But 10ly They allow not absolutely This obedience of assent to their decrees ‖ Stillingf p. 506. but onely where inferiors see just cause of dissenting as sometimes they say they may since all these Councils are liable to error in non-fundamentals which also it is not known how far they do extend that of silence and non-publick contradiction § 40 The Church of England indeed professeth her Assent to the Definitions of the first four General Councils and Mr. Stillingfleet I know not on what Protestant ground saith ‖ P. 375. It is her duty to keep their Decrees and be guided by the sence of Scripture as interpreted by them But you may observe that this assent is not yeilded to those Councils because lawfully general and so presumed to be assisted by our Lord in the right defining and delivery of all necessary Faith for they say lawful General Councils not universally accepted in their sence may err in Fundamentals and those Councils that are universally accepted may err in Non-fundamentals but because the matter defined by them the Church of England being for Her self judge hereof ought to be assented to as being agreeable to the Scriptures and the Assent * is not yeilded for the Authority defining as infallibly assisted in necessaries but for the seeming evidence of the thing defined or at least for the non-appearing evidence of the contrary * is not yeilded because that particular persons or Churches are to take that for the true sence of Scripture which these Councils may possibly give of it but because those Councils gave in their Definitions that sence of Scripture which such particular Persons or Churches judge the true so that the reason which they give for their Assent to these General Councils obligeth as much their Assent to them had they been Provincial And upon the same terms as one person or Church assents to these Councils because they judge their Decrees consonant to Gods Word another without withdrawing any due obedience may dissent who judgeth the contrary and the authority or decision laies on Christians no ground of obligation as to belief save the reasonableness or non-appearing unreasonableness of the Councils Doctrines and submission of judgement is held not lawfully yeilded by any to whom the contrary seems evident and by all others is to be only conditional viz. until the contrary shall appear evident To this purpose §. 41. n. 1. see the 21 Article of the Church of England General Councils may err wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation have neither strength nor authority unless it may be declared that they were taken out of holy Scripture See the Act of Parliament 1 Elizabethae c. 1. wherein the determing or adjudging any thing Heresie by any Council is thus limited If in such Council the same is declared Heresie by the express and plain words of the Canonical Scriptures The words are Provided that such persons c. shall not have authority to determine any matters to be Heresie but only such as heretofore have been determined ordered or adjudged to be Heresie by the authority of the Canonical Scriptures or by the first four General Councils or any of them or by any other General Councils wherein the same was declared Heresie by the Express and plain words of the said Canonical Scriptures And see in Soave p. 344. 366. the exceptions taken by Protestants at the safe-conduct of the Council of Trent for not adding to the authority of Councils and Fathers fundantesse veraciter in Scriptura as it run formerly in the safe-conduct of Basil That the Councils Fathers c. conformable to the Scripture should be Judges by which means the Protestants reserved this retreat when Councils appeared against them that yet they were not obliged by them because these Councils went also against the Scriptures See Dr. Fern Consid p. 19. To all the determinations of the Church we owe submission by Assent and belief conditional with reservation for evidence out of Gods Word and In matters of Faith saith he we cannot submit to any company of men by resignation of our judgement and belief or standing bound to receive for faith and worship all that they shall define and impose for such for such resignation gives to man what is due to God See Arch-bishop Laud p. 245. General Councils lawfully called c. cannot err keeping themselves to Gods Rule And p. 239. In all truth necessary to Salvation saith he I shall easily grant a General Council cannot err if suffering it self to be led by the Spirit of Truth in the Scripture and not taking upon it to lead both the Scripture and the Spirit See Dr. Field p. 666. It is not necessary for us expresly to believe whatsoever the Council hath concluded though it be true unless by some other means it appear unto us
to be true and we be convinced of it in some other sort than by the bare determination of the Council only But it sufficeth that we be ready expresly to believe it if it shall be made to appear unto us See Dr. Hammond of Heresie p. 96. ' It is hence manifest also what is the ground of that reverence that is by all sober Christians deemed due and paid to the first four General Councils Because 1st They set down and convinced the Truth of their Doctrine out of the Scripture 2ly Because they were so near the Apostles times when the sence of the Apostles might more easily be fetched from those Men and Churches to whom they had committed it Thus he though besides that the first of these Councils was almost at 300. years distance the reason of obedience to Church Governors given by Doctor Hammond elsewhere ‖ Of Fundamentals p. 903. viz. ' Because Christ speaks to us in those Governors as his immediate successors in the Prophetick Pastoral Episcopal office infers that the Churches authority in all ages is equally valid and so voids this reason He goes on 3dly Because the great Fundamental Doctrines of Christianity were the matter of their definitions yet he saith see Disc 1. § 6. that General Councils are no infallible Guide in Fundamentals and ‖ Of Heresy p. 115. that it is the matter of the Decrees and the Apostolicalness of them and the force of the testification whereby they are approved and acknowledged to be such which gives the authority to the Council and nothing else is sufficient where that is not to be found See Mr. Chillingw p. 118. Dr. Potter §. 41. n. 2. together with the Article of the Church of England attributeth to the Church nay to particular Churches and I subscribe to his opinion an authority of determining Controversies of faith according to plain and evident Scripture and universal Tradition and infallibility whilst they proceed according to this Rule And p. 200. The Fathers of the Church saith he in after-times i. e. after the Apostles might have just cause to declare their judgment touching the sence of some General Article of the Creed but to oblige others to receive their Declarations under pain of damnation what warrant they had I know not He that can shew either that the Church of all Ages was to have this authority or that it continued in the Church for some Ages and then expired He that can shew either of these things let him for my part I cannot Yet I willingly confess the judgement of a Council though not infallible is yet so far directive and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to afford it an outward submission for publick peace sake See Mr. Whitby p. 92. We do appeal to the four first General Councils not because we believe them infallible but because we conceive them to agree with Scripture which is infallible so that we make them secondary not primary Guides we resolve not our belief of their decrees into their authority but into their agreement with Scripture we do not say we must believe this or that because any one of the first four General Councils hath defined it but because what the Council hath defined is evident in Scripture therefore do we believe it And if we should finde that in any Article they dissented from Scripture we should in that as much oppose them as we do you and p. 451. I answer with Dr Taylor that either these Councils are tyed to the Rule of Gods Word or not if the first then are they to be examined by it and to be followed no further than they adhere to this vnerring rule examined He means by those persons whom yet these Councils are to teach the sence of Scripture and p. 15. We generally acknowledge that no authority on earth obligeth to internal Assent This the firm ground i. e. his own judgement what Conciliary Decrees agree or disagree with Scripture that this young man builds on for the confuting of Mr. Cressies book See Mr. Stillingfleet p. 58. 59 133 154 252. and 375.517 compared There he saith on one side p. 375. That the Church of England looks on it as her duty to keep to the Decrees of the four General Councils And We profess saith he to be guided by the sence of Scripture as interpreted by the unanimous consent of the Fathers and the four first General Councils And p. 56. he saith That the Church of England admits not any thing to be delivered as the sence of Scripture which is contrary to the consent of the Catholick Church in the four first ages Here he seems to acknowledge a submission of Protestants to the consent of the Catholick Church in the four first ages and to the four first General Councils as their Guide for what is the sence of Scripture which seems to me no way to consist with a profession of submitting to the same Church or her Councils only when or as far as they agree in their Decrees with the sence of Scripture which last implies that I learn the sence of Scripture not from them but another and assent to them where they conform to that judgement of which I learn it Ibid He hath these two Propositions 2 That it is a sufficient prescription against any thing that can be alledged out of Scripture that it ought not to be looked on as the true meaning of the Scripture if it appears contrary to the sence of the Catholick Church from the beginning And this 2 That such Doctrines may well be judged destructive to the Rule of Faith which were so unanimously condemned by the Catholick Church within that time Where he allows not Christians to try and so assent to or dissent from the Decrees of Councils by what appears to them the sence of Scripture but refers them to learn the sence of Scripture from the Decrees of these first Councils But yet on the other side he contends how consistently I leave to the Readers judgement That the sence of the Catholick Church is not pretended to be any infallible Rule of interpreting Scripture in all things which concern the Rule of Faith And p. 17. concerning the necessity of believing the Articles of the Athanasian Creed he saith It is very unreasonable to imagine that the Chcurch of England doth own that necessity purely on the account of the Church's Definition of those things therein which are not Fundamental it being Directly contrary to her sence in her 19th and 20th Articles And that hence the supposed necessity of the belief of the Articles of this Creed must acccording to the sence of the Church of England be resolved either into the necessity of the matters or into that necessity which supposeth clear convictions that the things therein contained are of Divine Revelation And p. 133. He describes the Catholick Church a society of such persons who all
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
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
* A Government constituted by God founded and compacted in a due subordination to keep all its members in the unity of Faith from being tossed too and fro with several Doctrines Eph. 4.11 13 14 16. And * perpetually to the worlds end assisted with the Paraclet sent from our ascended Lord to give them into all truth Jo. 14.16 26. * which Governors who so resisteth is in this rendred self-condemned Tit. 3.11 Lastly * S. Peter entitled to some special presidence over this whole Church by those Texts Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram Mat. 16. and Rogavi pro te ut non deficiat fides tua Tu confirma fratres Luk. 12.2.32 and Passe oves meas Jo. 21.10 compared with Gal. 2.7 Where thus S. Paul The Gospel of the Vncircumcision was committed to me as to Peter saith he relating to the Pasce in S. John was committed the Gospel of the Circumcision where it is observable also that then was the Circumcision the whole flock of Christ when it was committed to Peter St. Peters Commission over Christs sheep being ordinary given by our Lord here on Earth who also had the honour of the first converting and admitting of the Gentiles into this fold ‖ Act. 10 34-11 2-15 7 St. Paul's over the Gentiles extraordinary given by our Lord from Heaven ‖ Act. 9 6.-22.17.21 And this Commission manifested to the Apostles by a supereminent Grace of converting Soules and of Miracles that was bestowed upon him Gal. 2.8.9 Like to that more eminently given to St. Peter as may be seen in Act. 9.40 and 20.10 Act. 5.15 and 19.12 5.5 and 13 11-2.41.4.4 and Rom. 15 17 18 19. compared And that which is said Gal. 2. That the Apostles saw the Gospel of the Circumcision committed to Peter argues they saw it committed to Peter in some such special or superintendent manner as not also to them § 68 Again If we look upon the constitution and temper and manner of practice of this Church in the primitive times From the very first we find it acting as St. Paul directed Arch-bishop Titus c. 2.15 Cum omni imperio ut nemo contemnat Severely ejecting and delivering to Satan after some admonition those that were heterodox and heretical ‖ 1 Tim. 1.20 Th. 3 11.-1.11 In matter of controversy a Council called and the stile of it Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis and Nobis collectis in unum ‖ Act. 15.25.28 And if here it be said that the infallible Apostles had some hand therein yet if we look lower we find still the same authority maintained and exercised by the Catholick Church of latter ages and espâ—cially by that of the 4 th age when flour shing under the patronage of the secular power now become Christian if fully enjoyed as also the present doth in these Western parts the free exercise of its Laws and Discipline § 69 In all these times then 1 st We find the unquestioned Church Catholick of those dayes firmly joyned with and adhering to that which was then ordinarily stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the See Apostolick and St. Peters chaire and with the Bishop called his Successor as if Matt. 16.18 and Luke 22.23 were a prophecy thereof though some other of the greatest Patriarchs stood not so firm but that the Catholick Church in those dayes relinquished and cut them off We find the same Church when any opposition of its Doctrines happened as it was then exercised with the highest controversies that ever troubled the Church taking very much authority upon it self assembling it self in a General Body making new definitions as necessity required anathematizing all dissenters inserting as it saw meet for the more explicit knowledge of them by all its subjects some of its decisions in the Churches Creeds which were by it much enlarged from what they were formerly We find it declaring this also in the Creed concerning it self and enjoyning it to be believed by all Christians that the Catholick Church continues always Holy Apostolical preserving their Rules Traditions and Doctrines and One indivisa in se united in its saith and Communion and divisa ab omnibus aliis distinct from all others whom she declares Hereticall or Schismatical § 70 2. Again we find it by such definitions put in the Creed and Belief of them exacted sufficiently declaring also 2. that it held it self to be I say not proving that it was against which only peâ—haps misunderstanding his adversary Mr. Stillingfleet disputes ‖ p. 558. infallible or actually unerring in them Thus much is clear I say concerning the Catholick Church and her General Councills of those times that they held themselves infallible in the things they defined and if the testimony and veracity of the Catholick Church or her united Governours in what she then professed as of other things so of herself can obtain no belief with some protestants either from the witness that Church-Tradition grounded at first on miracles or that the Scriptures or some other sufficient evidence in point of reason ‖ See before §. 8. which Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ p. 559. is contented with gives to it of which see below § 87. c. Yet Protestants must grant that the present Catholick Church which or where ever it is should it profess it self infallible errs now only the same errour which the ancient Church-Catholick did before it And if here it be thought that this may qualify some thing concerning the former Church that by this way it declared not it self infallible universally but only in those things it defined so I say neither doth the Church-Catholick of the present age profess her self infallible save in her Definitions Nor requires she of her definitions any other belief than the ancient Church did of hers Nor matters it whether this certainty of the truth of her definitions ariseth from the evidence of the former Revelation and Tradition of such points defined or from our Lords promise that in her definitions she shall not err See before § 10. To proceed § 71 3. We find it * declaring those Hereticks who opposed any of those definitions and expelling them from the Catholick Communion most strict by Synodical and Communicatory Letters in preserving in all points once defined the Vnity of the Catholick Faith and most carefully separating from any person suspected of any Heterodoxness or division from it * Proceeding in its censures not only against some private persons but against Churches against Bishops against Patriarchs themselves yet such as then also failed not to pretend a dutiful continuance in the Faith of former ages and appealed to the former short Creeds and Confessions of Faith Such authority the Church Fallible or infallible then presumed to use cum omni imperio and punishing all contempt § 72 If we look next on the two present Bodies or combinations of Churches that flourish at this day in that part of the world 2. The Face of
easily perswade persons of much reason and more piety to retain that which they know to have been the Religion of their Fore-fathers which had actual possession and seizure of mens understandings before the opposite profession had a name These are first It s Doctrine's having had a long continuance and possession of the Church which therefore cannot easily be supposed in the present Professors to be a design for covetous ambitious and other unlawful ends of which yet Protestants frequently accuse them since they have received it from so many ages and it is not likely that all ages should have the same purposes or that the same doctrine should serve the several ends of diverse ages It s long prescription which is such a prejudice as cannot with many arguments be retrench'd as relying upon these grounds that truth is more ancient than falshood that God would not for so many ages forsake his Church and leave her in an error I add not in such gross errors as are imputed especially not in Idolatry so manifold in respect of the Eucharist of the Cross of Angels and Saints of Relicks of Images c. Again The beauty and splendour of that Church their pompous service in a friendlier expression their service full of religious Ceremony and external Veneration The stateliness and solemnity of the Hierarchy their name of Catholick which they suppose and claim as their own due and to concern no other Sect of Christians The Antiquity of many of their Doctrines the continual succession of their Bishops their immediate derivation from the Apostles their title to succeed St. Peter and in this regard chiefly honoured and submitted to by Antiquity the supposal and pretence of his personal prerogatives much spoken of by the Fathers the flattering expressions of minor Bishops in modester language the honourable expressions concerning this Church from many eminent Bishops of other inferior Sees which by being old Records have obtained Credibility The multitude and variety of people which are of their perswasion apparent consent with some elder Ages in many matters doctrinal the advantage which is derived to them by entertaining some personal opinions of Fathers which they with infinite clamours cry up to be a doctrine of the Church of that time or trulier thus entertaining the Doctrine of the Church of the ancient times which Protestants cry down as only the personal opinions of the Fathers The great consent of one part with another in that which most of them affirm to be de fide the great differences which are commenced among their adversaries abusing the liberty of prophecying unto a very great licentiousness their happiness of being instruments in converting diverse Nations the advantage of Monarchical Goverment the benefit of which they daily do enjoy the piety and the austerity of their Religious Orders of men and women the single life of their Priests and Bishops the Riches of their Church the severity of their fasts and their exteriour observances the great Reputation of their Bishops for Faith and Sanctity the known holiness of some of those persons whose Institutes the Religious persons pretend to imitate their Miracles false or true substantial or imaginary or trulier several of which though none affirms all or perhaps the most of those pretended are confirmed by such clear Testimonies as if any Faith may be had to any humane Testimony or to any History they cannot be false or imaginary The casualties and accidents that have hapned to their adversaries the oblique acts and indirect proceedings of some of those who departed from them and among many other things the names of Heretick and Schismatick which they with infinit pertinacy fasten upon all that disagree from them or trulier which this Church with a venerable and paternal authority and correction as the Catholick Church in all ages hath done and none other Church in this age except this presumeth to do pronounceth on all others who depart from her Faith or Communion as also in former ages the same names have been fastned on all those who have so departed On Berengarius Wicliff Waldeneses c. These Persuasives Dr. Taylor hath there collected As inducing persons of much reason and more piety to retain the Religion of â—heir Fore-fathers Now let any if they can gather out of him â—he counter-perswasives that over-poise these and may induce â—ersons of much reason and equal piety to renounce the Religion of their Fore-fathers and harkning to some Negative Arguments â—rom Scripture or for some points perhaps also from the Writers of the three first ages commit themselves to the conduct of the new Reformers at the first a few of the lowest ranck of Clergy lying under the Ecclesiastical censures assisted against their spiritual Superiours by some secular powers when both they and these were Subjects as to the judgement of all Spiritual matters to that Ecclesiastical Hierarchy which they opposed Now to confirm what hath been said above §. 82. n. 2. In the last place I will set you down some passages of S. Austine representing the Catholick Church 1. as an united and distinct Body 2. easily discernable from Sects 3. and where Scriptures are controverted to be obeyed and adhered to 4. though this not always for any other present reason or proof given us of what she holds save only that of her Authority which passages of this the most eminent Father of the Church I also seriously commend to his Meditation who is in an humble quest after this Guide 1st Concerning the Catholick Church That it where any division is made from Superiours as was made by the Donatists from a General Council is only one of these Churches and not both St. Austine ‖ De Baptismo l. 1 c. 10. mentions this proposition as agreed on both by the Donatists and Catholicks Vnam oportet esse Ecclesâ—am †Cap 10. and Vna est Ecclesia quaeeunque illa sit de quâ dictum est ‖ Cantic 6. c. Vna est columba mea una est matri suae nec possunt tot esse Ecclesiae quot Schismata ‖ De Baptismo 1. 1. c. 11. And so he allows the Donatists arguing Si nostra est Ecclesia Christi non est Ecclesia Christi vestra Communio This Tenent of theirs he passeth for truth and only opposeth this other that theirs and not that from which they separated was it and there proveth the contrary viz. That the Anti-Donatist was that una Ecclesia quae sola Catholica nominatur and that the Donatist was Communio a suâ unitate separata ‖ Ib. Cap. 10. 2. Again Concerning this one Catholick Church that it is easie to be known and discerned from others §. 82. n. 3. he saith in his book De unitate Ecclesiae against the same Donatists ‖ Cap. 20. Non est obscura quaestio in quâ vos fallunt quos ipse Dominus praedixit futuros atque dicturos Ecce hic est Christus
ecce illic ecce in deserto quasi ubi non est frequentia multitudinis ecce in cubiculis quasi in secretis traditionibus atque doctrinis Habetis Ecclesiam ubique diffundi crescere usque ad messem Habetis Civitatem de quâ ipse qui eam condidit ait non potest Civitas abscondi super montem posita Ipsa est ergo quae non in aliquâ parte terrarum sed ubique notissima est And Contra Cresconium l. 1. c. 33. He iterates the same Si autem dubitas quod Ecclesiam quae per omnes gentes numero sitate copiocissimâ dilatatur haec S. Scriptura commendat multis manifestissimis testimoniis ex eâdem authoritate the Scriptures prolatis onerabo where he that will say this Father speaks of the Church Catholicks only as it was in his not as it is to be in all times must also interpret those Scriptures from which he proves it to speak of his or some times only not of all which is absurd and would have voided S. Austine's arguing used against the Donatists then as well as any others now who might have replyed to him that these Texts were verified of some but not of their times And indeed they did urge that S. Austine's sence of them in application to the Church failed in the Arrian times and upon this See in his 48 Epistle his vindicating them to be verified of it in all times And it seems all reason that in the Scripture's describing that Church to whose bosome and Communion all people were for ever to resort the marks to know it by should be Universal and no more demonstrate to Christians the Church of one age than of another no more that in S. Austines times than that in ours to whose Faith and Communion Christians have in all times a like duty to conform and whose judgement a like necessity to consult Though it is willingly granted that such Properties admit of several degrees nor is it necessary either for its multitude extent or eminency that the Church should alway enjoy them in an equal proportion 3 ly Concerning our duty of crediting §. 82. n. 4. and adhering to the Church's testimony and judgement in matters controverted and obscure he thus discourseth ‖ Contra Cresconium l. 1. c. 33. against the Donatists who pleaded nothing in Scriptures could be shewed clear against them Proinde quamvis hujus rei certe de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum earundem tamen Scripturarum etiam in hac re a nobis tenetur veritas cum hoc facimus quod universae placuit Ecclesiae quam ipsarum Scripturarum commendat authoritas ut quoniam Sancta Scriptura fallere non potest quisquis falli metuit hujus obscuritate quaestionis eandem Ecclesiam de illâ consulat quam sine ullâ ambiguitate Sancta Scriptura demonstrat Again De Vnitate Ecclesiae c. 19. Hoc saith he aperte atque evidenter i.e. in the Scripture nec ego lego nec tu Nunc vero cum in Scripturis non inveniamus c puto si aliquis sapiens extitisset cui Dominus Jesus Christus testimonium perhibet that we should be directed by his judgment Et de hac quaestione consuleretur a nobis nullo modo dubitare deberemus id facere quod ille dixisset ne non tam ipsi quam Domino Jesu Christo cujus testimonio condemnatur repugnare judicaremur Perhibet autem testimonium Christus Ecclesiae suae 4. Lastly Concerning the benefit in adhering to §. 82. n. 5. and relying on the Church authority or testimony before that proved to us which yet she delivers to us he discourseth thus in his Book De utilitate Crerendi i.e. credendi Ecclesiae ‖ cap. 13. written not long after his Conversion to a former acquaintance ' qui irridebat as he saith ‖ Retract 1. l. c. 14. Catholicae fidei disciplinam qua juberentur credere homines non autem quid esset verum certissima ratione docerentur Recte saith he Catholicae disciplinae majestate institutum est ut accedentibus ad Religionem fides i.e. adhibenda anthoritati ecclesiae persuadiatur ante omnia and c. 10. Sed inquis nonne erat melius rationem mihi reddere ut quocunque ea me duceret sine ulla sequerer temeritate Erat fortasse sed cum res tantasit ut Deus tibi ratione cognoscendus sit omnesne putas idoneos esse percipiendis rationbus quibus ad divinam intelligentiam mens ducitur humana an plures an paucos ais existimo Quid Paucos caeteris ergo hominibus qui ingenio tam sereno praediti non sunt negandam Religionem putas If not such must receive this their Religion not from Reason but authority And c. 16. Authoritate decipi miserum est miserius non moveri Si Dei providentia non praesidet rebus humanis nihil est de Religione satagendum Non est desperandum ab eodem ipso Deo authoritatem aliquam constitutam qua velut gradu incerto innitentes attolamur in Deum Haec autem authoritas seposita ratione qua sincerâ intelligere it diximo difficilimum stultis est dupliciter nos movet partim miraculis paâ—â—â—â—â—quentium multitudine And c. 8. He thus exhorts his scepties Friend Honoratus seduced by the Manicheans Si jam satis jactatus videris sequere viam Catholicae Disciplinae quae ab ipso Christo per Apostolos ad nos usque manavit abhinc ad posteros manatura est Those who can humble their reason so far as to embrace this holy Counsil through the abundant providence of God will find no great difficulty in discerning their right Guides and chusing the true Religion CHAP. VII Whether the Church of England doth not require assent to her Articles of Religion Several Canons in her Synods seeming to require it § 83. n. 1. The complaint of the Presbyterians concerning it § 83. n. 4. The Doctrine of her Divines § 84. n. 1. Where concerning the just importance of Negative Articles § 84. n. 1. and 85. n. 2. and concerning conditional assent § 84. n. 4. and 85. n. 10. That to some of the 39 Articles assent is due and ought to be required § 85. n. 1. That the Roman Church doth not require assent to all the Canons of her Councills as to points Fundamental i. e. of any of which a Christian nescient cannot be saved § 85. n. 4. That obedience either of assent or non-contradiction if required by the Church of England to all the 39. Articles seems contrary to the Laws of the Church and to the Protestant Principles § 85. n. 11. AFter this view of the 2. present opposit Churches §. 83. n. 1. which of them more resembles the ancient Catholick the latter whereof the Protestant Churches seem to build the defence of the Reformation and the Vindication of their liberty from former Church-laws upon the denial of any such obedience
allows a fallible King or Parliament to do But see Canon 36. Of the same Synod 1603. where the Church also requires the Subscribers not only not to affirm the 3. Articles contained in that Canon to be erroneous Namely That the Kings Majesty is the only Supreme Governour of his Realm in spiritual things 2. That the Book of Common prayer containeth in it nothing contrary to the Word of God c. But in the third Article more expresly requires him to subscribe That he alloweth and acknowledgeth i.e. confesseth believeth all the 39. Articles to be agreeable to the word of God Add to this That whereas the Canon 140. excomminicates till they publickly revoke their wicked error any who shall affirm that those who had not given their voices to the decrees made in the Sacred Synod of this Nation are not subject to the decrees thereof and therefore in the conference at Hampton-Court the Puritan Party moved this question how far such Ordinances of the Church were to bind them without impeaching their Christian liberty They received from the King this answer I will have one Doctrine and 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 This Injunction of King James to Puritans had it been obeyed by the first Reformers would it not have prevented the birth of Protestantisme and the dispute at Hampton-Court Again the Church of England §. 83. n. 2. in some of those Canons excommunicates men for not doing something which she commandeth to be done now in all such in junctions of Practicals there is involved an injunction of assent fiâ—st that such practises are lawful The ninth Canon runs thus Whosoever shall hereafter separate themselves from the Communion c. in the Church of England accounting the Christians who are conformable to her Doctrine c. to be profane and unmeet for them to joyn with in Christian Profession let them be excommunicated ipso facto and not restored till after their repentance and publick Revocation of such their stored till after their repentance and publick Revocation of such their wicked errors Here the Church of England requires under pain of Excommunication that none do account her Communion profane c. For whosoever accounteth the Church of England such her self being judge ought to separate from her an erronious conscience obliging Neither may any say that the Church here for his restitution enjoyns repentance only for his separating but rather for his accounting those who conform profane 1. for his errors from which once granted a separation ought to follow Again Canon 12. Those who submit themselves to be ruled by any Ecclesiastical constitutions made without the Kings authority are excommunicated Here the Canon requiring men not to submit to be governed by such constitutions requires them to believe also such Ecclesiastical Constitutions to be unlawfully made and not obliging else men ought to submit unto them Canon 59. Those Parsons who do not teach on Sundays the Catechism set forth in the Common-prayer Book are excommunicated But if they hold any thing in such Catechism unlawful they may not teach it therefore the Synod in expresly requiring them under pain of Excommunication to teach it virtually under the same penalty requires their assent that it is lawfully to be taught 2 ly In the National Synod §. 83. n. 3. held under King Charles 1640. See the third Canon 2. where it is ordered That all Popish Recusants though silent though nothing affirming whatever way they can be discovered whether by their refusing to take the Oath of Allegiance which Oath exacts their punctual assent to several Dâ—ctrines or by their refusing to receive the Communion with the Members of the Church of England a practice that requires their assent that this Church is not Schismatical be excommunicated Where whilst the Church of England thinks she hath sufficient authority to exclude from her Communion all that hold the Popish Tenents why complains she of the tyranny of the Roman Church in excluding from her Communion all that hold the Protestant Tenents Again in the fourth Canon it is decreed That any one who is accused of Socinianism unless he will absolutely in terminis abjure it be excommunicated Now he that is required upon pain of Excommunication to abjure the Popish or the Socinian Tenents is required under the same penalty so often to assent to the Protestant or the Anti-Socinian Tenents where ever these are immediately contrary or contradictory to the other as many times they are So whoever is obliged to abjure Filium non esse Consubâ—â—antialem Patri Is obliged by the same Canon to assent Filium esse Consubstantiatem Patri Lastly in the sixth Canon there the Synod requires * assent and approbation of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England as containing all things necessary to Salvation and * the Profession of this assent upon Oath I A. B. do swear that I do approve and sincerely acknowledge the Doctrine and Discipline established in the Church of England as containing all things necessary to Salvation that is I do assent and believe it to contain c. Thus much of several Injunctions and Canons of the Reformed Synods of the Church of England which seem to tye her Subjects to as strict an Obedience of assent and approbation for any thing I can diâ—cern to all her Doctrine and Discipline as any other Councils have done and to give as little liberty to any to oppose her decrees not withstanding what she saith of the Church and of Councils Art 20. 21. Hence that complaine of the Presbyterian Ministers §. 83. n 4. concerning their obligation to these Articles and Canons in their Reasons shewing necessity of Reformation printed 1660 * That if they might not subscribe with such an addition so far forth as the same Articles are agreeable to Gods Word it must needs be granted that the composers of them are admitted to be infallible or else that the Statâ—te 13. Elizabeth 12. intendeth to tyrannize over the Consciences of men i. e. in requiring them to profess what their conscience tells them is not truth * That the Statute requireth Belief of every one of these Articles when it enjoyns not only subscription but an assent unto them punishing all with deprivation that shall affirm and maintain any Doctrine repugnant to them which every man must do if they be found contrariant to the Word or he muâ—t be false to God And p. 36. Concerning obligation to Ceremonies * That these ought not to be imposed on those who cannot be fully perswaded in their own minds and consciences that they are lawful and therefore must sin if they use them Thus the Presbyterians Yet this course as most necessary was long ago hinted by Mr. Calvin to the first Founder of the English Reformation the Lord Protector in
as a Prelatist For since the judgment here concerning the condition viz. when the Church proves what she proposeth or when the Subscriber proves the contrary when he is competent to search grounds or the Church unfaithful in conserving her Depositum is left not to the Church but to the Subscriber it casts the assent and dissent also wholly into his dâ—sposal and arbitrement and note here also that who may require only a conditional assent can likewise exact only in such points as are practical a conditional conformity i. e. that none be absolutely enjoyned to practice such a thing but onely upon supposition that the Church first prove it to him lawful to be done or that he cannot prove it to the Church to be unlawful or that he is a person unable to searth the grounds of the lawfulness or unlawfulness thereof c. of which conditioâ—s himself also not the Church is judg For otherwise he that obligeth a person absolutely to the performance of a thing obligeth him also absolutely to the believing that thing lawful to be done which later the Church of England not owning neither may she the first and who ought to have his liberty for the one ought so for the other too Now 't is ordinary in the English Canons to require upon pain of Excommunication conformity to her Constitutions where had this secret been known to the Presbyterians that it is understood onely of such a conditional conformity I suppose there would have been no cause of their forbearing subscription or complaining of the English Church-Laws their being as rigorous and unjust as those of Rome Thus I have made a search into the obedience §. 85. n. 11. which is required of her Subjects by a Church that seems not well grounded in her authority by reason that having disjoyned herself from that which she acknowledgeth was formerly the Catholick Church and from Superior Councils she can neither lay claim to that Infallibility in necessaries which from our Lords perpetual superintendency resides in the whole as all members throughly consenting with the whole and guided by it do lay claim to such Infallibility and therefore do require obedience from their Subjects in the same manner as the whole doth as to all such doctrines wherein they agree with the whole nor can she standing apart and alledging the reason of it the former Churches errors have the confidence to claim a new Infallibility to herself and therefore it is no wonder if there seem some uncertainty what obedience she requireth where there is what authority she possesseth and where such obedience is grounded rather on the pretended clear evidence of the matter proposed than the soveraign and undeclinable authority of the Proposer Meanwhile whether she challengeth an obedience of assent from her Subjects §. 85. n. 12. or that of non-contradiction I see not how she can be justified by the Laws of the Church or by her own Principles For 1st By the Laws of the Church if she justly require assent from her and was she not in conscience obliged to yield it These as well as she determining nothing but what they think a clear truth Or can she blame the fallible Church of Rome for requiring assent to her Canons upon Anathema when she fallible requires the same upon Excommunication For the disparities that are made here have been formerly answered and any evidence or certainty Protestants pretend for those Doctrines to which they require assent the Roman Church pleads the like for hers and so sub judice lis est Concerning this hear Mr. Chillingw †p. 375. Any thing besides Scripture and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it I suppose he means appearing such not onely to the Church-Governors but their Subjects and that all the 39 Articles have not such an evidence well may Protestants hold it as matter of opinion but as matter of Faith and Religion neither can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it themselves nor require the belief of it of others without most high and most schismatical presumption But 2ly If laying assent aside onely a non-contradiction of her Articles or a non-affirmation that they are any way erroneous is required upon excommunication of the person so offending yet neither will this be justifiable by the Laws of the Church for no Canon of a National Synod can justly pronounce Excommunication on any for affirming so many points in their Articles erroneous as have been determined by Superior Councils a General or a Patriarchal Synod contrarily For example It is not lawfull for a National Synod in England to excommunicate a person for affirming their Articles erroneous in denying Transubstantiation because this hath been determined affirmatively by many former Superior Synods accepted by the whole Western Church as is shewed before 1. Disc § 57. which therefore oblige Christians to the belief and profession of it against the Decrees of any Inferior Western Synod Neither 2ly Do they seem to inflict Excommunication on every one that affirms any of their Articles erroneous without condemning their own Principles because what they say of General Councils is as true I suppose for their own Synods viz. That they may err grosly and manifestly in which case they say one may lawfully affirm these Councils in such thing erroneous else how can they ever be corrected See before § 43 44. c. The case therefore is the same as to their own Synods And then for what they say a person may lawfully do they cannot lawfully excommunicate him But if it be replyed §. 85. n. 13. that their Synods challenge an obedience of non contradiction onely to what they are certain is truth and therefore none may lawfully in such case contradict them or affirm they err 1st It follows they may upon the same terms require assent also of which they seem more shie But 2ly As theirs plead certainty so do other Councils whom yet they will not excuse upon this pretence for requiring assent as hath been but now said 3ly It seems unreasonable that a certainty either from the sense of Scripture necessary Deduction former universal Tradition or any other way should be pretended by a particular Church in any such matters from which a major part of Christianity perusing the same evidences dissents †Disc 2 §. 5. Disc 4 § 11 12. such as are several of the 39 Articles 4ly Protestants themselves affirm that those who are certain of truth yet may not require an absolute but conditional assent from others who first know them in general to be fallible and next do not know or have it not proved to them that in this particular they dot err See before § 85. n. 10. And the same they say for non-contradiction required that it must be onely conditional i. e. if the contrary truth to the error defined do not appear to the Churches Subjects necessary to be divulged Meanwhile it is not denied which was also
but now said that particular Churches or Provincial Synods may be certain of something as Truth where either Scripture saith it or a necessary deduction collecteth it or Tradition delivereth it such as are Generally undisputed and unquestioned and may require from their Subjects an absolute assent and that upon Excommunication or Anathema to all such Articles of Religion as are either defined or otherwise agreed on by the whole Catholick Church and that herein they have the same infallibility as the Catholick and their Subjects are or may be convinced that they are the tenents of the Church Catholick As the Church of England though otherwise fallible may require not a conditional but an absolute assent to the Articles of the Athanasian Creed because she in these is infallible if the Catholick Church be so Thus much said concerning the quality of the submission required of her Sons by the Church of England to her Articles of Religion I now proceed to the 2d thing proposed before § 66. The many Difficulties and Objections urged against an Infallible Church-Authority CHAP. VIII Solutions of several Questions concerning an infallible living Guide 1. Q. From what we can be assured that Councils are infallible since neither the Texts of Scripture the sense whereof is disputed nor the Decree of any Council whose erring is the thing questioned can give such assurance § 86. 2. Q. From whence General Councils receive their Infallibility such promise if made at all being made onely to the Church diffusive and not delegable by this Church to others Or if so no such Delegation from the Vniversal Church appearing to have been beforehand made at all or any General Council § 91. 3. Q. How the Infallibility of General Councils is necessary or serviceable to the Church without which Councils the Church subsisted for several ages most Orthodox § 98. 4. Q. How Lawfull General Councils which experience hath shewed to have contradicted one another can be all Infallible § 100. 5. Q. Lawfull General Councils being supposed to be liable to error in some things how Christians can be assured concerning any particular point that in it these Councils do not erre § 101. 6. Q. Whilst such Councils are supposed Infallible How if they should not be so can any error of theirs be rectified § 102. 7. Q. Whether such Councils onely when confirmed by the Pope or all when yet unconfirmed by Him are infallible § 104. 8. Q. How the Popes Confirmation can any way concurr to such Councils non-erring since if it erred before it doth so still though he approve it but if orthodox before it is so still he not approving it § 105. 9. Q. In which the Pope or the Council this Infallibility lies For if in one of them the other is needless if in Both then either of them sufficient such qualities being indivisible and without integral Parts § 106. § 86 AGainst a living infallible Ecclesiastical Judg of Controverfies in necessary matters of Religion Solutions of several Questions asserted above in this discourse by Catholicks and the Church Governors in a Lawfull General Council affirmed to be so many difficulties are urged and some with much subtilty which it seems to me may be with as much plainness satisfactorily removed 1st Then Q. 1. it is asked †See Mr. Stillings p. 409 539 558. whence can arise a sufficient certainty to Christians that lawfull General Councils are infallible Since it cannot arise * from the Decree of any Council because we know not whether Councils err in such a Decree till this thing first be stated to us whether they are infallible Nor 2ly * From the Scripture Because this were to make the Scripture the sole Judg of this great Controversie which Catholicks deny to be the sole Judg of any and if Scripture may decide this Controversie it may as well all others for that it is evident that there are no places of Scripture whose sense is more controverted than the sense of those urged concerning the Churches Infallibility If therefore these may be understood without a living and Infallible Judg so as that we may be certain of their true sense then why not all others which concern the rule of Faith and manners whose sense is far less disputed than of these § 87 To which I answer 1st That Scripture though it cannot properly be a Judge to decide any dispute about its sence yet may be a rule plain and free enough from obscurity in its sense there where some corrupt and interessed judgements may question it nor is it to be thought really ambiguous where ever disputed or controverted and that though the clearness of this Rule can never be pretended or such argument in reason made use of on that side where a few do oppose either the common traditional sense of former ages or of the much major part of the present age yet on the other side the sence thereof that is given by the common judgment either of former or present times may be rationally urged against these few and especially where a superior Authority requires their conformity they ought to yeild unto it And here see what he saith ‖ Still p. 58 59. who urgeth this both concerning Scripture wrested by some in its sence even in those places of it where it is a Rule of necessary faith and manners and concerning the Christians duty herein to follow the common sence and consent of the Church Now that these Scriptures here spoken of however by some of late controverted have been alwayes understood in the common sence of the Church to declare a promise of infallibility in its Governours for necessaries appears sufficiently by the proceedings of her Councils ancient and modern requiring upon Anathema assent to their decrees and inserting some of them in the Creeds Of which more by and by ‖ § 90. Here then it is denied that Scripture when ever controverted by a few in some age against the traditional and common sence of the Church both in the former and present age as the Texts concerning the Trinity are now of late by the Socinian is no Rule plain or free enough from obscurity in the traditional sence thereof to decide such controversie § 88 2ly I answer for so much as is affirmed of such Councils namely their infallibility in all their definitions made in necessary matters of faith That Protestants themselves grant a sufficient certainty both from Scripture and from universal tradition that the Church Catholick of all ages is unerring in necessaries and that this Church Catholick alwayes doth and shall consist as well of a guiding and ruling Clergy as a guided and subject Laity And that thus far there is no controversie concerning evidence of Scripture or Tradition And next from hence it certainly follows that there shall be a body of Clergy for ever not erring in necessaries And again from this that this Clergy when joyned in a general assembly or Council and unanimously
decrees yet it is not affirmed by Catholicks that either a non-possibly or a non-morally fallible certainty of these Councils or of their Decrees or Definitions is necessary to all persons for the attaining a divine and salvifical belief of all the necessary articles of their Faith Of which see below § 125.127 Provided that every one be rightly disposed to believe both concerning Councils and their Decrees what is or shall be by their Superiors sufficiently proposed to them without and before which proposal he may be not only not infallibly certain but without peril to salvation ignorant supposing the common Creeds professed by him to contain all articles that are necessary ratione Medii to be explicitâ—y believed both what Councils are lawfully General and what such General Councils have decreed CHAP. X. 15. Q. Lastly Catholicks pretending a Divine Faith of the Articles of Christian Religion to be necessary to salvation and all Divine faith necessarily to be grounded on Divine Revelation it is asked upon what ground a Christian by a Divine Faith believes all those Articles of his Faith that are defined by particular Councils Where if it be said from the testimony of the present Church which is declared by the divine Revelation infallible the question proceeds whence this testimony can be proved by divine Revelation infallible unless it be from God's Word written or unwritten But then such writings for effecting a Divine Faith cannot be proved to be God's Word but from some other Divine Revelation for a Divine Faith can never ground it self save on a Divine Revelation where also we cannot return again to the testimony of the Church I mean as this is by Divine Revelation infallible without making a Circle § 120. To which is answered 1. That the object of a Divine Faith is alwayes in it self infallible § 123. 2. That Divine Faith alwayes resolveth it self into Divine Revelation and that into some one wherein it ultimately resteth without a process in infinitum or wheeling about in a Circile § 129. n. 1 § 132 143 144. 3 4. That such Divine Faith is alwayes wrought in Christians by the operation of God's Spirit § 164. n. 2. 5 6. But attainable without any extrinsecal infallible Introductive or Proponent Neither that it is necessary that all men for the enjoying a Divine and saving Faith be first infallibly certain that the external proponent thereof is infallible § 127. c. 7. Yet that there are those morally-certain grounds producible for this Faith and all the Articles thereof as they are believed in the Catholick Church which no other Religion befides Christianity nor no other Sect or seducing private spirit in Christianity can pretend to § 135. 8. That a rational certainty or morally-infallible ground of a Christians Faith for this at least that the Scriptures are the Word of God and consequently whatever is contained therein infallible is affirmed by all § 136. But further That an infallibility of the Church-Guides in necessaries as clearly revealed in Scripture and by Tradition Apostolical is believed by Catholickes From which infallibility of the Church thus cleared to them they retain a firm faith of all those other points that are not in Scripture or Tradition as to all men so evidently revealed as Church-infallibility is In many of which points those-others who believe only infallibility of Scripture are liable to miscarry § 140. Shewed from the precedents that no Circle is made in the Roman-Catholicks resolution either of a Divine or acquisite Faith § 143. c. The Conclusion Wherein of the many advantages of promoting their salvation lost by Protestants in persisting out of the Communion and rejecting the conduct of the spiritual Guides of the Roman-Catholick Church IN this Query which follows concerning the Resolution of Faith wherein several Catholicks do variously express themselves according to their liberty of opinion unrestrained by any former Church definition and many of the terms have such a latitude of signification as it is hard to speak so distinctly as not in something to be misunderstood I have purposely quoted several Catholick Authors of good note in confirmation of what is delivered to remove from you all jealousie that any thing is said here new Heterodox or formerly censured by the Roman Church § 120 15ly In the last place it is further pressed Q. 15. That a moral certainty or if you will a moral infallibility could it perhaps be shewed for many of those things mentioned in the former questions yet is not sufficient to afford a ground of that faith which Catholicks do require as necessary For that they say that a Christian cannot with a right and a divine faith believe the particular points of his faith to be divinely revealed unless he have an infallible or not possibly fallible assurance thereof nor can he have such infallible assurance unless the Church's definitions in her General Councils that deliver such doctrines to be divine Revelations be so infallible Nor can he infallibly believe the definitions of any Council in part cular to be so infallible unless he be infallibly certain that it is a lawful General Council for all other inferior Councils Catholicks grant may err in their Definitions nor can he be infallibly certain of this unless he be so of all those things too without which Catholicks grant it is no General Council And if an infallible certainty also of all these things so far as it is necessary should be pretended from the Tradition of the Church ever since the time of the sitting of such Councils delivering and declaring to posterity these Councils in gross for lawfully General because this Church-Tradition is held infallible It is asked again whence this Tradition is infallibly known to be so where if it be said from our Lord's promises to the Church declared in the Scriptures and so the infallibility of the Church-Tradition be resolved into Divine Revelation It is still urged whence can any know infallibly either in particular that those Texts which are urged to make good such a promise have such a sence as is-pretended or in General that the Scriptures containing such Texts are the infallible Word of God and here again if we return to prove an infallible certainty of the sence of these particular Scriptures or in general of the Scriptures being divine from the tradition and testimony of the Church then here again I must make this testimony of the Church infallible and the former question returns as unsatisfied by the former answer viz. whence I can prove its testimony or Tradition infallible of which infallibility for me here to resume an evidence from the Scriptures or from the former Texts will cast my reasoning into a vicious circle § 121 But if I proceed and say That the Tradition of the Church may be proved sufficiently to be infallible from the motives of credibility much dilated on by Catholick Writers As From the multitude of those who have affirmed their receiving of
Tradition namely that both of Christians and Mahometans than this that the Bible is God's Word and yet this later carries with it a sufficient evidence and Protestants themselves †See Disc 2. §. 40. n. 2. do both allow and practise several Traditions as Apostolical which yet have not the same fulness of Tradition as the Scriptures nor indeed more than several of those points have whereof yet they deny a sufficient Tradition 2. Again the Tradition of a smaller number of persons if eminent in sanctity and miracles and other forenamed †§. 121. motives of credit may be as or more credible than that of a greater number not so qualified Of several other Traditions then what or how many in particular carry a sufficient fulness and evidence in them though all do not the same to beget a rational belief this after the Church's authority once established by Scripture and Tradition private men may safely learn from the same Church § 140 But 8ly This certainty of Tradition allowed by Protestants for Scripture's being God's Word and whatever is contained in it infallible seeming unsufficient to assure to Christians their faith in several Articles thereof because wherever the sence of these Scriptures is ambiguous it will still be uncertain whether such Articles of our faith be grounded on the true sence which only is God's Word or on the mistaken sence which is not so Next therefore Catholicks proceed farther yet And both from the same Scriptures thus established and from other constant Tradition descending from the Apostles for which see the proofs given before Disc 1. § 7. Disc 2. § 17. Disc 3. § 7. 87. c. do also gather and firmly believe an infallibility in the Church or its Governours for all necessaries from a promised perpetual assistance of the holy Ghost And this Article of the infallibility of the Church thus established becomes to them a new ground of their faith from which they do most firmly believe and adhere to all the rest of those Articles of their faith wherein the Divine Revelation either of Scriptures or Tradition is not so perspicuous and clear to them as it is in this other of the Churches infallibility And from this infallibility of the Church believed all the definitions of the same Church that are made in points where the true-sence of Scriptures is in controversie and that are delivered by her as infallible and Divine Revelations are straight believed as such and among others these points also when the Church defines them in any doubtful case what belongs to the Canon of Scriptures or what are Traditions Apostolical § 141 Thus if I first receive and believe the Church-infallibility from a clear Apostolical Tradition afterward from this Church-infallibility defining it I may become straight assured of the Canon of Scripture Or 2ly If I receive and believe some part of the Canon of Scripture from clear Apostolical Tradition and out of this received Canon become assured of Church-infallibility afterward from this infallibility defining it I may certainly come to know other parts of the same Canon that are more questioned Again when I have already learned the Church-infallibility from the Scriptures afterward I may become from its definitions setled in the belief of all those Articles of faith wherein the expressions of the same Scriptures though believed by me before the Churches infallibility yet being ambiguous in their sence which sence properly and not the words is the Divine Revelation can beget no certain and firm faith in me until they are expounded by the Church infallibly relating from God's Spirit assisting it the traditive sence of them to me So that though I believe the infallibility of Scripture's as well as the Church yet in so many points wherein the meaning of the Scriptures is not clear to me I receive the firmness of my faith in them not from the infallibility of the Scriptures expression of that which is God's Word but of the Church expounding them If then the Scripture or Tradition-Apostolick be clearer for this of Church-infallibility than for some other points of faith that person must necessarily be conceded to have a firmer ground of his faith for so many points who believes the Church infallible than another who believes only Scripture so and such person also is preserved in a right faith in these points when the other not only may err in his Faith but become heretical in his error by opposing the definition of the Church So had the Arrians and Nestorians believed the Church infallible this Article of their faith firm and stedfast had preserved them from Heresie in some others § 142 Here then appears a great firmness and stability of the Catholicks Faith by reason of this Church-infallibility for many points wherein the Protestants faith fluctuates and varies For whilst the Protestant only extends and makes use of the certitude of the Church Tradition as to one of these points the delivery of the Scriptures and acknowledgeth no further certitude of the same Church-Tradition written in the Scriptures or unwritten for the other point the infallibility of the Church divinely assisted in the exposition of the same Scriptures and in the discerning of true Traditions And again while the sence of these Scriptures in many weighty points as experience shews hath been and is controverted the Protestant here for so many of these points as are upon such misinterpretation of Scripture defined by the Church in the definition of which Church assisted as he believes by the holy Ghost the Catholick remains secure hath no rational Anchor nor ground of confidence in his faith but that which rests upon the certainty of his own judgment concerning the sence of God's Word and truth of Tradition and that judgment of his too for several points of his faith going against the judgment and exposition of the major part of the present Church and against his Superiors Where the last refuge Protestants betake themselves to ordinarily is this that they say In all things necessary the sence of Scripture is not ambiguous but clear enough to the unlearned and that in points not necessary there is no necessity of a right faith or of any decision of controversies and so no need of an infallible Church or any unerring Guide save Scripture which defence hath been examined in Disc 2. § 38. c. § 143 The sum of what hath been said here is this 1st I take it as a principle agreed on That a divine is such a faith as quatenus divine ultimately resolves it self into Divine Revelation § 144 2ly There must be some particular ultimate Divine Revelation assigned by every Christian which may be not to all the same but to some one to some another beyond which he can resolve his divine faith no further and for proving or confirming which Revelation he can produce no other divine Revelation but there must end unless a process be made in infinitum or a running
divine evidence I adhere to it I answer from the internal operation and testimony of the Holy Spirit which Spirit causeth a most firm fiducial assent in me that these Scriptures were delivered to the Church as God's Word by Apostolical Tradition for the Church pretends no new Revelation concerning the Canon of Scripture i. e. were delivered by those divinely preserved from any fallibility therein Neither doth here again in the matter of divine faith appear any Circle at all And if it be further asked what rational ground I have to think this is a perswasion of God's and not of some evil spirit or this indeed an Apostolical Tradition which I am told is so here I urge for these the prudential motives § 151 Again Suppose I be asked concerning some other Article of faith that is defined by the Church though the same Article doth not appear to me clearly delivered in the Scriptures why with a divine faith I do believe it to be divine Revelation I answer because the Church which is revealed by the Scriptures to be perpetually assisted by the holy Ghost and to be infallible for ever in matters of faith defined by her hath delivered it to me as such If again why with a divine faith I believe these Scriptures in general or such a sence of those Texts in particular which are pretended to reveal the Churches infallibility to be divine Revelation I answer as before because Apostolical Tradition hath delivered them to be so which Apostolical Tradition related or conveyed to me by the Church I believe with a divine faith by the internal operation of the Holy Spirit without having at all any further Divine Revelation from which I should believe this Revelation to be divine Or if any will go one step further and prove this Apostolical Tradition also divine from the divine works the Apostles did Miracles yet here he must conclude neither have we any further divine word or work to confirm to us their doing such divine works But then if I be asked further whether I do not believe with a divine faith the Church's relation concerning such Apostolical Tradition or Miracles to be infallible I excluding now this supposition which in the order of these questions is in this place to be excluded viz. that Scriptures are the Word of God and so excluding this answer that I believe the Churches relation infallible with a divine faith from the testimony which the Scriptures give to the Church Here I answer No I do not believe with divine faith this relation of the Church to be infallible for divine faith builds upon nothing but Divine Revelation and if I were to bring another Divine Revelation still to support my faith of the former so must I also bring yet a further Divine Revelation for this my believing the Church and here must needs be a process in infinitum But in this place I answer That I believe the Churches Tradition or testimony being taken here in the latter sence mentioned before § 126 infallible only with an humane and acquisite faith builded on the forenamed prudential motives and the ultimate resolution here of my divine faith is into Apostolical Tradition or their Miracles not the Church-Tradition or her Relation that conveys to me the Apostolical With a divine faith I do believe the Apostolical Tradition related by the Church but I do believe the Church her truly or infallibly I mean not as infallibly here relates to the divine Promise but to the prudential Motives relating this Apostolical Tradition with an acquired or rational faith § 152 The natural order of a Christians belief then seems to be this 1st The Divine Revelations are communicated to the world by certain persons chosen by God and for the confirmation of their mission from him doing Miracles which persons also are commanded by God to ordain others to divulge and perpetuate the knowledge of the same Revelations to mankind to the end of the world the chief body of which these persons also draw up and deliver in writing Of which Divine Revelations delivered by them this is one That these their Successors shall for ever be so far assisted by God's holy Spirit as never to err in teaching all truths or if you will in truly relating all Divine Revelations any way necessary to mens salvation which Divine Revelation also concerning themselves is as it ought to be delivered among the rest to all posterity by these very Successors of whom it is spoken These things thus conveyed those to whom these Revelations are made do 1. with a rational and acquisite faith believe the Tradition of these Successors of the Apostles who are rendred most credible to them by all those prudential motives mentioned before § 121. their multitude their sanctity their Martyrdoms in testimony thereof c. 2. But then applying themselves to the things related which are said to have been revealed and delivered first by God to persons assisted with most infallible Miracles they do believe these things related after the manner expressed before § 134. with yet an higher and a divine faith wrought in them by the holy Spirit and resting it self not on the veracity of these secondary Relators but on the veracity of God himself from whom these Revelations are said originally to come yet the rational introductive to all this faith being the veracity of those who immediately convey the Tradition of these things to them 3. Then further one of the Divine Revelations which the Church or these Successors do deliver to Christians as I said being this That these Successors of the Apostles who deliver their doctrine to us shall be for ever infallible in delivering all necessaries from this Revelation I say delivered by them Christians also believe the infallibility of this Church or of these Successors not by a rational faith only grounded on the former motives of credibility but by a divine faith because grounded on a divine Revelation and consequently believe also all things delivered by these persons as necessaries with a divine faith on the same account § 153 After all this to reflect now a little on the objection We see 1st That no Circle is made in a Catholicks ground or resolution of faith divine or acquisite but that there is an ultimate Revelation divine though this not necessary to be alwayes the same whereon divine faith resteth and into which and no humane motives it resolveth it self and an inward operation of God's Spirit whereby the firmness of adherence of this faith to such Revelation in particular as divine is effected And again that these are motives from humane authority sufficiently credible or also morally infallible or as some of late express themselves not-possibly-fallible which if they can prove whenas it is in the natural power of all men even taken collectively abstracting here from any divine superintendencies to tell a lye none have reason to envy any advancing of the evidences of Christian Religion or any part thereof
But here seems no necessity of pretending any other infallibility in these motives than Catholick writers have formerly maintained and the adversary also allows on which an acquired or humane faith securely resteth these motives carrying such an evidence with them as no other Religion differing from the Christian nor in Christianity any Sect divided from the Catholick Communion can upon any rational account equall 2ly That the infallibility of the Church grounded on divine Revelation and believed by a divine faith is a main ground and pillar of the Catholicks faith for any other Articles thereof that are established by the same Churches definitions where the Scriptures or Tradition Apostolick are to him but I say not the Church doubtful Of which ground and assurance of such points believed by Catholicks from the Church's infallible authority the Protestants faith is destitute 3ly That the faith of all such Articles grounded thus on the Church's infallible authority is by this grounded also on divine Revelation Where note That resolving faith into the Church's infallibility I mean as the Church is declared thus infallible in necessaries by God's Word or divine Revelation whether written the Scriptures or unwritten Tradition Apostolical or into Apostolical Tradition or into Scripture is in general all one and the same resolution i. e. into divine Revelation and ultimately is only believing a thing because God saith it saith it in the Scriptures or also out of them by his Apostles or by the Church succeeding the Apostles by it I say as declared by God's Word to be also infallibly assisted truly to relate and expound what the Apostles or Scripture have formerly said where still the resolution of faith is into the same infallible Word of God delivered by these and not into any proper authority or infallibility of the deliverer and when we say we resolve our faith into the infallibility of the present Church or of the Apostles we mean into Gods infallible Word delivered mediately by the one or immediately by the other And whilst to one that asketh me why I believe the Scriptures I answer because those who wrote them were assisted by God's Spirit to deliver to men those divine Revelations And again to one that asketh me why I believe the Church I answer because the Church is for ever assisted by the same Spirit of God faithfully to relate and expound these former divine Revelations delivered by those who wrote the Scriptures in all necessary matter of faith Here it is clear that if one of these resolutions be into divine Revelation imparted and communicated to man by God's Spirit so must the other though the manner of conveying them to us by the assistance of God's Spirit is different as is explained before § 109. And had the New Testament Scriptures not been writ as they might have been not written without nullifying the being of Christian Religion then all the resolution of the Articles of our faith would have been only into the unwritten testimony of the Apostles and from them of the Church following them to which Church for ever though without any testimony of Scripture the same promises must be supposed to have been made for the writing of these Scriptures surely was no cause of these promises And next these promises might also have been made known to Christians by Tradition Apostolical related only by the Church and consequently the same credence must have been given to this Tradition Apostolical related by the Church concerning such promises made to it as is now given to the Scriptures testifying it 4ly Yet that this Church-infallibility or that Divine Revelation which establisheth it is not necessarily the first or the ultimate divine Revelation into which every Catholick's faith concerning any particular point of his belief is necessarily resolved for the divine faith of several persons concerning particular points may have a various resolution as they come by divers wayes or from divers principles to believe it and one Article of faith may be savingly believed without the present knowledge or belief of another whereon it hath dependance as one may believe with a divine faith either the Scripture's or the Church's infallibility from Apostolical Tradition one before the other as they happen to be first proposed to them of which see what is said before § 128.145 and by the certainty of his Faith grounded thereon attain eternal salvation And blessed be his Divine Majesty for so firmly establishing Christianity one these two sure Bases the Scriptures and the Church For both are Pillars of Truth †1 Tim. 3.15 and both alwayes bear witness as to it so also to one another And what thou hast thus joyned O Lord let no man be able to separate nor the Gates of Hell ever so far prevail against them as that any should prosper in their indeavours to build the Authority of the one out of the ruines of the other Amen § Thus much be said concerning the necessary Resolution of a Catholick's Faith The Conclusion and in satisfaction to those other objections that are urged against a living Ecclesiastical infallible guide in all necessaries maintained in the former Discourses and affirmed also easily discernable from all other Pretenders After all which in the last place the Protestant Reader is humbly desired soberly to consider with himself whether if indeed there be such a Catholick unfailing Guide as is here pretended and that Church also whose conduct he hath renounced be It whom our Lord hath left amidst the distractions of so many Sects and Opinions to bring men by a sure way to Heaven whether I say notwithstanding all those reasons and arguments that have been here and are elsewhere by Catholicks frequently urged in demonstration thereof yet his ignorance thereof still remains so innocent and invincible that he dares rely on this Plea at the appearance of our Lord for his living and dying irreconciled unto Her because no sufficient evidence hath been left him to discern Her And next to consider whether if indeed she be what here she is pretended there can be any secular interest so valuable as any way to recompence the loss he sustains in his present separation from this Church by foregoing all that means of salvation and growth in grace and advantages of an holy life which he might with great spiritual content enjoy in her happy bosom Of which advantages because they are by few of those departed from this Church so well weighed as they ought for a conclusion of the whole I beg leave not to stay only in universals but to represent some particulars to the begetting in Him by the aid of the Divine Grace an holy emulation and longing for the re-fruition of them and a greater resentment of his present impediments and defects § 155 Let him then in the name and fear of God consider the great benefit as to the working of his salvation which he might happily enjoy in this Church by these particulars following * By
her daily celebrated Sacrifice of the Altar and the so often renewed corporal presence of our Lord in the holy Eucharist and the most acceptable opportunity of the presentation of his requests and opening of his necessities at this time Quando in manibus est hostia to use S. Chrysostom's words †In Act. Hom. 21. adsunt Angeli adsunt Archangeli adest Filius Dei Dum mors ill a perficitur horrendum Sacrificium ineffabilia Sacramenta quasi sedente Rege quaecunque quis voluerit perficit * By the suffrages of the Saints here so honourably commemorated and their intercessions so frequently implored * By the frequent examining and purging of his conscience by Sacramental Confession and the prudent advices of his Ghostly Father and a frequent participation of the holy Communion the use whereof with many more devoutly pious Sons of the Church is almost quotidian * By those many excellent Rules and other means which this Church in a singular and transcendent manner to any other Christian Society prescribes to and provides for him for eradicating former habits of sin getting the mastery of his own will and passions mortifying carnal lusts and worldly ambitions acquiring and preserving Christian virtues and attaining perfection § 156 Such as are * Her special recommendation of frequent and long Fasts of Abstinences from pleasant food of Retirement Cloisters and solitude of Celibacy to the persons well prepared to receive it as all may be if they will ut sint sine solicitudine 1 Cor. 7.32 of voluntary Poverty I mean the possession only of a necessary livelyhood and of a resigned Obedience I mean in all lawful things only to the will of a discreet Superior * Her recommending so highly corporal Mortifications as most profitable for the cure of all diseases of the soul and for planting in it true humility and self-denial such as are mean fare hard lodging course apparel hair-cloth disciplines watchings c. And her enjoyning the abstinence from many things lawful for preventing of actions unlawful * Her accurate studying the diseases of the Soul and weighing the several degrees and malignities of sins carefully severing those which give mortal wounds from those that bring slighter hurts and prescribing to her Penitents great diversity of medicinal penances as one or other may more conduce to the removal of them and to the producing a future compleat Reformation * Her excellent directions in mystical Theology and the practice of mental and vocal Prayer for attaining Recollection and a closer union with God and her most prudent conduct of the illiterate having but few prayers by heart and not able to help themselves by Books in a frequent repetition of them to several particular pious intentions and especially their calling to mind the several mysteries of our Redemption so to continue these persons also in a constant devotion * Her diligent prescribing choice subjects and Heads and wayes of Meditation and amongst these especially those of the poor and humble life the great and silent sufferings and the painful and patient death of our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ proposed as a perfect pattern of inheriting future glory by present humility and sufferings to which all as much as may be ought to conform And next the reading of the holy Lives of his Saints in which she abounds and furnisheth her Subjects incomparably beyond any other Christian Society * The high value she sets upon and necessity she urgeth of an inherent Sanctity of the practice of Christian virtues and of good works especially those of Almsdeeds mercy and charity to our neighbour in so much that some of her adversaries say but untruly that she intrusts salvation more upon our own merits than our Lord's of which works her publick benefactions shew great variety beyond any other Sects extending to all the wants of humane life she instituting also several Societies or Fraternities who relieve with their charities or instruct and comfort with their learning and advice or fortifie with the Sacraments or tend with their persons those who seem the greatest spectacles of misery and objects of pitty * Her zealous vindicating the powerful effect of our Lord's Redemption as to the future observing of all his Laws and the ability which the Grace of the holy Ghost purchased by him confers on all the regenerate to walk henceforth in all the Commandements of God blameless as to mortal fin And her proposing an infinite variety and degrees of the future celestial reward one much greater and higher than another and all distributed according to the degrees of a Christian perfection here no extraordinary service losing its just wages and who sows plentifully so reaping thereby encouraging her Sons to undertake difficult matters for the service of his Divine Majesty and to attempt the observance of the highest Rules of perfection and imitation of the greatest Saints And her prescribing many useful lessons and Documents for the attaining and preserving of all Christian virtues These with the several mysteries of our Redemption being the chief Subject of her publick Discourses wherein she indeavours to render her Sons not only purged from sin but perfect in love * Her most careful assistance of all her children at their last hour with the help of her Sacraments cleansing them with Confession and exciting acts of Contrition arming them with the sacred Viaticum and other Sacraments and then following them with her Prayers and Oblations into the next world that thus they may in all manners participate the benefits of the Communion of Saints * Her great care to preserve an holy Clergy enjoyning them Celibacy the more to free them from secular incumbrances Vt non sint divisi Dominum obsecrent sine impedimento †1 Cor. 7.33 35. and a daily long Divine Service ordinarily indispensable distributed into several hours to keep them as it were in a continuall colloquy with God and to pay him for mankind a daily tribute of Praise enjoyned also a frequent i.e. at least on all Sundayes and solemn Festivaâ—s oblation of the Evangelical Sacrifice and participation of the holy Communion prepared so often also for any others that hunger after this daily Bread things which it were a great crime for such persons to do when living in any mortal sin And her linking them also together by a most regular subordination and strict obedience to retain them unanimous in all things she prescribes and so to derive upon them and her self the blessings of unity and peace * Her prudent distribution of the Circle of the Year in her publick Liturgy as it were into a continual meditation of the chief mysteries of our Redemption lengthning the more solemn Festivals therof with Octaves furnishing them with a service closely applyed to the season and adorned with Lections out of the Fathers Hymns Antiphons Responsories proper to the solemnity which great Festivals are elsewhere ordinarily passed over only with Scripture Lections and a
and conformity to them imposed by the Ecclesiastical Governours both of the Eastern and Western Church at the appearance of Luther Which remains here a little more fully to be vindicated and cleared a 1 st A substantial conversion of the Elements §. 158. n 2. and a corporal presence of our Lords Body and Blood in the Eucharist as to the Western Church was in several Councils defined against Berengarius †See Disc 1. §. 57. and as to the Eastern Church the modern Greeks are confessed in this point to agree with the Romnists by learned Protestants * By Dr. Potter p. 225. where affirming a difference between the Roman opinion and that of the rest of the Catholick Church as to many other points yet this particular he excepts from them in this manner Vnless happily saith he the opinion of Transubstantiation may be excepted wherein the latter Greeks seem to agree with the Romanists quoting there these their Authors for it Nicaetae Thesaur Orthod Euthym. Panoplia Hierem. Patriarch C. P. in Respons 1. 2. ad Lutheranos Nicol. Episcop Methon Respons Graec. ad Card Guis. * By Bishop Forbes de Euchar. l. 1. c. 3. p. 412. Patet saith he ex Graecis recentioribus ut alios paulo antiquiores omittam Nicaetae thesauro Orthod Euthym. panoplia tit 21 Nicolao Methonensi Saemona Gazenzi Nicolao Cabasila Marco Ephesio Bessarione qui omnes in suis opusculis apertissime Transubstantiationem confitentur See a collection of the most of them by Johan à sancta Andrea Et in concilio Florentino non suit quaestio inter Graecos Latinos ut Kemnitius aliique multi Protestantes affirmant an panis substantialiter in corpus Christi mutaretur sed quibusnam verbis illa ineffabilis mutatio fieret an solis verbis Domini an verò etiam Sacerdotis Ecclesiae oratione * By Sands West Rel. p. 235. and others And the same expressions in the Consecration which expressions the Protestants thought fit to change when they changed their opinion the like Adoration and Oblation of these Mysteries for the living and the dead used in the Greek as well as Latine service as also this that there hath been no Controversie between these two Churches as touching this matter do sufficiently evidence a concurrence of their doctrine herein And all the rest of these points also are contained and apparent in the former publick Lâ—turgies and Services as well of the Greek as of the Latin Church to which pubâ—ick Service all those are obliged to conform who â—ill contâ—nue in the Communion of these Churches b Concerning the second a necessary consquent of the first â— 159. we read thus in the present form of the â—reek Mas Dehinc adorat Sacerdos Diaconus in quo est loco Et populus similiter cunctus cum devotione adorat Cum autem viderit Diaconus Sacerdotem manus extendentem sanctum panem tangentem ut faciat sanctam Elevationem which Elevation is mentioned also in St Basils Liturgy exclamat Attendamus Et Sacerdos Sancta sanctis c. And afterward Sacerdos tenens sanctum Calicem vocat Diaconum dicens Diaconâ— accede Et Diaconus aceedit adorat sâ—mel dicens Ecce venio ad immortalem regem c. And again Diaconus adorans semel sumit sanctum Calicem cum veneratione procedit c. This also is granted by the same Bishop Forves de Eucharistia p. 442. That Graeci venetiis viventes reliqui etiam Graeci omnes adorant Christum in Eucharistiâ quis ausit saith he omnes his Christianos Idolatriae arcessere damnare c Concerning the third §. 160 n. 1 See the solemn performance thereof in the modern Canon of the Greek Mass as fully and much what with the like expressions as in the Roman for the excluding of which expressions this Canon suffered so great an alteration at the beginning of the Reformation There we read in the Mass of S. Chrysostom Tua ex tuis tibi offerimus per omnia in omnibus Offerimus tibi rationalem hunc incruentum cultum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in consecrando offerendo hanc propâ—tiationis hostiam See Cyrill Hierosol Catec Mystag c. 5. commenting on the Canon of the Mass Et supplicamus emitte Spiritum Sanctum tuum in nos in haec dona proposita Offerimus tibi rationale hoc obsequium pro his qui in fide requiescunt pro Majoribus Patribus Patriarâ—his c. i.e. ut illis proficiat ad honorem pro requie remissâ—one animarum servorum tuorum in loco lucido c. ut illis proficiat ad salutem pro sanctâ Catholicâ Apostoliâ Ecclesiâ c. Again Vt clemens Deus noster qui oblata sanctificata pretiosa Dona in sanctum supercaeleste intellectuale suum altare suscepit in odorem spiritualis suavitatis nobis divinam gratiam sanctissimi spiritus donum rependat Dominum precemur And in the Mass of S. Basil Memento Domine eorum qui tibi haec dona obtulerunt pro quibus per quos †Mede Christian Sacrif p. 525. 475 Bp. Bramh. Reply to Chalced. c. 9. propter quos haeâ— obtulerunt And aâ—terward Tu Deus noster qui haec dona suscepisti purga nos ab omni inquinamento carnis spiritus ut puro quidem tâ—stimonio conscientiae nostrae suscipienâ—es partem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctificatorum tuorum stâ—led also therâ— veneranda supercoelestia illibata vivifica mysteria uniamur sancto â—â—orpori sanguini Christi tui And indeed Learned Protestants †p 371 372 Thorndik Epiâ—og l. 3. c. 5. p. 46. c. together with the whole Greek aâ—d Latine Church granting the Eucharist to be the Christian oâ— Evangelical Sacrifice not only in respect of the action in it of Praise and Thanksgiving but also in respect of the Oblation to God of the mysteries in the Consecration as a Commemorative or Representative of the Body and Blood of Christ offered on the Cross 2 And next the Grecian Church being once conceded to agree with the Western in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or corporal presence see before § 158. n. 2. it necessarily follows that the Greek Church doth together with the Western hold an Oblation made to God in the Eucharist of that very Body and Blood of Christ i. e. do maintain the Sacrifice of the Mass § 161 d Concerning the fourth Multis jam seculis saith Bishop Forbes de Invocatione Sanctorum p. 321. in universâ Ecclesiâ in Oriente non minùs quam in Occidente etiam in Aquilone apud Muscovitas Litania est decantata ut puta Sancte Petre ora pro nobis And see in the Officium Exequiarum apud Goar p. 325 528. Quae sola pura illibata virgo Deum absque semine peperisti intercede ut ejus anima salvetur per te vitam invenit hominum Genus per te paradisum
Grecian opinions are since but what they were when first the Reformation was made Now Jeremias his declaration was not long after the beginning of the Reformation and Cyril's above 50. years after his 2ly Concerning the newness of Cyril's opinions the words of Knowles ibid are considerable who there saith That he was a reverent and learned man and that he desired to reform many errors and to enlighten much of the blindness of his Church So that it seems he was a Reformer in the Greek Church as these others were in the Western which also appears from the complaints and persecution against him more than against his Predecessors by the Agents of the Roman Church upon this pretence Knowles ibid. And he is said †Spondan A. D. 1638. Franc. à S. Clarâ system fidei p. 528. at last for certain crimes objected to him and among others charged with innovations in Religion by the Greeks to have been imprisoned and shortly after executed and another Cyril ab Iberia formerly rejected to have been repossessed of his Chair But 3ly How contrary soever Cyril's opinions are to those of Jeremias yet the same testimonies above-named †§. 158. n 2. 165 162. that shew Jeremias's to be the doctrines of the Greek Church shew Cyril's whoever had new reformed him not to be so But 4ly Indeed his declaration though it seems purposely moulded according to the Calvinists expressions is very short and sparing general and unclear extending to few points and waving the rest and forbearing there to mention any one point save that of the procession of the holy Gho t wherein the Greeks differ from the reformed as surely in some they do and again those points therein in which Cyril seems more clearly to contradict both Jeremias's and the Roman tenents namely the denying of Purgatory and of Transubstantiation if therein he intend to deny all sorts of Purgatory though not by five and all transmutation of the Elements in the Eucharist are unquestionably singular and not owned by the Greeks as is shewed before and as is witnessed also by some reformed †§. 167 169. c. out of the common relations of the Grecian opinions and practâ—ces 5ly If Cyril or any other Patriarch of Constantinople should entertain any reformed and new opinions diverse from his predecessors whilst such a one is not followed in them by the rest of the Church These are to be stiled not its doctrines but his own and it is not denied that Patriarchs as well as others may be heretical for in several ages some have been so But 6ly If the rest of the Greek Church should also have concurred with Cyril in such innovation then will this only follow that it is true of the Greek Church as of the Protestant that they also have reformed from the whole Catholick Church 1. from the former as well Greek Church as Latine and so this fact of theirs will prove no just plea for the Protestant practice if a departure from the Church Catholick bâ— Schism but only the enlargment of the same guilt to another Church THE FOURTH DISCOURSE Containing the SOCINIANS Apology for the believing and teaching his Doctrine against former Church-Definitions and present Church-Authority upon the Protestant's Grounds Divided into Five CONFERENCES The I. CONFERENCE The Socinian's Protestant-Plea for his not holding any thing contrary to the Holy Scriptures § 2. 1st THat he believes all contained in the Scriptures to be God's Word and therefore implicitely believes those truths against which he errs Ib. 2. That also he useth his best indeavours to find the true sence of Scriptures and that more is not required of him from God for his faith or salvation than doing his best endeavours for attaining it § 3. 3. That as for an explicite faith required of some points necessary he is sufficiently assured that this point concerning the Sons consubstantiality with the Father as to the affirmative is not so from the Protestant's affirming all necessaries to be clear in Scripture even to the unlearned which this in the affirmative is not to him § 4. 4. That several express and plain Scriptures do perswade him that the negative if either is necessary to be believed and that from the clearness of Scriptures he hath as much certainty in this point as Protestants can have from them in some other held against the common expressions of the former times of the Church § 6 8. 5. That for the right understanding of Scriptures either he may be certain of a just industry used or else that Protestants in asserting that the Scriptures are plain only to the industrious and then that none are certain when they have used a just industry thus must still remain also uncertain in their faith as not knowing whether some defect in this their industry causeth them not to mistake the Scriptures 6. Lastly That none have used more diligence in the search of Scripture than the Socinians as appears by their writings addicting themselves wholly to this Word of God and not suffering themselves to be any way by ass'd by any other humane either modern or ancient authority § 5. Digress Where the Protestant's and Socinian's pretended certainty of the sence of Scripture apprehended by them and made the ground of their faith against the sence of the same Scripture declared by the major part of the Church is examined § 9. The II. CONFERENCE His Plea for his not holding any thing contrary to the unanimous sence of the Catholick Church so far as this can justly oblige § 13. 1st THat an unanimous consent of the whole Catholick Church in all ages such as the Protestants require for the proving of a point of faith to be necessary can never be shewed concerning this point of Consubstantiality § 13. And that the consent to such a doctrine of the major part is no argument sufficient since the Protestants deny the like consent valid for several other points § 14. 2. That supposing an unanimous consent of the Church Catholick of all ages in this point yet from hence a Christian hath no security of the truth thereof according to Protestant Principles if this point whether way soever held be a non-necessary for that in such it is said the whole Church may err § 15. 3. That this Article's being in the affirmative put in the Creed proves it not as to the affirmative a necessary § 16. 1st Because not originally in the Creed but added by a Council to which Creed if one Council may add so may another of equal authority in any age and whatever restrain the made by a former Council 2. Because several Articles of the later Creeds are affirmed by Protestants not necessary to be believed but upon a previous conviction that they are divine revelation § 16. 4. Lastly That though the whole Church delivers for truth in any point the contrary to that he holds he is not obliged to resign his judgment to hers except conditionally and
Prot. And your answer 's new forced absurd as may clearly appear to any rational and indifferent person perusing Volkelius l. 5. from the 10. to the 14. Chapter But to omit this dispute as now beside my purpose If your sence of the Scriptures you have urged be so manifest and clear as you pretend how comes so great a part of the Christian world doubtless rational men in the sence of these very Scriptures so much to differ from you Therefore here I cannot but still suppose in you the defect of a due industry well comparing these Scriptures and void of pride passion and other interest Soc. And I return the like question to you If on the clearness of the express sence of these Scriptures I cannot infallibly ground my faith against many other rational men contradicting on what plainness of the sence of any other Scripture is it that Protestants can ground theirs against a contrary sence given by the learned by several Councils by the whole Church of some ages as they do not promising to the Councils even to the four first an absolute but conditional assent viz. only so far as their decrees agree with these clear Scriptures If neither the plain words of Scripture can afford a sufficient certainty to me in this matter which Scriptures you say in fundamentals are to all perspicuous and such do many deem this point nor I can have a sufficient assurance of using an unbâ—ast industry in the understanding of these Scriptures and also in the comparing them with others in which I am conscious to my self of no neglect I see no sufficient ground of my presuming to understand any other part of Scripture and then wherein can lye the assurance of a Protestant's faith for his not erring in Fundamentals at least Bishop Lany tells me †Serm. at Whitehall March 12.1664 p. 17. That when we have certain knowledge of a thing we may safely learn from the Schools viz. Vbi non est formido contrarii that after diligent search and inquiry when there remains no scruple doubt and fear of the contrary when the understanding is fixt we are said to be certain And that they who will say it and do think so too may safely be absolved from the guilt of disobedience Prot. †Dr. Ferne Division of Churches p. 47.61 Chillingw p. 57. You have a judgment of discretion I grant and may interpret Scripture for your self without the use of which judgement you cannot serve God with a reasonable service who are also to give account of your self and are to be saved by your own faith and do perish upon your own score †Stillingf p. 133. None may usurp that royal prerogative of heaven in prescribing infallibly in matters questioned but leave all to judge according to the pandects of the divine laws because each member of this Society is bound to take care of his soul and of all things that tend thereto †Chillingw p. 59 100. In matters of Religion when the question is whether any man be a fit judge and chooser for himself we suppose men honest and such as understand the difference between a moment and eternity And then I suppose that all the necessary points in Religion are plain and easie and consequently every man in this case to be a compleat judge for himself because it concerns himself to judge aright as much as eternal happiness is worth and if through his own default he judge amiss he alone shall suffer for it To God's righteous judgment therefore I must finally remit you At your own peril be it This of the Socinians plea concerning the Scripture on his side § 9 Where the self-clearness of the sence of Scriptures not mistakable in Fundamentals or necessaries upon a due industry used of which also rightly used men may be sufficiently assured being made the ground as you see of the Protestants and Socinians faith before these two proceed to any further conference give me leave to interpose a word between them concerning this certainty so much spoken of and presumed on § 10 And here first from this way lately taken by many Protestants there seems to be something necessarily consequent which I suppose they will by no means allow viz. That instead of the Roman Church her setting up some men the Church Governors as infallible in necessaries here is set up by them every Christian if he will both infallible in all necessaries and certain that he is so For the Scripture they affirm most clear in all necessaries to all using a due industry and of this due industry they also affirm men may be certain that they have used it it being not all possible endeavour but such a measure thereof as ordinary discretion c. adviseth to See Mr. Chillingworth p. 19. And next from this affirmed firmed that every one may be so certain in all Fundamentals it must be maintained also that their spiritual Guides in a conjunction of them nay more every single Prelate or Presbyter if they are not yet may be an infallible Guide to the people in all Points necessary And therefore Mr. Chillingworth freely thus vindicates it †p. 140. That these also may be both in Fundamentals and also in some points unfundamental both certain of the infallibility of their Rule and that they do manifestly proceed according to it and then in what they are certain that they cannot be mistaken they may saith he †p. 118 140. 166. lawfully decide the controversies about them and without rashness propose their decrees as certain divine Revelations and excommunicate anathematize also any man persisting in the contrary error And there seems reason in such Anathema because all others either do or may know the truth of the same decrees by the same certain means as these Governors do Now then what certainty the Guides of a particular Church may have I hope may also those of the Church Catholick and then obedience being yielded to these by all their inferiors this will restore all things to their right course All this follows upon certainty 1 That Scriptures are plain in Fundamentals And 2 that due industry is used to understand them But if you should deny that men can have a certainty of their industry rightly used then again is all the fair security these men promise their followers of their not erring in necessaries quite vanished But now to pass from this consequence to which I know not what can be said and to enquire a litle after the true grounds of our certainty in any thing which is here so much pretended 1st It cannot be denyed that he that doth err in one thing may be certain that he doth not err in some other because he may have sufficient ground and means for his not erring in one thing which he hath not in another Nor again denyed that he who possibly may err yet in the same thing may be certain that he doth not err if
Church Where the Dr. seems to grant these two things That all that the Catholick Church declares against Heresie is grounded upon the Scripture and that all such as oppose her judgement are Hereticks but only he adds that they are not Hereticks properly or formally for this opposing the Church but for opposing the Scriptures Whilst therefore the formalis ratio of Heresie is disputed that all such are Hereticks seems granted And the same Dr. else here concludes thus ‖ p. 132. The mistaker will never prove that we oppose any Declaration of the Catholick Church he means such a Church as makes Declarations and that must be in her Councils and therefore he doth unjustly charge us with Heresie And again he saith †p. 103. Whatsoever opinion these ancient writers St. Austin Epiphanius and others conceived to be contrary to the common or approved opinion of Christians that they called an Heresie because it differed from the received opinion not because it opposed any formal Definition of the Church where in saying not because it opposed any Definition he means not only because For whilst that which differed from the received opinion of the Church was accounted an Heresie by them that which differed from a formal definition of the Church was so much more Something I find also for your better information in the learned Dr. Hammond †Titus 3.11 commenting on that notable Text in Titus A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition reject a Text implying contrary to your discourse Heresie discoverable and censurable by the Church where he explains 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self condemned not to signifie a mans publick accusing or condemning his own doctrines or practices for that condemnation would rather be a motive to free one from the Churche's censures Nor 2ly to denote one that offends against conscience and though he knows he be in the wrong yet holds out in opposition to the Church for so none but Hypocrites would be Hereticks and he that stood out against the Doctrin of Christ and his Church in the purest times you may guesse whom he means should not be an Heretick and so no Heretick could possibly be admonished or censured by the Church for no man would acknowledge of himself that what he did was by him done against his own conscience the plea which you also here make for your self But to be an expression of his separation from and disobedience to the Church and so an evidence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his being perverted and sinning wilfully and without excuse †See more Protestants cited to this purpose Disc 3. §. 19. § 26. What say you to this Soc. What these Authors say as you give their sence seems to me contrary to the Protestant Principles †See Dr. Potter p. 165.167 Dr. Hammond of Heresie § 7 n. 3 §. 9. n. 8 Des of L. Faukl c. 1. p. 23. See before Disc 3. §. 41 n. 1. and their own positions elswhere neither surely will Protestants tye themselves to this measure and trial of autocatacrisy For since they say That lawfull General Councils may erre in Fundamentals these Councils may also define or declare something Heresie that is not against a Fundamental and if so I though in this self-convinced that such is their Definition yet am most free from Heresie in my not assenting to it or if they err intolâ—erably in opposing it Again since Protestants say Councels may erre in distinguishing Fundamentals these Councels may erre also in discerning Heresie which is an error against a Fundamental from other errors that are against non-Fundamentals Again Whilst I cannot distinguish Fundamentals in their Definitions thus no Definition of a General Councel may be receded from by me for fear of my incurring Heresie a consequence which Protestants allow not Again Since Protestants affirm all Fundamentals plain in Scripture why should they place autocatacrisy or self-conviction in respect of the Declaration of the Church rather than of the Scripture But to requite your former quotations I will shew in plainer language the stating of Protestant Divines concerning autocatacrisy as to the Definitions of the Church under which my opinion also findes sufficient shelter We have no assurance at all saith Bishop Bramball †Reply to Chalced. p. 105. that all General Councils were and alwayes shall be so prudently managed and their proceedings alwayes so orderly and upright that we dare make all their sentences a sufficient conviction of all Christians which they are bound to believe under pain of damnation I add or under pain of Heresie And Ib. p. 102. I acknowledge saith he that a General Council may make that revealed truth necessary to be believed by a Christian as a point of Faith which formerly was not necessary to be believed that is whensoever the reasons and grounds of truth produced by the Council or the authority of the Council which is and alwayes ought to be very great with all sober discreet Christians do convince a man in his conscience of the truth of the Councils Definitions which truth I am as yet not convinced of neither from the reasons nor authority of the Council of Nice Or if you had rather have it out of Dr. Potter It is not the resisting saith he †p. 128. the voice or definitive sentence which makes an Heretick but an obstinate standing out against evident Scripture sufficiently cleared unto him And the Scripture may then be said to be sufficiently cleared when it is so opened that a good and teachable mind loving and seeking truth my conscience convinceth me not but that such I am cannot gainsay it Again †p. 129. It is possible saith he that the sentence of a Council or Church may be erroneous either because the opinion condemned is no Heresie or error against the Faith in it self considered or because the party so condemned is not sufficiently convinced in his understanding not clouded with prejudice ambition vain-glory or the like passion that it is an error one of these I account my selfe Or out of Dr. Hammond †Heresie p. 114. It must be lawful for the Church of God any Church or any Christian upon the Drs. reason as well as for the Bishop of Rome to inquire whether the Decrees of an universal Council have been agreeable to Apostolical Tradition or no and if they be found otherwise to reject them out or not to receive them into their beliefe And then still it is the matter of the Decrees and the Apostolicalness of them and the force of the testification whereby they are approved and acknowledged to be such which gives the authority to the Council and nothing else is sufficient where that is not to be found And elsewhere he both denies in General an Infallibility of Councils †Se before Disc 1 §. 6. and grounds the Reverence due to the Four first Councils on their setting down and convincing the truth
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
Poenitentiam Et 7 Extremae Vctionis oleum Of which see below § 181. Resp ad 9. sect 172 For these many differences of the Greek as well as the Roman from the Reformed Churches it is that Mason being to prove a case of necessity for the ordaining of Protestant Ministers beyond Seas only by Presbyters in § 23. on that subject argues thus These Ministers could not receive Ordination from the Popish Churches because of the abomination of their sacrificing Priesthood and because these would ordain none but in a Popish manner to a Popish Priesthood c. And neither saith he by the same reason could they obtain Ordination from the Greek Church For Bellarmine denyeth it to be a Church because they were lawfully convicted in three full Councils of Heresie and especially of the Heresie about the proceeding of the holy Ghost which to be a manifest Heresie saith Bellarmine both the Lutherans and the Calvinists do confess Wherefore seeing no Church as Mason goeth on will give Orders but only to such persons as approve their doctrine therefore they could not with a safe conscience seek to the Greek Church whose doctrine they justly misliked And being thus excluded from the Greek and the Latine from the East and the West no Bishops being as yet turned Protestants to ordain what shouâ—d be done It was the duty of the Magistrates not to suffer false Prophâ—ts and to plant godly Preachers in their plaâ—es But whence shouâ—d tâ—â—y have them the Bishops were so faâ— fâ—om yielding Ordinaâ—â—o◠〈…〉 tolerable manner that they persecuted such as sought thâ—◠〈…〉 Wherefore it must either be devolved unto Presbyters 〈…〉 â—ad already dâ—sâ—rted eur former Church-Commuâ—â—◠〈◊〉 the Church of God must suffer most laâ—entable ruine and desolation 〈◊〉 Anâ— was not this a case of necessâ—ty thus Mason well â—eeing the Reâ—ormation as much destitute of any relief or countenance from the Greek Church as from the Roman § 173 And now by the two Relations of Sands and Ross both Protestants we may see how much truth the assertion of Cardinal Perron in his Reply to King James Observation 3. c. 22 hath in it who there undertakes to make good That these doctrines or customs are common to the Western Church with the Oriental and Meridional upon which Doctrines therefore the Pope's Supremacy may be gathered to have had no influence Namely Transubstantiation of bread into the Body of Christ Adoration of the Eucharist Oblation of the Sacrifice of the Mass as a propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead Prayer to Saints Veneration of Reliques and Images prayer for the dead Confession Sacramental and Auricular Lent Vows Celibacy of Religious Interdiction of Priests to marry after having taken Orders Seven Sacraments using in Divine Service the original Tongue not understood by the vulgar The same doctrine of Freewil and Justification § 174 To Perron add Grotius his judgement in the Preface to his Votum pro pace where giving account of the success of his former Studies he saith Ii qui secesserant the reformed ut factum suum tuerentur asserebant validè doctrinam Ecclesiae ejus quae cum sede principe cohaeserat esse corruptam per multas haeraeses idololatriam Id mihi causas dedit inquirendi in dogmata ejus Ecclesiae legendi libros utrinque scriptos legendi eriam quae scripta crant de praelenti statu ac doctrinâ Ecclesiae ejus quae est in Graeciâ earum quae per Asiam Aegyptum ei cohaeserunt Inveni in Oriente eadem esse dogmata quae essent in Occidenti Conciliis Vniversalibus definita de Regiminee Ecclesiae exceptis cum Papâ Controversiis i.e. about his authority de Sacramentorum perpetuis Ritibus sententias consonantes Therefore the Pope easily indulged the Russian Greek Churches who are subject to the King of Poland when they reconciled themselves to the Roman Church and submitted to his Supremacy to continue all their former Grecian Rites and Ceremonies and the same he permitteth also to the Greek Church in Rome § 175 This of the modern Greek Church which now hath two Patriarchs undependent of one another one residing at Constantinople and another at Hierusalem to which later the Greeks in and about Palestine do adhere Now with the Greek Church are joyned in Religion and Communion * the Russian Churches excepting those under the King of Poland joyned to the Roman * the Inhabitants of Georgia or Iberia and * the Melchites of Syria called so by other Sectaries because they adhere to the Council of Chalcedon i. e. as the other reported it to the Imperial Faction To whom also I may join the Maronites conforming in their Liturgy and most of the Ceremonies of their Religion to the Greek Church but in their Communion now joyned to the Roman Of these the Maronites Georgians have two independent Patriarchs of their own set up without any conciliar authority acting therein the one residing in a Monastery in Mount Sinai the other in a Monastery in Mount Libanus The Metropolitan of the Russians also hath of late cast off his subjection to the Patriarch of Constantinople and stands absolute Only the Melchites of Syria continue their subjection still to the Patriarch of Antioch translated to Damascus Antioch now ruined Now if inquiry be made after the judgment or practice in the points forementioned of the other Churches or Sects §. 176. n 1. in the Eastern parts of the world 1. Here 1st If we should admit some variation or disparity of all these Churches from the rest as to several of these points yet cannot these reasonably be put in the scale to counterballance the Greek and Latine Church shewed already to be united therein Especially since these I mean the remotest Eastern and Southern Churches and chiefly those comprehended within the Patriarchate of Alexandria with which also the Ethiopian or Abyssin Church hath alwayes run the same course being a constant adherent to it were the first part of Christianity that was over-born with the Power of Mahomet that great false Prophet and open opposer of our Lord Christ and his Kingdom and so the first wherein the Christian Doctrine and discipline learning and good manners were oppressed relaxed and corrupted these miserable Churches falling under the Mahometan bondage in the seventh Century suffering first the Arabian or Sarazen and then the Scythian or Turkish tyranny whereas the Greek meanwhile was respited from it till about the 14th Against these Churches also there want not some other prejudices both for that several of them have causlesly departed from the obedience of their former Patriarchs and have set up new ones in their stead And yet more for that they have made a recession also from the former allowed General Councils some of them by maintaining Nestorianism and others Eutychianism contrary to them and as the Greek Church stands divided from the Roman in the procession of the holy Ghost so these again from the
Greek in the doctrine concerning the unity of the person plurality of the natures of our Lord. Of these Christians §. 176. n. 2. then inhabiting the more Eastern Countries Armenia Mesopotamia Assyria Persia India or the more Southern Egypt and Ethiopia those called Aegosti or Cophti these Abyssines Of these I say the Armenians have set up two later Patriarchs of their own the one for Armenia the greater the other for the lesser The Assyrians Persians and Mesopotamians are ranged also under a new Patriarch of Musal or Babylon only the Egyptians and Abyssines are subject still to the Patriarch of Alexandria now removed to Grand-Caire and living in a Monastery at some distance from it Again of these those Christians that are dispersed in Assyria Persia and the more Eastern parts except such as are reduced by the Roman Missions are generally said to profess Nestorianism though this as Dr. Field observes †See Dr. Field of the Church p. 62 Thom. a Jesu de Conversion gentium l. 7. c. 2. c. somewhat qualified they not denying Christ the son of Mary from his first conception to be personally God as Nestorius did but affirming his humane nature so perfect also as not to be separated from its personality On the other side the Armenians and Jacobites in Mesepotamia and the Egyptians or Cophthites and Ethiopians or Abyssines in Affrick are held guilty of Eutychianism or rather of Dioscorism †Dr. Field p. 64 66 Thomas a Jesu l. 7. c. 14. who was Patriarch of Alexandria and condemned in the Council of Chalcedon they being said to hold Christ 〈◊〉 consist of two natures indeed and that they are not one by coâ—â—â—tion contrary to Eutyches but not to consist in two natures after the union of them but these two natures then to become one by coadunation according to Dioscorus who held these two natures so united that one personated nature arose out of two not personated quoting for it some expressions of Cyril his predecessor If this then be true that Dr. Field out of Thom. a Jesu delivers of these two Eastern Sects that stand distinct from the Greek Churches though they be not perfect Eutychians and Nestorians in their opinion yet such they are as do still transgress and offend against the faith and definitions of the third and fourth General Council the later of which the greatest body of them expresly declares against See Dr. Field c. 1. p. 70 71. And if so there seems no reason that they should be reckoned as by some Protestants they are not only a part which some of them Hereticis credentes or invincibly ignorant may be internally as to attaining salvation but if the Greek Church be added the main body of the Catholick Church nor any reason why her Councils should be esteemed defective without their concurrence 2. But next these considerations omitted yet as to the nine forementioned modern controversies of most note all or the most of these Eastern bodies do seem for as much as may be gathered from their publick Liturgies and Missals which they have either the same with those of the Greek Church viz. S. Chrysostom's and S. Basil's or very little varying from them †See Cassand Liturg. c. 9. c. concerning the Syrian Armenian Egyptian or Abyssine Liturgies See Garetius his collections out of them Centur. 16. p. 191. and from the relations made by Travellors they seem I say much what of the same profession with the Greek Church § 177 1st Concerning a substantial Conversion of the Symboles or the corporal presence of our Lord's Body and blood in the Eucharist these all retain the same expressions in the Consecration with the Latine and Greek Churches from which we may presume that they understand them in the same sence which sence when the Reformers varied from they did think fit also in their new Liturgies to alter these expressions The same corporal presence is confirmed * from their offering in the same service this Body and blood as a Sacrifice pro vivis defunctis a part of the Mass which is also reformed in the new Protestant-Liturgies and * from the like reverence performed by them as by the Greek and Latine Church in the handling and receiving of these stupendious Mysteries these Churches for fear of the least indecencies either receiving after the manner of the Greeks in a spoon the Body of our Lord intinct in the Blood or else some little portion of the blood only in a spoon if they receive the Body and Blood apart and some of these Nations as the Abyssines out of the great reverence to what they have received are not permitted to spit the same day that they communicate and if such thing happen it is scraped off the ground and disposed of by the Priest and if a dog should lick it up he is presently killed †See Eugen Roger Terre Saincte l. 2. p. 361. Lastly Brerewood ‖ Inquiries c. 15. c. who hath collected out of several Histories and Relations in what points these Eastern Churches are said to differ from the Roman for several Protestants do not so freely give account wherein they consent yet mentions nothing of their difference in the corporal presence or Transubstantiation save only of the Armenians out of Guido Carmel But S. Thomas and Richardus Armachanus who have formerly written against their errors not questioning them for this and their Mass in this matter not varying from the rest Saee Cassander's Liturgica c. 12. do argue their congruence with the rest in this opinion and an error in Guido This of the corporal presence For the other points following 2 Adoration 3 Offering the Eucharist or the very Body and Blood of our Lord therein as a Sacrifice for the living and the dead c. 4 Invocation of the blessed Virgin and the Saints 5 Praying for the Dead as betterable by their intercessions and oblations in their present condition before the day of judgement these also appear in the same Liturgies and the second and third necessarily follow from the first †See before §. 160. n. 2. And see Thomas a Jesu l. 7. c. 8. p. 370-383 as to the practice of the Abyssine Churches concerning the two last § 178 To proceed to the other four points remaining 1 Vsing Communion in one kind 2 A relative veneration of the Cross and sacred Images or Pictures 3 Monastick Vows and Celibacy of the Clergy and 4 Auricular or Sacramental Confession and injunction of penances Concerning the first it is granted that a Communion in both kinds is ordinarily used though the Abyssines are said sometimes to receive only our Lords Body and so do now the Maronites †Roger p. 361 432. but either after the manner of the Greek Church § 163. not distinct * See Dr. Field p. 63. used in Egypt in the fourth age and then prohibited there by Pope Julius the First †De Consecrat 2.