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
Hooker Pref. §. 6. l. 2. §. 7. and in reason what can any say less § 21 10ly From this I also take it for granted That though such or so many Prop. 10. as can demonstratively prove the contrary are hereby disobliged to yield their Assent to the Doctrines of their former Guides yet so many others as cannot do the like remain obliged still to follow and obey the same their former Pastors and by no means may join themselves in communion or adhere to the new Demonstrators till they themselves are confirmed in the like Certainty By which Rule how few will there be of the Reformed that do not still owe their Obedience to the same Church giving her Laws still as formerly that was before Luther who upon new Evidences deserted it where all owe this Obedience save Demonstrators of their new Tenents CHAP. III. 11. That these Church-Governors may teach diversly and some of them err in Necessaries and fall into Heresies § 22. 12. And therefore Christians not left to follow whom of them they please But some certain Rule there is to which of them in any Division they ought to adhere That this in the universal Church-practice is and rationally can be no other than in these Judges subordinate dissenting to adhere to the Superior in those of the same Order and Dignity dissenting to the Major part § 23. c. Where Of the Major part concluding the whole in the ancient Councils § 25. n. 2. And Of the Defection of the Church-Prelacy in the times of Arrianism § 26. n. 2. 14. And that the Protestant-Marks whereby to discern true from false Guides as to the Quest here viz. to learn from these true Guides in matters controverted which is the true Faith are unserviceable § 28. § 22 11ly THat some of these Church-Governors more or fewer may become Hereticks and erroneous in points necessary and may guide Christians contrary to the rest of them Prop. 11. is granted by all sides and known by Experience § 23 12ly It seems therefore also evident That Christians for yielding the Obediences forenamed Propos 9th and allowed by Protestants in such dissenting of Governors Prop. 12. may not safely follow which of them they please or judge to be in their doctrines the rightest for so they judge of their Judges and may as well judge the Controversies but that some Rule there is to whom in such case they are to adhere whom to relinquish it being as necessary for the same divine providence to leave some means by which to know our Guide as to give us one And this Rule also by tradition hath been and in reason can be no other but that in Judges Ecclesiastical subordinate whether Persons or Councils dissenting men ought to adhere to the Superior in Judges equal dissenting to adhere to the Major not minor part For Example In England a Synod Diocesan and one compounded of both the Provinces dissenting here Obedience is due to the Provincial Synod or Convocation and in the Provincial Synod again a minor part dissenting due to the Major Otherwise any may hold what doctrine liketh him best and oppose the maintainers of the contrary since ordinarily some Ecclesiastical Governor either Inferior or Superior if not a greater yet some smaller part or other of them may be found also to hold it And thus the Unity of this Catholick Church as to doctrine is quite overthrown 1st In Persons §. 24. n. 1. or Councils subordinate that the Superior in case of any dissent rightly challengeth our Obedience I think it out of dispute So in England for the establishing of the authority of the supreme National Synod and the Obedience thereto in respect of all Inferiors for preventing dissentions see the Decree in Can. 139. 140. of the Synod under K. James 1603. Where it is said Whosoever shall affirm that the Sacred Synod of this Nation is not the true Church of England by representation Or shall affirm that no manner of person either of the Clergy or Laity not being themselves particularly assembled in the said Sacred Synod are to be subject to the Decrees thereof in causes Ecclesiastical as not having given their voices unto those Decrees let him be excommunicated and not restored until he repent and publickly revoke that his wicked Error And for Obedience to this Highest Ecclesiastical Court see the King 's resolute Speech in the Conference at Hampton-Court ‖ p. 72. I will have one Doctrine and one Discipline one Religion in substance and Ceremony and therefore I charge you never to speak more to that point How far you are bound to obey when the Church hath ordained it What Subjection then for preserving Unity is required in the English Church cannot reasonably be disallowed by them in the Catholick Again see in Dr. Hammond's Book of Schism ‖ c. 3. an acknowledgment of primitive Subordination as of a Presbyter to the Bishop so of Bishops to Metropolitans of Metropolitans to Primates or Patriarchs where he comes short but one Link of those which the Roman Church maintains viz. Of the Patriarchs to the Proto-Patriarch or the Bishop of Rome And again see his acknowledgment ‖ Schism c 8. p 158. Ans to Cath. Gentl. p. 29. of a Subordination of all these severed persons to the whole Corporation or Body of them assembled in Council in which Council he saith It is evident that the power which severally belongs to each Bishop Answ to Cath. Gentl. p. 29. §. 9 10. is there united I add and therefore if that Power which they have severally be by divine right so is this which they have conjunctly notwithstanding what is disputed against it ‖ See Stil Rat account 3 par c. 1. p. 515. c. as a subordination of all the Bishops in a Province to a Council Provincial in a Nation to a Council National of all Christianity to a Council General Only here he omits one subordination well known in the Church and sufficiently attested by other Protestants viz. a subordination of the Bishops of several Nations that are under one Patriarch to a Council Patriarchal Which defect of his give me leave to supply to you out of Dr. Field and Bishop Bramhall Authorities as authentick as his Thus then Dr. Field ‖ Of the Ch. p. 518. These Patriarchs might convocate the Metropolitans of their several divisions and hold a Patriarchal Council which was of greater Authority then either those in the several Provinces or of a whole Nation formerly mentioned because it consisted of more and more honourable Bishops yet had the Patriarchs no greater authority over the Metropolitans within their larger Circuits than the Metropolitans within their lesser Compass And Ib. 513. shewing against Bellarmine that by reason of the several subordinations of the Churches Officers and of their Consults there was no further necessity of a Monarchical Government in the Church for conserving the unity thereof 1 If saith
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
an Infallibility or actual security of never erring in Necessaries made to the Church Catholick in general and seeing they do gather this from those Texts where as I have shewed the promises are directed to the Clergy Therefore first hence it seems most rationally conclusive that though there be not a disjúnctive indeficiency so that no single Clergy-man is unerrable which shall be granted them yet there is at least a conjunctive absolute non-failing as to all Necessaries in the Clergy some way or other Especially if we consider that the Church is a Body constituted in a regular Government and doth and must always consist of Pastors and People Of Pastors preaching the Word and administring the Sacraments unto the People and celebrating a publick Service of God in their Congregations and in such a constitution thereof who can conceive a People orthodox in Necessaries governed at the same time by an apostatized Clergy From a Church then granted never failing or erring and that is infallible in necessaries I say it follows most rationally that there must be always a Clergy so too Nor can any justifie their drawing from the same words directed chiefly to the Clergy a certain and absolute indefectibility of the Church and yet only a conditional one of the Clergy as neither can they with reason where the same duty as that Mat. 28.20 The Baptizing and Teaching of all Nations is charged upon the future Clergy as well as on the Apostles make the Promise of assistance of the discharge of such duty the least of which assistances imaginable is that they shall not miss-instruct these Nations in Necessaries absolute to the Apostles conditional to their followers and yet absolute again to the following Church taken in General § 15 To go on then If some Clergy there shall always be that shall not err 2. Then from this it seems most rationally deduced again * That a General Council especially And this Indeficiency most rationally placed by the Church in the General Councils or other accord or consent of the Clergy equivalent to such Councils assembled of all the chief Prelates of this Clergy or if such cannot be then at least the most general that the times permit Or * That the whole Clergy or where some dissent the much greater part thereof manifesting by any other way their concurrence in one and the same doctrine which is equivalent to the Act of a General Council shall not err For it is more likely that a particular person should err so than a Synod and a smaller Synod than a more General and so of persons subordinate likewise that those elected and advanced to higher place of Judicature are both persons of greater knowledge and merit and according to the necessity of their place divinely more assisted else why such a subordination and appeal from lower to higher Courts unlesse these be of the two the lesse liable to Errour both from humane and divine help where people can ascend to no further Director Therefore was such a subor dination instituted by God under the Law Deut. 17.8 And such a Practice upon the first difference repaired to by the Apostles rather for an Example to Posterity than for any absolute necessity thereof Act. 15. And the Name of the Holy Ghost ‖ Act. 15.18 used in that Soveraign Court the more to authentize their Decrees Therefore also our Saviour Mat. 18. appoints such a Gradation in conventing the offender first before two or three and then before the whole Church and here promiseth his more special Presence in an Assembly of Church-men though it be but of a few ‖ Mat 18.19 20 And so for persons under the Law the Vrim and Thummim at first as an infallible Director was committed to the Highest Priest alone not to the rest and after Vrim taken away yet an assistance still that person seems to have had according as necessity required more than the rest See Deut. 17.12 and Joh. 11.31 where he saith That Caiaphas being High Priest that year prophesied in the Council that Jesus should die c. And so St. Paul 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph 4.11 24. among those Governours that Christ had appointed for guiding the people for ever in the same steady doctrine makes a subordination ranking Pastors and Doctors in the lowest place and in the highest Apostles in whose place we may presume furnished with all necessary infallibility succeed Bishops Bishops at least in their conjoint Body and supreme Consults § 16 Here then in a General Council or in such a joint Consent of Clergy as is equivalent to it the Church most justly stateth and placeth that not failing in necessary Truth which it seems must be allowed and that absolute in some Clergy ‖ §. 14. for ever God indeed could have infallibly assisted every particular person of the Clergy as he did also the twelve Apostles as also he who then foresaw all the modern Controversies could have set down as clear a decision and much clearer of them in the Apostles Writings than is had in the Council of Trent yet to his eternal Wisdom it seemed good otherwise as he permitted evil in the World the more powerfully to bring good out of it and to try and more highly reward those who adhere to vertue so to permit Errour and Heresies in the world Oportet esse Haereses saith the Apostle ‖ 1 Cor. 11.19 to gain a nobler triumph afterward to the Truth through the opposition of Error and to try and more highly reward those who not without some contrary verisimilities do follow it Meanwhile this seems sufficient in all Oppositions for securing all necessary Truths and preserving his Church indefective therein if the supremest Body in the Clergy should not fail in their Determinations thereof nor any other Persons or Synods fail therein so long as they adhere to the doctrine of these Supreme which if any of the inferiour Guides do not the Church upon any discovery is very vigilant to suspend or cut them off from her Body And here you may observe that the Subjects of the Catholick Church in their obedience also of their particular Pastors though these be not free from Errour even in Necessaries yet have much more security of not being misled by them than other Sects by theirs in as much as these Pastors whose judgment the people depend on and follow do also generally hold and maintain themselves obliged to follow and obey the Judgment of these Supreme Guides whom they firmly beleeve assisted in all Necessaries by Christ whilst this is such a submission as the Leaders of Sectaries renounce and protest against CHAP. III. Some Protestant-Objections § 17. Answered § 18. § 17 Some Protestant Objections I Know it is urged here ‖ See Mr. Stillings p. 258. α If 1st α That Supposing such inerrability of the Clergy to be only in a General Assembly or Council of them no such infallibility can be said to be necessary
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
another and so a just fear of less integrity Lastly if these against the whole can have any authority the proceedings of General Councils in condemning and exercising Ecclesiastical Censures against them as subjects to those Courts have bin unjust which yet those General Councils universally allowed have used not only against Bishops but Patriarchs and the Clergy joined with them And the Churches Decrees thus will be necessarily obligatory never but when the Governours thereof to a man or to every particular Church or Society of Church-men are all of a mind Neither can the people when the Ecclesiastical Court which consists of many Judges is any way divided tell which to obey if our Saviours Promise be only to some certain Guides we know not in how small a number because they know not whether our Saviours promise of Indefectibility even in necessaries belongs not to the more inconsiderable part thereof He that appoints us to follow a Guide in what it shall enjoin us and then leaves us no way when our Guide consists not of one but many persons and particular Churches and when two parties of them contradict one another and guide us contrary wayes to know which of them is to be our Guide it is all one as if he left us no Guide and he that ties us besides our own judgment in doubtful matters to obey and follow only some Ecclesiastical person or other not obliging us to the most or major part to the Superiour rather than an inferior person or Court revolves our obedience in any division of our Governours only to our own Judgment i. e. to chuse that side which we judge is most conformable to Scripture as we follow the Counsel of that friend who we think speaks most reason But can this be called any obebedience to his authority and then left to this choice what opinion can our selves take up that is so absurd in which we cannot finde some Clergy or other for our Leaders This concerning these Protestant-Divines allowing an absolute Promise of Indefectibility as to Necessaries made to and always verified in some Persons or also some Body and Society or other of the Clergy i.e. of the Church-Guides but not to these always in such a capacity as that they are in the Churches constitutions and traditions to be our Guides these Orthodox-Guides as they suppose being perhaps in some Ages a very small number nor those of the highest rank in comparison of the rest CHAP. V. III. Other Expressions of Protestant-Divines granting the Churches Prelacie as defining her Doctrines Or the General Councils of them to be unerrable in Necessaries § 32 when accepted by the Church Vniversal § 32. The Expressions of * Dr. Potter § 33. * Of Bishop Bramhall § 34. Where III. 3. Other expressions of Protestant-Divines granting the Churches Clergy as defining her doctrines Or the General Councils of them to be unerrable in necessaries But then only when universally accepted no considerable persons or at least Churches dissenting concerning what Judgment of the Church sufficiently obligeth her subjects in respect 1st of the Church-Catholick diffusive § 36. n. 1. 2ly of Councils General § 36. n. 3. 3ly of Councils Occidental § 36. n. 8. Where particularly of the Freedom of the Council of Trent § 36. n. 9. * Of Bishop Lawd § 37. Where concerning what acceptation of Councils by the Church-diffusive is only necessary § 38. * Of Dr. Field § 40. III. BUt thirdly several other Expressions may be found in some of them wherein they would seem to go further yet and to allow That the Church-Catholick taken in general or in her greatest Body of Clergy as she is a Canonical Guide and as she teacheth and defineth doctrines can never err in Necessaries or Fundamentals But whether all their expressions cohere one with another or whether their opinion when strongly assaulted will not retreat and resolve it self into the first or second already explained I conclude nothing § 33 For this see first that of Dr. Potter § 2. p. 28. Where he saith Expressions Of Dr. Potter The Church Catholick is confessed in some sence i. e. in Fundamentals as he explaineth it afterward § 5. p. 148 c. to be unerring and he is litle better than a Pagan that despiseth her judgment For she follows her Guides the Prophets and Apostles and is not very free and forward in her Definitions Here we hear of Definitions and Iudgment of the Church Catholick that are to be followed Therefore I infer that such judgment may be known So § 4. p. 97. The Catholick Church saith he is careful to ground all her Declarations in matters of Faith upon the Divine authority of Gods written Word and therefore whosoever wilfully opposeth a judgment so well grounded is justly esteemed an Heretick Then he addeth not properly because he disobeys the Church but because he yields not to Scripture sufficiently propounded or cleared unto him Where I do not see but that whoso believeth this in general as all ought that the Church Catholick alwaies groundeth her Declarations in matters of Faith on Divine Authority though every particular Declaration of hers is not cleared to him that it is so well grounded yet must needs wilfully and self-convicted oppose her judgment and so incur Heresie But however he is or is not an Heretick who dissents from such Decrees yet by the Doctor all those it seems are secured as for necessary Truth that do obey and adhere to them And § 5. p. 169. If in any thing saith he General Councils erre and mistake the Vniversal Church hath means of remedy either by antiquating those Errors with a general and tacit consent General Consent therefore such Decree of a General Council to tender it non-obligatory must be at least tacitly reversed by a major part of the Church Catholick else if any single Church's reversion serves the turn to annull the Obligation thereof no Churches are obliged to such Decrees further than they please Or by representing her self again in another General Council which may view and correct the Defects of the former Here are two ways of the Church Catholick's correcting the Errors of her Representative the Council 1. Either by generally not observing or practising their Decrees 2. Or by condemning them by another Representative therefore I gather where the Church Catholick neither by another general Council contradicts such assembly nor in her most general practice or Doctrines varies from its Decrees the definitions and judgment of such a General Council are admitted as the definitions and judgment of the Church Catholick Or else there is no way of knowing what or which are so Ib. After that p. 141. he hath spoken of the present Church-Catholick her being as a Candlestick to present and hold out the light to us and p. 143. of her being a witness and an Instrument for working Faith in us he p. 148 149 156. accords as he saith with some moderate Roman Writers That the
Extent of the Infallibility of this Church i. e. in defining p. 156. reacheth to all matters Essential and fundamental simply necessary for the Church to know and believe But not so to all her Doctrines and Definitions And p. 155. The Vniversal Church saith he hath not the like assurance from Christ that she shall not erre in unnecessary additions as she hath for her not erring in taking away from the Faith what is fundamental and necessary Where Defining Adding Taking away c. argue that he speaks here of the present Church Catholick which he affirms to be infallible in Fundamentals in relation to the main Body of her Governour 's being so § 34 Bishop Bramhall ‖ Vindic. 2 c. p. 9. speaks much what on the same manner If saith he of two particular Churches Of Bishop Bramhall the one retain a communion with the Vniversal Church and be ready to submit to the Determinations thereof the other renounce the communion of the Vniversal Church and contumaciously despise the Jurisdiction and Decrees thereof the former continues Catholick and the latter becomes Schismatical Or as he expresseth it in Schism-guarded p. 2. That Church which shall not outwardly acquiesce after a Legal Determination and cease to disturb the Christian Vnity though her Judgment may be sound yet her practice is schismatical And afterward 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 Here the Bishops submitting and standing to the judgment and determinations of the Church Vniversal or a free General Council were it now called argues him to hold the present Church Catholick in such Councils as a Guide and Lawgiver infallible in Fundamentals or at least whose judgment in all points is finally to be stood to so far as not to contradict it and his pronouncing Schismaticks to be no Catholicks argues that this Church Universal may be also narrower than Christianity is Add to this what he saith below p. 26. That by disbelieving any Fundamental Article or necessary part of saving Faith in that sense in which it was evermore received and believed by the Vniversal Church a man renders himself guilty of Heresie Here he declares one an Heretick not only in his disbelieving a necessary point of Faith but in disbelieving in in that sense wherein the Church Catholick hath alwaies believed it which sense in the former quotation he holds is to be received and learned from her Councils Again In his Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon speaking of the Catholick Church in present Being he saith ‖ p. 279. I do from my heart submit to all things which the true Catholick Church diffused over the world doth believe and practise And afterward Though I have no reason in the world to suspect my present judgment I do farther profess my readiness to submit to the right Catholick Church in present bein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whensoever God shall be pleased to reveal it to me and Ibid. in the Preface I submit saith he my self and my poor endeavours first to the judgment of the Catholick Oecumenical Essential Church And if I should mistake the right Catholick Church out of humane frailty or ignorance which for my part I have no reason to suspect yet it is not impossible c. therefore Catholick doth not necessarily include all Sects professing Christianity I do implicitly and in the preparation of my mind submit my self to the true Catholick Church the Spouse of Christ the Mother of the Saints the pillar of Truth And after this he professeth That his adherence is firmer to the infallible Rule of Faith the holy Scriptures interpreted by this Catholick Church i. e. firmer to its interpretation than to his own private judgment So in his Reply to S. W. p. 43. We acknowledge saith he the Representative Church that is a General Council and the Essential Church that is the multitude or multitudes of Believers either of all ages which make the Symbolical Church or of this age which makes the present Catholick Church And Ib. We are ready to believe and practise whatsoever the Catholick Church even of this present Age doth universally believe and practise ‖ See Schism guarded p. 398. Surely from these Protestations it followes * that he supposeth that such a Church there is in this present age that may deliver her judgment Else his promise to believe and to submit to it is utterly unsignificant and * that he holds this Church not errable in Fundamentals else her judgment in them could not by him be safely followed And if you would know also §. 35. n. 1. what present Body he understandeth by this present Catholick Church to which he will yield his submission and beliefe he tells the Bishop of Chalcedon ‖ p. 279. That it is not the Church of Rome alone with all its Dependents but the Church of the whole world Roman Grecian Armenian Abyssine Russian Protestant which Churches i. e. Grecian c. are three times greater than the Roman is But if you think the present Church Catholick in this vast amplitude a Judge not likely to resolve his doubts He in the Preface to his Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon very conscientiously adds also I submit my self to the Representative Church a free General Council or so general as can be procured And in pursuance of the same Notion of General Schisme Guarded p. 350. he saith That the presence of the five Proto-Patriarchs and their Clergy either in their persons or by their Suffrages or in case of necessity the greater part of them do make a General Council And That we may well hope that God who hath promised that where two or three are gathered together in his Name there will he be in the midst of them will vouchsafe to give his assistance and his blessing to such a Council which is as general as may be although perhaps it be not so exactly general as hath been or might have been now if the Christian Empire had flourished still as it did anciently In summe That he shall ever be ready to acquiesce in the Determination of a Council so General as is possible to be had so it may be equal c. Naming several conditions thereof Equal Votes of Christian Nations Absents sending their Suffrages The place free wither all parties may have secure access and liberty to propose freely and define freely yet consenting ‖ p. 352. That none declared Hereticks by former true General Councils be admitted to any vote in them and ‖ p. 401. that all those be held for excluded from the communion of the Catholick Church whom undoubted General Councils have excluded He addes yet further reflecting on Dr. Hammond's words ‖ Answ to Catho Gentl. 3 c. §. 1. That Oecumenical or General Councils are now morally impossible to be had The Christian world being under so many Empires and
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
Catholick diffusive 1st Here he professeth ‖ Schism We are ready to believe and practise whatsoever the Catholick Church of this present Age doth believe and practise Here if he meaneth the Protestants are ready to believe and practise whatsoever all the Catholick Church of this present Age Guarded p. 98 3 besides them doth believe and practise and understands a Consent of this Catholick Church according to the former explication thereof which is but reasonable Then 1st I refer you to what is said in the third Discourse § 26 whether for the most of the modern Controversies the whole Catholick Church I mean the main body both of the Oriental and Occidental Churches especially as to the Guides and Governours thereof who only have authority of voting and giving Laws in the Church's highest Consultations and to whose Judgment Inferiours in spiritual matters ought to conform at the coming of Luther did not and do not still agree in their opinion in many things now opposed by Protestants and then by Luther and a few others who sided not with or joined themselves to any though lesser part of the then Church-Governours Eastern or Western but freely acknowledged their discession à toto mundo See below § 55. n. 4. Which made Luther sometimes thus to utter the Objections of his Conscience within and of the Church without Quot medicamentis saith he ‖ Praefat. de de abroganda Missa privata quam potentibus evidentissimis Scripturis meam ipsius conscientiam vix dùm stabilivi ut auderem unus contradicere Papae credere eum esse Antichristum Episcopos ejus esse Apostolos Academias esse ejus Lupanaria Quoties mihi palpitavit tremulum cor reprehendens objecit corum fortissimum unicum Argumentum Tu solus sapis Totne errant universi And elsewhere ‖ In Galat. 1 11 12. Ecclesia sic sentit credit Impossibile est autem quòd Christus tot saesulis Ecclesiam suam errare sinat Tu certè solus non sapis plus quam tot sancti viri tota Ecclesia And Sanctissimae Catholicae Ecclesiae authoritatem amamus illaesam Ea tot saeculis sic sentit docuit sic senserunt docuerunt omnes primitivae Ecclesiae dectores viri sanctissimi multo majores dectiores te Quis tu es qui ansis ab omnibus his dissentire nobis diversum dogma obtrudere To which the summe of the Answer he gives I pray you see the place is Neque mihi neque Ecclesiae neque Patribus neque Apostolis neque Angelo è Coelo credendum est si quid contra Dei verbum docemus And Quisque igitur videat ut certissimus sit de suâ vocatione doctrina As for those Answers * of Dr. Field ‖ p. 82. 880. That the Doctrines which Luther and the Protestants oppose were not the generally received Doctrines of the present Catholick Church but only of a prevalent Faction in it Or * of Mr Stillingfleet ‖ That if they were Doctrines generally received p. 368. yet they were not Catholick Doctrines but generally received in the nature of an Opinion I say such Answers were not then thought on or not thought fit to be made use of For what ground is there to call all those Church-Governours of the present Age that have power to vote in Councils and steer the Church only a prevalent Faction in it Or to say those Doctrines or Practices which none could then oppose without incurring the Church's Censures for so Luther and others did before the Council of Trent were only generally received in the nature of an Opinion 2ly But next if all the points that are pretended are not found to have been generally believed or practised in the Church-Catholick at Luthers appearance yet if two or three of them appear to be so according to the Bishops Concession here to so many will the Protestants stand obliged in a conformity of their Belief and Practice nor can they excuse their dissent from these because a dissent in more than these is falsely laid to their charge But 3ly If at least what is contained in the publick Liturgies and Missals to which all are obliged to conform both of the Eastern and Western Church may be said to be of universal Belief and Practice Protestants by this Profession are bound herein at least to believe and practice with the rest And why then do they compose new Liturgies why absent themselves from the old Is it not that these contain somthing in them to which they cannot thus conform 4. Lastly For points no way enjoined yet if such either speculative or practical do appear so far as our Examination can discover to us not only to be tolerated but justified and maintained either by the whole or a much major part of the Church Catholick united with the Prime Apostolick Chair it seems here necessary that no particular person or Church do decretally censure any such Points as Errors in Doctrine or Practice or do any way oblige their Inferiors to think or profess them to be so which this much major part alloweth and practiseth If liberty to think teach or practice otherwise according to their Opinion in a point yet no way defined or enjoyned may be granted to such a minor part yet not a liberty to define against it or pronounce it an Errour in matter of Faith for this cannot be done without such minor condemning the much major part joined with the prime Patriarch which small part 's condemning both the superiour and much greater if it be allowed destroies Church-Government 2. After this first Submission §. 36. n. 3. wherein the Bishop seems to engage the Protestants Belief 2. * Of Councils General and Practice to any thing which is generally believed and practiced by the Catholick Church though it be not also conciliarly defined if next we come to the Church's Councils Here also he makes fair promises of submission I mean as to external Obedience and non-contradiction And 1st In respect of a Council General he is not in every thing so nice or exceptions as some other Protestants be He 1st not exacting that this Council should be so absolutely general as that any Hereticks should be admitted such as true General Councils have evidently declared to be Hereticks or such as will not pronounce Anathema against all old Heresies ‖ Schism guarded p. 352. I suppose he means all which have been condemned for Heresies by undoubted General Councils 2ly Nor that all the five Proto-Patriarchs should be present there four of them and their Clergy being under the power of the Turk but granting it sufficient if the sense and Suffrages of them and their Churches be delivered by Messengers or Letters 3. As for the calling also of this Council considering the division and sub-division of the ancient Empire and the present distraction of Christendom i. e. as to the Princes thereof their altogether contrary
Interests he is well enough content that the prime Patriarch summon it and then upon this conceded I think I may add as evident from what is said before § 35. n. 2. that the same Patriarch may both appoint some place of meeting and also such Council met divulge and upon spiritual Censures require to be observed its Decrees concerning matters meerly spiritual whether mean-while the secular Powers favour or frown I say appoint some place which place since it must be within the Dominions and under the Power of some particular Prince and farther distant from some particular Churches than others it cannot be expected that it shall ever be so fitly chosen as equally to serve all Interests or remedy all Inconveniences and therefore supposing free access free proposal and voting for all Prelates that come the post-acceptation must make amends for the necessity of many Prelat's or also Church's absence Things thus far conceded by him concerning General Councils §. 36. n. 4. that which I have chiefly to except against is this 1st In his reckoning up the Clergy of the Roman Graecian Armenian Abyssine Russian Protestant Churches as constituting the entire body of such a general Council and affirming that the rest of them are a body three times greater than the Roman including the Western Churches joined with it ‖ See before § 35. he seems much to miscount For 1st Several of the Protestant Churches viz. so many as have deposed Bishops and constituted a Presbyterial Government for any thing I can see are very clearly concluded by Dr. Hammond and Dr. Ferne to be Schismaticks and that from and against their Spiritual Superiours ‖ See Disc 2. and that from and against their Spiritual Superiours § 24. n. 2. which Schisme excludes them from being true Members of the Church Catholick or having place in her General Councils especially since their Clergy also are no Bishops See Bishop Bramhall Vindic. of the Church of England p. 9. opposing Catholick and Schismatical as he doth elsewhere Catholick and Heretical But then as for the Bishops of other Protestant Churches neither can they escape the same imputation of Schisme by the same Dr. Hammonds Concession if those Councils mentioned below § 50. n. 2. whose Authority and Decrees they have rejected be truly their Superiours nor yet Heresie in the Catholick account or perhaps in Bishop Bramhall's considering what he saith Vindic. of the Church of England p. 27. quoted before § 36. and Schism Guarded p. 352. if any of these Councils be Legally General 2. Next As for several of those Eastern and Southern Churches that are brought in by the Bishop to enlarge the Church Catholick in comparison of the Roman Catholick §. 36. n. 5. they are a Mass of many several Sects of which see what is said more at large in Disc 3. § 1.76 c. such as after the Council of Chalcedon some sooner some later deserting their former Patriarch have since ranged themselves under several Patriarchs of their own residing in several Cities of the East the different Sects having set up in later times without any Conciliar Authority acting in it no less than seven or eight Independent Patriarchs They stand divided both from the Latine and Greek Church and also from one another in several Tenents concerning our Lord's Person Natures and Wills many of those dispersed in the more Eastern parts Assyria Mesopotamia c. suspected as Dr. Field ‖ Of the Church p. 62. acknowledgeth of Nestorianisme somwhat qualified many of the Southern as the Egyprians or Cophtites Ethiopians or Abyssines as to their Religion dependent on the former suspected as the same Dr. Field relateth ‖ Ib. p. 64 66 of Eutychianisme or rather of Dioscorism who was Patriarch of Alexandria and condemned in the Council of Chalcedon divers of them also amongst other extravagant Rites retaining Circumcision If this then be true which this Doctor relates though they be not perfect Eutychians and Nestorians in their Opinions yet such they are as do transgress against the Faith and Definitions of the third and fourth General Council the later of which Councils the greatest body of them expresly rejects See Dr. Field p. 70 71. No reason then can Bp. Bramhall have to admit these to a Suffrage in a Catholick General Council And if it be said ‖ See Dr. Field l. 3. c. 5. that most of them in such illiterate Regions are only through invincible ignorance material not formal Hereticks and therefore are not so unmercifully to be cut off from the Catholick Church it is to be remembred that we speak not here of cutting off either them or also Protestants so many as are invincibly ignorant from being internally still members of the Church and of the Body of Christ and possibly capable of salvation but of their having externally no right being involved in such Tenents to officiate in the Government of the Church or vote in its Councils from which Councils in expelling Hereticks the Church can only look to the external profession thereof and to which suppose a Material Heretick admitted his ignorance would be as to voting as much the bane of Truth there as the formal Hereticks pertinacy But 3 ly were they never so good Catholicks §. 36. n. 6. yet their Body and bulk taking in the Greek Church also as for those residing in the Turks dominions is far from being so considerably great as it is made Where especially for the former Prelacy the oppression is so great these Dignities so set to sale and their means and revenue so alienated and most of the Metropolies in Asia so ruin'd as that the bare title only now descending of many of the Ancient Sees is neglected and the succession in them ceased And though the territory is much vaster yet it may reasonably be presumed that abstracting those which in these parts are adherents to the Roman Communion as the Marointes a long time have been there are more Canonical Prelates and perhaps Christians in some small part of Europe than there are throughout all Turky where also the chief Supporters of the Christian-Religion are mostly Regulars and Monks no welcom Colleagues for the Protestants to join with ‖ See Brerewoods Inquiries 10. c. Botero Relat Vniversal Rel. del Gr. Turco The chief and most united Body of these Eastern Christians is in Greece which Boterus but long ago conjectured might make up two thirds of the inhabitants there And as for those more remote divers of them by the diligent missions of several Religious Orders of the Roman Profession out of Europe into those parts who by the Merchants help procure houses of constant residence there have been from time to time reduced to the Unity of the Roman faith and communion as appears in the relation of these Missions See Spondan Annal. A. D. 1616. 8. and Dr. Field p. 63. what hath hapned in the more Eastern Churches since A. D. 1550. And as their number
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
being just that either of these should be the Judge therefore that the Divines on one part and on the other arguing for their own Tenents there might be Judges i. e. Laicks indifferently chosen on both sides that is in an equal number to take knowledge of the Controversies And see Mr. Stillingfleet motioning some such thing p. 479. And this indeed was the only way they had in referring themselves to judgment not to be cast if the Judges of their own side at least would be true to them But to let these things pass As to a due proportion of National Votes this Council of Trent is not to be thought deficient therein whilst those Nations who by their own if by any ones fault had fewer Votes in the Council in passing the Decrees yet were as plenary and numerous as the rest in the acceptation of them after it And were now anew these things put to an equal Vote of the Western Nations I see not from what the Protestants may reasonably expect supposing the greatest liberty in these Votes that is possible an issue diverse from the former For have they any new thing to propose in their Orations and Speeches before such a Meeting that they have not already said in their Writings And notwithstanding are not the major part of the Occidental Clergy and the Learned that peruse them of a different judgment And why should not the others have as great presumptions upon an equal hearing to pcevail for reducing some of the Protestant party by Scriptures explicated by Apostolical Tradition Councils and Fathers as the Protestants of gaining some of the others by Scriptures alone Or if any will say that ancient Tradition Councils or Fathers are on the Protestant side how comes this to be one of their Articles proposed to the Council that all Humane Authority being excluded the Holy Scriptures might be judge in the Council And the Trent safe-Conauct running thus Quod causae controversae secundum Sanctam Scripturam Apostolorum Traditiones probata Concilia Sanctorum Patrum Authoritates Catholicae Ecclesiae Consensum tractentur VVhy desired they a freer Safe conduct after the form of that of Basil to the Bohemians Which if it had been granted saith Soave ‖ p. 344. they had obtained one great point that is that the Controversies should be decided by the Holy Scripture This from § 36. n. 1. I have said occasionally to Bishop Bramhal's so frequent free offers of Submission to the judgment of the present Catholick Church or of free General or also Occidental Councils § 37 Next come we to Arch-Bishop Lawd He § 31. p. 318. affirms That Of Archbish Lawd the Visible Church hath in all Ages taught that unchanged Faith of Christ in all points Fundamental Doctor White saith he had reason to say this And § 21. p. 140. It is not possible the Catholick Church i. e. of any one Age should teach He speaks therefore of the Governors of it in such Age against the Word of God in things absolutely necessary to Salvation And § 25. n. 4. If we speak of plain and easie Scripture the whole Church cannot at any time be without the knowledge of it If A. C. means no more than that the whole universal Church of Christ cannot universally erre in any one point of Faith simply necessary to all mens Salvation he fights against no Adversary that I know but his own fiction For the most learned Protestants grant it VVhere he speaks of the Church as teaching such points as appeareth by the Context Ibid. p. 139. Because the whole Church cannot universally erre in absolutely fundamental Doctrines therefore 't is true also that there can be no just cause of making a Schism from the whole Church That she may err indeed in Superstructions and Deductions and other by-and unnecessary Truths from her Curiosity or other weakness But if she can err either by falling away from the foundation i. e. by Infidelity or by heretical Errour in it she can be no longer holy for no Assemblies of Hereticks can be holy and so that Article of the Creed I believe the Holy Catholick Church is gone Now this Holiness saith he Errors of a meaner allay take not away from the Church Likewise § 33. n. 4. p. 256. the same Archbishop saith yet more clearly That the whole Catholick Church Militant having an absolute Infallibility in the prime Foundations of Faith absolutely necessary to Salvation if any thing sway and wrench the General Council he must mean here in non-necessaries such Council as is not universally accepted for a General Council universally accepted by the Church Catholick is unerrable in necessaries because the Church Catholick he saith is so upon evidence found in express Scripture or demonstration of this miscarriage hath power to represent her self in another body or General Council and to take order for what is amiss either practised or concluded in the former and to define against it p. 257. And afterward p. 258. That thus though the Mother-Church Provincial or National may err yet if the Grandmother the whole Universal Church He means in a general Council universally accepted cannot err in these necessary things all remains safe and all occasions of disobedience taken from the possibility of the Church's erring are quite taken away Again § 38. n. 14. he saith That a General Council de post facto after it is ended and admitted by the whole Church is then infallible And for this admittance or confirmation of it by the Church he granteth ‖ §. 26. p. 165. That no confirmation is needful to a General Council lawfully called and so proceeding but only that after it is ended the whole Church admit it though never so tacitly The sum of all in brief is this 1st That a General Council or indeed any Council whatever less than General accepted or admitted by the whole Church is infallible in Necessaries the reason is plain because he holds the whole Church is so 2ly Consequently that Obedience and this of Assent is due to such Council or to the judgment of the Church Catholick that is delivered by this Council as to necessaries Of Assent I say to it because infallible 3ly That all are to acquiesce none presume to urge or credit any pretence of Scripture or Demonstration against such a judgment because infallible 4ly That it is Schism to depart from the judgment of such a Council because the Archbishop holds all departure of any Member from the whole Church Catholick to be so ‖ §. 21. p. 139. § 38 Now thus much being professed by the Archbishop if he will also allow the Church Reply Where or her Councils and not private men to judge what Definitions are made in matters necessary and 2ly will grant an acceptation of such Council by a much major part of the Church Catholick diffusive I mean Concerning what acceptation of Councils by the Church diffusive is only necessary of those
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
himself in saying ‖ Apol. 3 par p. 880. Append 3 l. p. 187 224. That this Roman Church is not the same now as it was when Luther began Nor the external face of Religion then the now professed Roman Religion And further ‖ p. 880. That the errors of the present Roman Church are Fundamental Where it is observable 1st That the discession of Protestants in Luthers time or of Luther himself from that Church which was not the same as he saith then as now nor the Errors which Protestants now condemn then the doctrines of it but of a faction in it remains by this still culpable For none may desert the Communion of a Church because of the corrupt doctrines or practices of a faction in it But if he make the Clergy and Ecclesiastical Governours of such Church imposing such doctrines and requiring unjust conditions of their Communion to be that Faction then the Doctrins and the Faction to be charged on the very Church it self and not on a party in it as a Church all the ruling Clergy of which holds and imposeth Arrianism is rightly stiled an Arrian Church if any can be so But this expression Dr. Field saw he had reason to forbear §. 47. n. 2. And therefore Bishop Bramhall ‖ Reply to Chalced. p. 263. thought fit to take another course and for the defence of the lawfulness of this first discession of Protestants which discession the Bishop of Chalcedon urged to have preceded those grievances and impediments of Communion that Protestants of later times chiefly complain of namely the many new Definitions and Anathema's of the Council of Trent and new Articles and Creeds of Pius the fourth seems to make a contrary plea to Dr. Field For those very points saith he which Pius the fourth comprehended in a new Symbol or Creed were obtruded upon us before by his Predecessors and therefore before the ratification or obliging authority of the Council of Trent as necessary Articles of the Roman Faith and required as necessary Articles of their Communion so as we must either receive these or utterly lose them This is the only difference that Pius the fourth dealt in gross his Predecessors by retail They fashioned the several rods and he bound them up into a bundle But if the Bishop understands this of the Council of Trent that sate under the Predecessors of Pius the Query still remains concerning the lawful Grounds of the first Protestant discession from the former Church which discession precedes the beginning of that Council above twenty years §. 47. n. 3. 2 ly It is observable that the discession made since from the former publick service of the Church and the Canon of the Masse affirmed by Dr. Field to contain in it no Romish Errors must be also culpable in which nothing since Luthers time hath been altered 3ly That the present Church of Rome in being said by him since that time to err in Fundamentals is hereby ceased to be any part of the Church Catholick and further no salvation to be had in her at all even to the invincibly ignorant if Dr. Field holds no truth to be fundamental to salvation but such without which salvation cannot possibly be had Concerning which see what he saith 3 l. 4 c. p. 79. CHAP. VII V. That according to the former Concession made in the precedent Chapter § 41. there seems to be * a great security to those continuing in the ancient Communion § 48. As to avoiding Heresie or Schism Ib. As to other grosser Errors § 51. And * danger to those deserting it § 54. Where is drawn up in brief the Protestant's Defence for such Discession § 55. n. 1. And the Catholick's Remonstrance § 55. n. 9. § 48 Now to reflect on the former Discourse as to the two Principal Concessions made by Protestants therein The 1st Their conceding the Catholickness The security that hence seems to be to those continuing in the ancient Communion and Indeficiency of the former Western Church as to all Necessaries before and at the coming of Luther ‖ §. 41 c. The 2d. Their conceding the general Councils of the Church in any age to be unerrable in Necessaries when they are universally accepted by the Church Catholick diffusive ‖ §. 32 c. From the first of these the Catholickness of the Roman Church before Luther in Necessaries As to Heresie or Schism being granted methinks appears a great secnrity for their salvation as to their Faith who are not deficient in a holy life to all those who persevere to live and die in the external Communion of the present Roman and other Western Churches unreformed and then the like hazard to those who relinquish that Communion For 1st I think it is clear that none who lived and died in the Faith I mean that declared in her Councils and in the Communion of the Western or Roman Church that was before Luther's Appearance could endanger his Salvation upon the account of his incurring either Heresie or Schism because then the Western or Roman Church before Luther must be held Heretical or Schismatical and so non-Catholick for these two Heretical and Catholick are contra-distinct See the Archbishop § 21. n. 5. p. 141. and what is said before § 44. And then seeing there was an Holy Catholick Church some where or other in that immediately before Luther as in every Age which and where was it The Eastern Churches using much-what the same publick Liturgy and being guilty of as gross Errors and Practises and also they excluding Non-Conformists from their Communion § 49 Add to this Mr. Stillingfleet's Position ‖ Rat. account p. 58. That if we enquire what was positively believed as necessary to Salvation by the Catholick Church we shall hardly find any better way than by the Articles of the ancient Creeds and the universal opposition of any new Doctrine on its first appearing and the condemning the Broachers of it for Heresie in Oecumenical Councils with the continual disapprobation of those Doctrines by the Christian Churches of all Ages As is clear in the Cases of Arrius and Pelagius For it seems very reasonable saith he to judge that since the necessary Articles of Faith were all delivered by the Apostles to the Catholick Church since the foundation of that Church lies in the belief of those things which are necessary that nothing should be delivered contrary to any necessary Article of Faith but the Church by some evident Act must declare its dislike of it and its resolution thereby to adhere to that necessary Doctrine which was once delivered to the Saints Thus he From which thought so reasonable is gathered the security in adhering to those Tenents received in the Church before Luther which Protestants now oppose as being not contrary to any necessary Article of Faith delivered by the Apostles to the Catholick Church because Protestants cannot shew to repeat here the former words the
Broachers of these Tenents suppose of a Substantial Conversion in the Eucharist Saint-Invocation Veneration of Images a Purgatory of Souls after this life Monastick Vows Sacrifice of the Mass c. condemned for Heresie in Oecumenical Councils or a continual disapprobation of those Doctrines by the Christian Churches of all ages as is clear in the cases of Arrius and Pelagius or the Church by any evident Act declaring her dislike of them as may on the other side be shewed many evident Acts of her Approbation of them And 2ly If no danger of perishing for Heresie or Schisme to those living and dying in this Communion before §. 50. n. 1. then neither to any since Luther's times For if since these times this Communion be become Heretical or Schismatical I demand in respect of what Council or what Definitions made since Luther's days which it opposeth is it becom Heretical or in respect of what Church in deserting or departing from its Communion Schismatical Or in the Protestant's Notions of Heresie and Schism in respect of what new Tenent or Practise against some Fundamental point of Faith since Luther's time is it become Heretical when guilty of none such before And in its requiring of Conformity to what new points of Faith since Luther's time is it become Schismatical so that one that could lawfully yield obedience to all those required before Luther's appearance yet cannot to all the present or so that the Church before Luther might lawfully require without hazard of Schism Conformity to its whole Faith then and not so the present Church to the whole present Faith For I hope none here will have the face to deny Conformity required by the Western Churches before Luther's coming to many of the chiefest of those points wherein Protestants now refuse it See those mentioned Disc 3. § 26. And you may observe §. 50. n. 2. that the most or chiefest of the Protestant Controversies defined or made de fide in the Council of Trent were made so By former Councils of equal obligation or also were contained in the publick Liturgies of the Church Catholick As The Lawfulness of Communion in one kind declared in the Council of Constance Canon of Scripture Purgatory seven Sacraments the Pope's Supremacy in the Council of Florence Auricular Confession Transubstantiation in the Council of Florence the Lateran and five others before it wherein Berengarius his Doctrines were condemned Veneration of Images in the 2d Nicene Council Monastick Vows and Celibacy of the Clergy sufficiently authorized in the four first General Councils And to these I may add the Council of Frankfort if the Capitulare Caroli which indeed was written before may be taken to deliver the sence of the Council * For Adoration of Christ's Body and Bloud in the Eucharist the Council applying the Psalmist's Adorate Scabellum thereto as it is expounded by S. Ambrose * Ibid. 4.15 l. 3. c. 24 and S. Austin ‖ De Spiritu Sancto l. 3. c. 12. And for Veneration of the Cross ‖ Capitulare l. 2. c. 5. c. 27. l. 4. c. 17 and of Relicks ‖ Only the Adoration of Images allowed by the second Nicene Council indeed is condemned but this upon a Mistake of the Doctrine of that Council as is confessed by Dr. Hammond Treatise of Idolatry § 57. And by Mr Thorndâ—ke Epil l. 3. p. 363. And as any one may easily discern if he will view in the Preface of this Capitulare what opinion was imputed by the Fathers of Franckfort to those of Nice Besides these Councils Invocation of Saints Prayers for the Dead Sacrifice of the Masse and several other are apparent in the Publick Liturgies of the Church â—naltered Protestants being Judges for many ages preceding the Council of Trent Now the Church obligeth her Subjects to believe all those things lawful which in her Liturgies she obligeth them to practice And why was there made a departure from the Church for these points before the Council of Trent if the Church before had not made them de fide or required Obedience and Conformity to them or if the Council of Trent or Pius the Fourth were first faulty herein ‖ See Bishop Bramhal's Concession before §. 47. Suppose then a belief of some more Points is since added yet I ask will the decreeing or imposing of these infer upon the present Church the guilt of Schism and not the like decreeing or imposing the former infer the same guilt upon the former Church that preceding Luther Now from this Identity in Faith and practice in the present Church with that preceding Luther excepting if our Gratitude may be allowed to speak the truth that the Council held since Luther's time hath reformed several practises in some persons of it which were before justly blamed it seems clear that whoso is a member of the present Western or Roman Church is secure that he is a Member of the Church Catholick For it is impossible that the Church which is the same with what was the Church Catholick 150 years ago should meerly by the difference and decurrence of time become non-Catholick Now if this be denied that the present Roman Church is the fame for it's Doctrines and Practices with that Church which was at Luther's appearing let the issue of the Contention be placed here and let search only be made concerning this Not to ask mean-while why Luther reformed then why exclaimed so vehemently on the Babylonish Captivity and sounded an Exite de illâ Populus meus if the Deformation of this Church it 's non-holinesse it 's non-Catholicknesse is since the Council of Trent and so not till after his time 3ly As I think here is shewed no danger of perishing in the present external Communion of these Churches upon the account of Heresie or Schism ‖ §. 51. so neither is there As to other gross Errors on the account of any grosse or grievous Errors For 1st How are they grievous Errors that are not against any necassary Point of Faith But if they be such with Protestants are Heresies For Example to name some chief ones How are Adoration of the Eucharist or Invocation of Saints grievous Errors if also they be not against any necessary point of Faith viz. this That Divine Worship and Divine Supplication which they say is presented to Saints may be given only to God But them they are Heresies Or what so grievous Error in the present Communion that was not it or as bad in the same Communion before Luther's time When yet Christians in this Communion were secure because it was then the Catholick and the Catholick being always Holy may err indeed in superstructions and deductions and other by and unnecessary Truths from curiosity c. but cannot err from the Foundation saith the Archbishop I add ‖ §. 21. p. 141. as of Faith so also of Good Manners These Errors then which are now charged to render the Church of Rome guilty of
is replied That the whole Catholick Church of Christ is but one body compacted with a due subordination of its members as well Churches as persons for the preservation of truth and peace among them and the avoiding of Schism 3ly That the Church of England is a member of the Western Church and subordinate to the Patriarch thereof the Bishop of the prime Apostolick See joyned with a Council composed of this Body 4 ly That being a part of this Body this Church together with the rest of the Protestants dissented and departed from the consenting judgment not only of one particular Church the Roman but of all the other Occidental Churches in several points of faith that are necessary as the other say but as themselves confess that are of moment and the failings in which are by them charged on the other side as grievous errors which will infer the contrary to be needful truths disceded likewise from their consenting judgments concerning the testimony of Scriptures rightly understood and of the Fathers affirmed by these not to be for but against them 5 ly Departed both from them and the most General Councils that have bin held therein for near this thousand years 6 ly And departed from them in several points wherin the Eastern Churches also consented and do so still with these Occidental Churches and their Councils 7 ly And for submission required to these doctrines §. 55. n. 4. departed also from the external communion not only of all the Western but of the Eastern Churches even of the whole visible Catholick Church of that Age of which in every Age is said Credo unam Sanctam Catholicam Apostolicam Ecclesiam wherein this discession was made From the external Communion I say so as they neither could nor yet can communicate with any Church Eastern or Western in their publick worship and service of God nor in the participation of the blessed Sacrament and Communion of the Altar And the necessity of such their universal discession both sufficiently appeareth from the modern Eastern and Roman Missals compared the Masses of S. Chrysostom S. Basil which admitting som small variations ‖ See Cassand liturg c. p. 24 c. are the present service of all the Eastern Southern Churches not much differing from the Roman and being as well as the Roman disallowed by Protestants And also the Discession it self is confessed both long ago by Calvin lamenting the Protestant's want of Union amongst so many Adversaries ‖ Epist P. Melancthoni p. 145. A toto mundo discessionem facere coacti sumus And by Mr. Chillingworth l. 5. § 55. As for the external Communion of the visible Church saith he we have without scruple formerly granted that Protestants did forsake it i. e. renounce the practise of some Observances in which the whole visible Church before them did communicate See likewise § 56.89 Forsake the external Communion of the whole visible Church i. e. as he expounds himself § 32 by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgies and publick Worship of God Thus he And this surely was done for some Errors extant in this publick Worship else why did Protestants also reform this publick Service And these again such Errors as were not only held and used in but justified and allowed by this Church Catholick and Obedience and Conformity from her Subjects required thereto since if any thing after the holy Scriptures be held by this Church Catholick sacred and authentick and by all her Subjects to be embraced and frequented her publick Liturgy and the most August Sacrifice of the Altar must be so What ground therefore of Discession and what just complaint the Protestants have against the Western Church excluding them from her Communion because requiring something in it they cannot conform to the same ground of complaint they have also against the Eastern Churches as requiring somthing in their Communion to which they cannot assent nor in which join with them This for the external Communion of the Oriental as well as Occidental Church as to God's Publick Worship partaking of their Sacraments forsaken by them And next as to any other Communion internal mean-while professed with these Eastern Churches in the Fundamental Faith and Essentials of Religion they can pretend none but that they have and confess they have the same Communion with the Western Churches too In what sence therefore they stand separated from the Roman Church viz. in external Communion of their publick service of God and receiving with that Church the blessed Sacrament they stand separated from the Eastern also and in what sence they still retain the Communion of the East viz. in the Essential and Fundamental Articles of Faith they still retain this with Rome as much as them How is it then that they say often in the Reformation they left the Roman Church only not the whole Catholick numbring the Greek Russian Abyssine and other Churches as three parts of four and all these as on their side and joined with them And to what purpose is the calculating what proportion the Western Church hath to the whole Catholick when as their separation for communion external is as much from the rest as it and both Churches if any for this their separation equally culpable and when as for the internal Communion i. e. in all the Essentials of Faith they maintain this no more with the rest of the great body of the Catholick Church than they do with the Roman or Western Church But here again if they alledg their further Union with the Eastern Churches not in Fundamentals only but also in some other Points not Fundamental which are but few and none of them on the Greek side defined by any former Superior Council wherein these Churches oppose the Roman among which is named the Pope's Supremacy and Infallibility of the Roman Church the later a thing the Roman Church taken singly pretendeth not to yet what will this help ‖ See Disc 3. §. 185. as to those many other points defined by Superior Couneils ‖ See before § 50. n. 2. and wherein both East and VVest consent as those mentioned in the third Discourse § 26. c. In which Points chiefly Protestants are questioned for having made in the Reformation not a secession from their Western Mother to another part of the Catholick Church but a discession from the consenting judgment of the whole Catholick 8. Departed from the whole in these points which were §. 55. n. 5. at that time of a general belief and practice not only so far as to dissent but also as to contradict and reform against them 9. And all this in several of these Controversies upon pretence of the clearness of those Scriptures the sence whereof by a much major part of the West and by the greatest Councils that could for those times be assembled there where these Controversies arose the sence also of the Eastern Church concurring in 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
And whether a more General or any fuller acceptation of the Definitions of such Councils by the Church Catholick which acceptation also if any Council for the Meeting is not so numerous as others have bin supplies the defect can rationally be required than that which is set down before § 18 36 38. 4ly Whether most or at least some of the chiefest points of present Controversie between Catholicks and Protestants have not been decided by former Councils so accepted Which he may be pleased to examine in the points mentioned Disc 3. § 26 c. § 57 But for a present Example I will annex here a brief relation ‖ See Baronius and Blondel's Esclairciss sur L' Eucharist applied to the precedent Rules The great controversie of a Substantial Conversion in the Eucharist examined according to the former Proposals whether a sufficient decision hath not been already made by the Church therein of the past proceedings of the Church in the decision of one of the main points of Controversie which notwithstanding such former decision yet remains still called in question by the Reformed Namely whether in the Eucharist there is a Corporal Presence of Christ and a Substantial Conversion of the Elements of Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood This Corporal Presence and Substantial Conversion then to relate the proceedings about it as briefly as possibly I may long ago Berengarius and some Followers of his denied were complained of two Councils called one after another at Rome and at Vercelles Anno. Dom. 1050. Berengarius summoned and he not appearing his hetorodox Opinions condemned He according to the now Protestant Grounds thinking his a Doctrine of great consequence and the Decree of these two Councils a manifest Errour and that himself freed from the Obedience of silence or non-contradiction to these Councils and so he with his Followers publickly justified his old Tenent desiring a reversing by some new Council of the former Sentence against it Upon this reviv'd disturbance of the Church another Council five years after is assembled at Tours 1055. not far distant from Anger 's where he was Arch-Deacon Here himself with others of his party was present his Cause pleaded his Demonstrations considered and after all his Opinion again condemned himself recanting it The Council dismissed he finds yet other new Reasons or a greater strength in his former and falls again to the abetting maintaining and spreading abroad his old Doctrine A Fourth Council upon those new Troubles of the Church 1059. Four years after the last was called at Rome where himself also was present some say long Disputation there had his new Plea for it found too light and rejected and his Opinion opposing Substantial Conversion again condemned both by himself and by the Council consisting of 103. Bishops The third time this man revolts and publisheth a Writing answered by Lanfranck afterward Arch-Bishop of Canterbury wherein he complains that some particular Enemies of his swayed the former Council and had made him to swear contradictions These new Imputations occasioned a Fifth Council to be called at Rome A. D. 1078. In which were new Disputings his last Cavils censured and the Article of a Substantial Conversion further vindicated and his Error of the Substance of the Bread remaining again condemned by this Council and ultimately recanted by himself § 58 Such was the Sentence of five several Councils if we may believe D. Blondel ‖ Sur l' Eucharist c. 20 one reviewing another against Berengarius and his Party opposing a Corporal Presence these Persons being present in three of these Councils and pleading their Cause The same Arguments as will appear by the writers of those times Lanfranck Guitmond Algerus to any one that pleaseth to peruse them then refuted that are still urged the same Authorities out of Fathers then pressed as are still produced anew by the Reformed and with the same Answers repelled All these Councils if some of them in the Members thereof less numerous yet universally accepted by all the VVestern Churches where this Controversie was only agitated Not one single Bishop thereof that is known dissenting or siding with the Berengarians Look we for more satisfaction yet VVhen the Fervor of parties in this matter was much allayed and the Church had had sufficient leisure to consider and digest the former Conciliary Decrees above a hundred years after the last of the Councils fore-mentioned the great Lateran Council was assembled under Innocent the 3 d. in which were present the Patriarch of Constantinople and of Hierusalem in person and the Substitutes * of the Patriarch of Antioch then sick Episcopus Antheradensis and * of the Alexandrian Patriarch lying under the Sarazen yoke Germanus his Deacon T is true indeed as it is objected that some of these Patriarchs were then Latines because both Constantinople and Hierusalem being held in possession the one for near 60. the other for near 100. years by the Latines Latine Pariarchs were then elected as somtimes Greeks also by the power of the Emperors have bin Bishops of Rome but yet they were the Lawful and the only Patriarchs of those Sees in that time And present there were besides these a considerable number of other Eastern Bishops the whole Council consisting of 412 Bishops and 70 Archbishops Now this Council again in stead of reversing declared for a Substantial Conversion where also first i. e. in a Council was used the name of Transubstantiation Two hundred years after this again the Council of Florence declared likewise for the same in the Articles of Instruction to the Jacobines and Armenians in these words Ipsorum verborum Christi virtute substantia panis in Corpus Christi substantia vine in sanguinem convertuntur Which declaration though made after the departure of the Greeks whom the Turks Invasion hastned away yet it was fully agreeable to their doctrine Nor had the Latine and Greek Church then any difference concerning the Substantial Conversion of the Elements into Christs Body but only hy what words this mutation was effected For which thing see the plain Confession of Bishop Forbes ‖ De Euch. p. 412. See below Dises 3. §. 158. against Chemnitius and others of his own party And all these without any opposition or the Church-Catholick's assembling it self in any other Council in so many Centuries for to reverse such a Decree If there was let it be named § 59 Now if the Decree of so many Synods so often weighing the Adversaries reasons and evidences was not sufficient for setling such a point at least as to the obedience of future silence and non-contradiction and as to suffering the Church to enjoy her peace what can hereafter be sufficient Or can we ever hope that any controversie shall be finally determined or ended by any future Council if this is not by these forepast Can there be any ground here to question the integrity or lawful proceedings of so many Councils at such a distance
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
An obedience which themselves though subjects do deny to the decree of all those preceding Councils wherein the judgment of all the Bishops and Metropolitans of the then western world concurred and amongst the rest those of these two Provinces also yet doth their Synod require it § 61 And their requiring this thought to be rationally thus defended Because Though it is not impossible but that such Synod may err yet it may be certain that in somthing it doth not err ‖ Mr. Stilling-fleet p 542. And so to such point may enjoyn assent becaus the thing determined is so evident in Scripture as that all denying of it must be wilful ‖ Mr. Whitby p. 100. But mean-while you see all these Councils have denied what this Synod of twenty six Bishops is certain of and certain from evidence of Scripture an evidence the perusal of which all those Councils had as well as these Here let a sober Christian judge if assent be held due to this London-Synod upon such a pretended certainty of theirs is it not to those other much rather to those others I say incomparably more numerous accepted by the whole West for many Ages and adhered-to still by the greatest part thereof having before them the Scriptures and the traditive Exposition of them weighing the Arguments that are still on foot meeting so often and concluding still in the same Judgment But if these other Councils are justified by the practice of this English Synod either in their requiring assent or at least silence thus is the Reformation rendred unlawful as likewise their appeal to future Councils which can afford us no more just satisfaction than the forepast As for that refuge usually sought in flying to the contrary judgment or non-acceptance of the Eastern Churches in this point it helps not For 1st besides a considerable presence of Grecian Bishops that there was in some of these Councils as to a tacit-approbation or non-opposition in this point the Greek Churches have never bin found to have made the least anti-declaration And 2ly You may see below Disc 3. § 158. the Testimonies both of their own Writers and also of several Protestants shewing their accord herein with the Western Churches § 62 As for the Appeal that is made by many to our sences that they may be consulted rather than the Church or the Fathers who yet had as perfect an information from their sences as we from ours for the decision of this point and as for the many contradictions that are mustered up by them ‖ See Mr. Tillorsons Rule of faith p. 271. Dr. Tailor Real price p. 207 c. 251. c. Stillingf Rat. account p. 117 567. out of Philosophy and from natural reason against it 1st I think all are here agreed that the contrary testimony of sence or the seeming contradictions of Reason are not to be regarded where Divine Revelation declares any thing to be Truth That which I am now upon saith Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ p. 567. in the place where he urgeth such contradictions of sence and reason to Transubstantiation is not how far reason I add or sence is to be submitted to divine Authority in case of certainty that there is a divine Revelation for what I am to believe This saith enough But give me leave to add the judgment of two or three Protestants more in this matter here a little to check the forwardnesse of those who so peremptorily admit the arbitrement of sence and natural reason in mysteries of Religion The 1st is that submission of Dr. Tailours in Real Presence p. 240. after he had numbred up many apparent contradictions not only in respect of a natural but as he saith of an absolute possibility of Transubstantiation from p. 207. to 237. Yet saith he Let it appear that God hath affirmed Transubstantiation and I for my part will burn all my Arguments against it and make publick amends All my Arguments i. of apparent contradictions and absolute impossibilities And p. 237. To this objection that we believe the doctrine of the Trinity and of the Incarnation of our Saviours being born of a pure Virgin c. clauso utero and of the Resurrection with identity of bodies in which the Socinians find absurdities and contradictions notwithstanding seeming impossibilities and therfore why not Transubstantiation He answers That if there were as plain Revelation of Transubstantiation as of the other then this Argument were good and if it were possible for a thousand times more Arguments to be brought against Transubstantiation yet saith he we are to believe the Revelation in despight of them all Now I pray you observe that none can believe a thing true upon what motive soever which he first knows certainly to be false or which is all one certainly to contradict or to be not naturally but absolutely impossible which therefore it is strange that Dr. Tailour affirms himself to know concerning Transubstantiation ‖ p 107 236. For these we say are not verifiable by a divine power and therefore here I may say should divine power declare a Truth it would transcend it self Again in Liberty of Prophecy § 20. n. 16. he saith ' Those who believe the Trinity in all those Niceties of Explications which are in the School and which now adays pass for the Doctrine of the Church believe them with as much violence to the Principles of Natural and Supernatural Philosophy as can be imagined to be in the point of Transubstantiation Yet I suppose himself denies no doctrine about the Trinity that is commonly delivered in the Schools The next is that grave admonition of that learned and moderate Prelate Bishop Forbes Admodum periculosè saith he nimis audacter negant multi Protestantes Deum posse panem substantialiter in Corpus Domini convertere Multa enim potest Deus omnipotens facere supra captum omnium hominum imo Angelorum Id quidem quod implicat contradictionem non posse fieri concedunt omnes sed quia in particulari nemini evidenter constat quae sit uniuscujusque rei essentia ac perinde quid implicet quid non implicet contradictionem magnae profectò temeritatis est propter caecae mentis nostrae imbecillitatem Deo limites praescribere praefractè negare omnipotentia sua illum hoc vel illud facere posse And p 395. Certè haud pauca saith he credimus omnes quae si ratio humana consulatur non minus impossibilia esse contradictionem manifestam implicare videntur quam ipsa Transubstantiatio instancing there in the doctrine of the Resurrection of the same numerical Body And he goes on p. 388. ' Placet nobis judicium Theologorum Wirtembergicorum in confessione suâ Anno 1552. Consilio Tridentino proposita Vid. Harmonia Confess cap. de Eucharistiâ Credimus inquiunt Omnipotentiam Dei tantam esse ut possit in Eucharistiâ substantiam panis vini vel annihilare vel in Corpus
sanguinem Christi mutare Sed quod Deus hanc suam absolutam Omnipotentiam in Eucharistiâ exerceat non videtur esse certo verbo Dei traditum apparet veteri Ecclesiae fuisse ignotum The third is Calvins Confession of faith ‖ Lib. Epist p. 5702. written two years before his death and directed to the Emperor and Princes of Germany Porrò saith he qui nos accusant quod Dei potentiae derogetur à nobis valde sunt in nos injurii Non enim hîc quaeritur quid Deus possit sed quid verbo suo velit extra quod nihil nobis qaaerendum ut hoc aut illud divinemus Quare illam quaestionem omittemus an Deus possit facere ut Christi Corpus sit ubique sed cum omni modestiā intra istos Scripturae fines consistimus qu◠perhibet Christum induisse corpus nostro corpori per omnia simile Interea extollimus Dei potentiam magis quam illi qui nos istiusmodi probris infamant Fatemur enim ipsamillam Christi à nobis secundum humanam naturam distantiam non impedire quò minùs in seipso nos vivificet habitet in nobis nosque adeo participes reddat ipsiusmet substantiae corporis sui sanguinis virtute incomprehensibili sancti sui Spiritus Ex quo apparet merè calumniosum esse quod nobis imponitur quasi nempe figeremus suos terminos Dei potentiae explacitis Philosophorum atqui omnis nostra Philosophia una est simpliciter admittere quod Scriptura nos docet And de vera Christianae pacificationis ratione c. 11. speaking of the Eucharist ' Quasi vero saith he hic de Christi potentia disputetur Rerum omnium conversionem fieri posse à Christo nos quoque fatemur This then I hope may be said with the approbation of Protestants that the interposings of sence though indeed in the Eucharist there is no error in our sences all that being really there which they perceive there but in our reason only arguing from the position of the accidents to the position of the subject or the interposing of Reason and Philosophy are not to be hearkned to in this matter till first it be cleared what is the divine Revelation concerning it which divine Revelation so often as it appears to have declared any thing contrary to them we may with modesty enough use that expression of F. Cressies causlesly censured ‖ Tillots p. 276. That we have learnt not to answer such Arguments but to despise them § 64 2ly All thus acknowledging their submission to divine Revelation This hath bin produced out of the Scriptures 2. For a corporal presence of Christs Body and a Conversion of the consecrated Elements into it Many texts urged if taken in their most literal proper and natural sence very express for it as Mat. 26.26 Mark 14.22 Luke 22.19 Jo. who speaking of it here omits it in the History of the Passion 6.51 53 54. 1 Cor. 11.24 27 29. 10.16 It being very observable here 1st That the words of Institution are still repeated punctually by four several sacred Writers Matthew Mark Luke and Paul without any variation or Exposition of any impropriety whereas it is not usuall so constantly to retain without Explication a tropical or figurative speech especially in a matter where the truth is so necessary to be known 2 Again that the fourth of these Writers cautiously as it were useth not his own stile in this matter as in others but chuseth to deliver our Lords commands punctually in his own words what I have received that I deliver c. And 3 That our Saviour also in these words seconds his first expression Hoc est Corpus meum without changing afterward any impropriety in them with the like words following Hic est sanguis and then confirmeth both these with a quod tradetur and qui effundetur i on the Cross to shew he was real in these words and meant no Figure Notwithstanding this the true sence of these Scriptures was called in question by a party not now only but eight hundred years ago contending that they were not properly but figuratively to be understood And upon this the usual remedy for the right understanding of Scriptures controverted was then repaired to and the same supreme Ecclesiastical Judge consulted for deciding and declaring the true and traditive sence of these Scriptures in this important controversie concerning the real substantial corporeal presence of our Lords Body as was formerly for declaring the traditive sence of the Scriptures controverted concerning the Divinity of Christ A General Council i.e. the most general that the times would permit was assembled in the West in our Forefathers days nay of these more than one as hath bin shewed ‖ §. 57 c. a substantial Conversion of the Elements and a corporal Presence declared to be the traditive sence of these Scriptures and a reverence suitable required in this great mystery not one Bishop in these Councils for any thing we know in the whole Church of God at that time dissenting and those of the Eastern Churches absent consenting in the same judgment ‖ See Disc 3. §. 158. what more can be done Ought not sence reason philosophy here to be silenced and ought not such a Decree to be if not assented to yet even in the judgment of those learned Protestant Divines before quoted ‖ § 56. n. 2. 59. acquiesced in so far as not to be by any contradicted § 65 But 3 ly what now if many of those contradictions and absurdities which are urged against the corporeal presence of the Catholicks 3. do as much overthrow that real presence that is maintained by Protestants I mean the Calvinists and so many in the Church of England as have not deserted their Forefathers and to flie the father from the Church of Rome are gone quite over into the Camp of Zuinglius changing a real into meerly a spiritual presence or a presence only of Christs Spirit uniting the worthy Communicant here on earth to his Body in Heaven But heretofore at least it hath bin the common Tenent of the English Divines to affirm not only a spiritual presence or a presence only by effect operation or grace but a substantial presence in the Eucharist and that is here on earth not to the Elements indeed but to the worthy Receiver of the very same Body of Christ that suffered on the Cross and that is now at the same time as here also in heaven § 66 To which purpose thus Calvin in 1 Cor. 11.24 Neque enim mortis suae keneficium nobis offert Christus sed Corpus ipsum in quo passus est resurrexit And Institut l 4. c. 17. § 7. Neque enim mihi satisfaciunt qui dum Communionem cum Christo ostendere volunt nos spiritus modò participes faciunt praeteritâ carnis sanguinis mentione Quasi vero illa omnia de nihilo dictaforent
he a Synod consisted of the Metropolitans ‖ l. 5. c. 30. p. 513. and Bishops of one Kingdom or State only the chief Primate was Moderator 2 If of many Kingdoms one of the Patriarchs and chief Bishops of the whole World was Moderator Every Church and therefore this of England as to Ecclesiastical Governme being subordinate to some one of the Patriarchal Churches and incorporate into the unity of it 3. Thirdly the Actions of a whole Patriarchship were subject to a Synod Oecumenical And elsewhere he saith ‖ l. 5. c. 52. p. 668. That the Patriarch of the West may call a Council of the Western Bishops lawfully punishing those who obey not his summons and he and ihe Council so assembled may make Decrees which shall be obligatory to all the Western Church And thus Bishop Bramhall ‖ Vindic. of the Ch. of England p. 257. What power the Metropolitan had over the Bishop of his own Province the same had a Patriarch over the Metropolitans and Bishops of sundry Provinces within his own Patriarchate And afterward Wherein then consisted Patriarchal Authority in ordaining their Metropolitans for with inferior Bishops they might not meddle or confirming them in imposing of hands or giving the Pall in convocating Patriarchal Synods and presiding in them c when Metropolitical Synods did not suffice to determine some emergent differences or difficulties So in Schism-guarded p. 349. he saith That the Ecclesiastical Head of the Church is a General Council and under that each Patriarch in his Patriarchate and among the Patriarchs the Bishop of Rome by a Priority of Order And see Ibid. p. 4. his allowing this Bishop to be Exordium Vnitatis This of the subordination of the Bishops of several Nations to a Council Patriarchal taken out of others because omitted by Dr. Hammond Above which the next and highest subordination is that of all the Bishops in Christianity to a Council General To which General Council this Doctor thus professeth elsewhere ‖ Of Heresie §. 11. p. 149. the due subjection of the Church of England Vpon the strength of this perswasion saith he that God will never permit any such universal testimony concerning the faith to conspire in conveying error to us as we have never yet opposed never opposed that implies obedience of Silence but upon the former perswasion I see not why he should not say never dissented from any universal Council nor other voice of the whole Church such as by the Catholick Rules can be contested to be such so for the future we professe never to do And on 1 Tim. 3.15 The Church is the Pillar and Ground of truth he comments thus According to this it is that Christ is said Eph. 4.11 to have given not only Apostles c. but also Pastors and Teachers i.e. the Bishops in the Church for the compacting of the Saints into a Church for the continuing them in all truth that we should be no longer like children carried about with every wind of doctrine And so again when heresies came into the Church in the first Ages it is every where apparent by Ignatius's Epistles That the only way of avoiding error and danger was to adhere to the Bishop in communion and doctrine and whosoever departed from him and that forme of wholesom words kept by him was supposed to be corrupted And the same also to S. W. objecting ‖ Schism disarm p. 255. That it availed not for freedom from Schism to adhere to the Authority of our Bishop as the Arrians did if such Bishop hath rejected the authority of his Superiors and taught contrary to them He grants ‖ Answ to Schism disarm p. 261. concerning any Bishops and those adhering to them if departing from their Superiors That retaining the Authority of their Bishops is not being taken alone any certain Argument or Evidence of not being schismaticks c. This he for establishing such Church-authority and the due subordinations thereof from any of which whether person or Council a voluntary departure of those who are subordinate ‖ Of Schism c 3. Answ to C. Gentlem. p. 30 or also a wilful continuance under their censures laid upon them ‖ is by him declared Schism Of which Schism he speaks thus ‖ Answ to C. Gent. p. 9. First saith he those Brethren or People which reject the Ministry of the Deacons or Presbyters in any thing §. 4. wherein they are ordained and appointed by the Bishop §. 24. n. 2. and as long as they continue in obedience to him and of their own accord do break off and separate from them ‖ Of Schism p. 34. refuse to live regularly under them they are by the ancient Church of Christ adjudged and looked on as Schismaticks Here then are many late Sects among Protestants rejecting the Clergy I know not well by what name to call them confessed guilty of Schism In like manner saith he ‖ P. 37.41 if we ascend to the next higher link that of the Bishop to whom both Presbyters and Deacons as well as theBrethren or People are obliged to live in obedience the withdrawing or denying this obedience in any of these will certainly fall under this guilt And as this obedience may be of two sorts either of a lower or of a higher kind the denying obedience in any particular lawful command of the Superior or the casting off all obedience together de throning them or setting up our selves either in their steads or in opposition to them so will the Schism be also a lighter and a grosser separation And here are all Protestant Presbyterial whether Persons or Churches for any thing I can understand opposing Episcopacy or setling instead of it a Presbyterial Church-Government confessed also by him guilty of Schism of Schism I mean from their spiritual Superiors wherby also they becom no members of the Church-Catholick which Church-Catholick stands always contradistinct to Heretical and Schismatical Churches nor are any such Schismaticks known to be so and not recanting such their Schism to be admitted to enjoy the communion of the Presbytery of any Church that professeth it self a member of the Catholick Which thing will 1st cut off no small body of the Protestants from the Catholick Church And 2ly will render in some manner partaker of their guilt any other Protestant-Clergy that shall communicate knowingly with them The same sentence upon the Presbyterians deserting their Bishops that is their spiritual Superiors pronounceth Dr. Ferne They have incurred saith he by leaving us ‖ The Case between Eng. and Rome p. 46 48. and I wish they would sadly consider it no less then the guilt of Schism which lies heavily on as many as have of what perswasion or sect soever wilfully divided themselves from the Communion of the Church of England whether they do this by a bare separation or by adding violence and sacriledge to it For making good saith he this charge of Schism against them we
will premise some undeniable truths which speak the Authority of Church Governors the obedience due thereunto the condition of Schism and the danger and guilt of it The first is that the Church of Christ is a Society or Company under a Regiment discipline Government and the members constituting that Society are either persons taught guided governed or persons teaching guideing governing and this in order to preserve all in unity and to advance every member of this visible Society to an effectual and real participation of Grace and Vnion with Christ the Head and therefore and upon no less account is obedience due unto them Eph. 4.11 12 13 16 and Heb. 13.17 and he that will not hear the Church to be as a Heathen and Publican Mat. 16. c. Thus he And thus clear-sighted men are in the case where they are to require obedience but not so where to yield it This said of the Schism of Presbyters departing from their Bishops the same Dr. Hammond saith ‖ Of Schism c. 3. of the Schism of Bishops departing from their Metropolitans and of Metropolitans from their Primats or Patriarchs Now to go on If then for example the Presbyter is bound upon such a guilt to obey his Bishop then the subjects of both the Presbyter and the Bishop when these two dissent are tied to adhere to the Bishop not to the Presbyter i.e. to obey him whom the other if he continued in his duty ought also to obey and sic de caeteris These subordinations therefore known Christians also cannot but know in the division of Church-Governors distinct in dignity still those to whom their obedience is thus fastned 2. Next §. 25. n. 1. In a Body or Court consisting of many of an equal rank as Councils the supreme Ecclesiastical Judge do in which body in all or most causes or decisions may and usually do happen some dissenters that here it is necessary for rending the decrees of such complex bodies effectual that at least the much major part thereof joyned with the prime Apostolick See conclude the whole the traditionary practice of the most universally allowed Councils from the beginning of Christianity as likewise the same practice in all Civil Courts of the same composition doth sufficiently put this out of dispute if any thing can be so See what is said of this Disc 1. § 31 36 38. Where if it be further demanded for legitimating the Acts of such a Council or also for the sufficient acceptation by the Church Catholick of such act or definition what proportion this major part whether defining in Council or accepting out of it is to bear in respect of the minor or how much to exceed it I know not what better director herein we can have than the former custom of the Catholick Church and the example and pattern of the primitive times Nor what greater justification the proceedings of later Councils can receive herein than the same practice as theirs is appearing in those ancient Councils that are universally allowed If then we stay here a litle to review the proceedings §. 25. n. 2. of the first Councils and think the later times may safely steer according to their course Looking into the first Council of Nice we find in Hilarius ‖ De Syncdis no less then eighty Bishops before this Council was assembled mentioned to have disallowed the reception of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See also what Bishops Arius pretended to have sided with him in his Letter to Euseb Nicomed written some years before the Nicene Council ‖ Apud Epiph Haer. 69. Theodoret. l. 1. c. 5. and in the Council also ⋆ seventeen Bishops some of note at the first to have dissented from the rest and after the Council * Arianism in the Eastern parts to have grown in a small time to a much greater bulk supporting their cause with several unwary expressions of former Ecclesiastical Writers as Justin Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian Clemens Alexand. Origen ‖ See Pelavins in Epiph. Her 69. before a stricter discussion of this controversie Yet was this no diminution to the strength of the Nicene decree or to a valid acceptation thereof both being done by a much greater part of the Church Again in the third General Council of Ephesus §. 25. n. 3. we find John the Patriarch of Antioch with his Oriental Bishops above thirty favouring Nestorianism and opposing the decrees of the rest of that Council yet did not the other part of that Council forbear to define Anti-Nestorianism without and against them and also to excommunicate them for their non-conformity to the major part nor did the Christian world cease to account the acts of this Council valid without the acceptation thereof by this Patriarch and his party these acts being justified by the much greater part of the Church Catholick joyned with the Roman Patriarch Neither supposing that this Patriarch and his Bishops and their Successors had continued to this day as too many ever since in those parts do and as they did for some time to oppose this decree could it have rescued Nestorianism from being justly reputed an Heresie though this party was so considerable as that the Emperour retarded the Execution of the Councils censures upon them till that in the year next ensuing the Patriarch and most of the rest were regained to a peaceable submission to the Church Catholick and her doctrine Come we to the fourth General Council of Chalcedon §. 25. n. 4. Two years before it in a question concerning our Lord's consisting of and in two natures distinct not only before but after their union in one person the prevalent party in a Council of above 120 Bishops had defined the contrary tanquam de fide For which also they pretended the doctrine of the Fathers Athanasius Cyril Alexand. and Gregory Nazianz. Concerning which Fathers you may find Eutyches ‖ In Concil Constantinop apud Conc Chalc. act 1. pleading thus for himself Vae mihi si sanctos Patres anathematizavero And Dioscorus thus ‖ Conc. Chalc Actione prima Ego testimonium habeo sanctorum Patrum Athanasii Gregorii Cyrilli in multis locis quia non oportet dicere post adunationem duas naturas sed unam naturam Dei verbi incarnatam Ego cum Patribus ejicior Ego defendo Patrum dogmata non transgredior in aliquo horum testimonia non simpliciter neque transitoriè sed in libris habeo Thus Dioscorus in the Council of Chalcedon and we find the subscription of 96 Bishops either deluded or forced as they complained afterward ‖ V. Conc. Chalc. Act. 1 4. to Dioscorus his definition in that former Council But the great Council of Chalcedon notwithstanding such an opposition defined the contrary doctrine as of faith and deposed the chief Actors in this former Council amongst which were the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria And to the greater authority of this Council all the rest save
only the Patriarch of Alexandria in the fourth Session came in and submitted not only for their silence that would not serve the turn but assent But after these there were 11 Egyptian Bishops i. e. all that were present from the Patriarchy of Alexandria how Orthodox I cannot say that refused still to subscribe to the Councils decrees alledging the fear of a persecution upon their return into Egypt from their brethren at home these at home it seems being also of a contrary judgment to the Council yet the Council both established their decree without them and required upon excommunication their submission to it and to it put into the Confession of their Faith After this Council ended Timotheus the usurping Patriarch of Alexandria after Proterius who was placed there by the Council slain and his adherents continuing still to professe Dioscorism or a mitigated Eutychianism condemned the Acts of Chalcedon and much sollicited the Emperour by Letters to call a new Council and besides these a very great faction in Palestine did the same whose followers also continue the same division to this day not only the Egyptians but the Ethiopians or Abyssins Armenians Jacobites of Syria giving to the Adherents of the Council in those parts the name of Melchites or Royalists because they pretended the corruption of this Council by the Emperors faction yet the owning of this Council by S. Peters Chair and the acceptation thereof by much the greatest part of the Church Catholick was and still is not doubted to be a sufficient ratification of its Acts notwithstanding this storm in the Patriarchy of Alexandria against this fourth General Council much worse than that of Antioch against the third Before the seventh General Council the second Nicene §. 25. n. 5 a question being on foot concerning the lawful use and also relative veneration of Images a Council assembled of above a hundred Bishops under Constantinus Copronymus though indeed none of the Patriarchs joyned with them defined it negatively and for making good their Tradition for this produced several places out of the Fathers particularly out of Epiphanius Naziaâ—z Chrysostom Athanasius Eusebius Caesariensis and others See 2. Conc. Nic. Act. 6. Tom. 5. yet so soon as the Ghurch recovered her liberty by the death of this Emperour It in a fuller body the Patriarchs also present notwithstanding such a party preventing them declared their Faith contrary with an Anathema to all dissenters from their decree In the Council of Sardica the Oriental Arrian Bishops §. 26. n. 6. about 70. withdrew themselves from the Council to Philippopolis because it consisting of above 300 Western Bishops besides them they saw their number too small to invalidate the Acts of a party so much greater though indeed being condemned already for Hereticks by the Nicene Council they could have no just vote in any following Before all these Councils a great question arose in the Church about the validity of Hereticks baptism and whether the Tradition commonly practised of non-rebaptizing those converted from Heresie though Firmilian seems to plead also a contrary Tradition in those parts where he lived ‖ Ep 73. ad Cypr. Caeterum nos saith he veritati consuetudinem jungimus consuetudini Romanorum consuetudinem sed veritatis opponimus ab inìtio hoc tenentes quod à Christo ab Apostolo traditum est were Apostolical or no A part of the Church Catholick questioning it because another more certain Apostolical Tradition viz. the Scriptures seemed to them to declare plainly the contrary A difficult controversie this was accounted several Provincial Councils in divers parts were held about it above 80 Affrican Bishops assembled with their Primate S. Cyprian and likewise Firmilian and some fifty other Eastern Bishops with him judged it not Apostolical ‖ See Dionysii Alex. Ep. ad Xystum Euseb l. 7. c. 4. Yet afterward a General Council proceeded to decide it and their definition was esteemed valid and obliging and those who continued in their former opinion which in Affrick was no small number in S. Austins time above 150 Bishops ‖ See the Conference with the Donatists Baron A.D. 411. were from that time accounted Hereticks 'T is true that this General Council ‖ Are latense 1. was held some 50 years after the other Provincial ones and that before this several of the Affrican Bishops had corrected their former opinion But I suppose none will say that a General Council if assembled at the same time with those Provincial could not justly have defined it against them as Stephanus his Council at the same time did and justly have required their Obedience as being though a considerable number yet a much smaller part compared with the rest of the Bishops of the Christian world and their Suffrage invalid Contra tot millia Episcoporum quibus tunc error in toto Orbe displicuit to use S. Austin's words contra Cresconium l 3. c. 3. Who elsewhere also ‖ De Baptismo l. 1. c. 7. speaks thus on this matter Quaestionis hujus Obscuritas prioribus Ecclesiae temporibus ante Schisma Donati magnos viros magnâ charitate praedites Patres Episcopos ita inter se compulit salvâ pace disceptare atque fluctuare ut diù Conciliorum in suis quibuscunque Regionibus diversa statuta nutaverint So contra Cresconium l. 1. c. 33. he saith Similiter inter Apostolos de Circumcisione quaestio sicut postea de Baptismo inter Episcopos non parva difficultate nutabat donec plenario totius orbis concilio quod saluberrimè sentiebatur etiam remotis dubitationibus firmaretur By the Acts of these Councils I think it appears §. 25. n. 7. that Points of former dispute and such where the contrary to some of them have been defended by a numerous Party in the Church yet have been afterward defined and declared as matter of Faith and that such opposition of a number though in it self considerable yet in respect of the whole much smaller hath been thought insufficient to debilitate the authority and decisions of the rest confirmed by the judgment of the Bishop of Rome and the Chair of S. Peter and that the Church may cut off from her Body for the safety of the whole if such part happen to be gangred or putrified not only a little Finger or Toe but an Arm or a Leg. But yet I would not have this so understood as if that the Church's Councils in this matter of the very greatest concernment do at any time proceed to declare as matter of Faith any Propositions save * such as to disengaged judgments carry great evidence in them flowing either from express former Tradition or the present clear deduction and * such as are admitted and allowed by much the greatest part of the Church Catholick And in particular the late Council of Trent very prudently considering the great distraction and dissatisfaction of those times and their proneness to Schism is said
and suspicious the Catholick Bishops at Ariminum refused to subscribe it save upon some Additions to be annexed so to secure the Church's Faith from Arrianism and other missconstructions after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was now left out In which Additions to give you Severus his words ‖ Hist l. 2. Primùm damnatus est Arrius totaque ejus perfidia deinde Filius Deo Patri aequalis sine initio sine tempore pronuntiatur which things infer the Son's Eternity and either Consubstantiality with the Father or Polytheisme denied by the Arrians Tum valens saith he tanquam nostros adjuvans subjecit Sententiam Filium Dei non esse Creaturam sicut caeteras Creaturas i. e. as he was understood by the Council sicut caetera omnia sunt Creaturae To these S. Jerom adds as he saith out of the Records of the Council it self several Anathema's pronounced and consented to by the Arrians amongst which this is one Si quis Filium Dei non dixerit aeternum cum Patre Anathema sit These things then being so submitted to be the Arrian Party and the Catholick Faith now thought secure the Council was dismissed These things you may see related more at large by S. Jerom ‖ Dialog advers Luciferian in defence of the Catholick Bishops in this Council for the satisfaction of the Luciferians a Sect that after the reflourishing of the Catholick Religion would not admit those Bishops who voted at Ariminum or had afterward communicated with the Arrians into their Communion who likewise urged then as well as the Donatists afterward and the Reformed now of the times before Luther that Christ had no Church except generally corrupted And the Text ‖ Luk 18.8 Cum venerit Filius hominis non inveniet Fidem super terram to which see S. Jerom's Answer in the same place This for Ariminum At the same time and upon the same Motive the concluding a firm Peace in the Church Vniversal was another Council held in the East §. 27. n. 1. at Seleucia Where by the Divine Providence S. Hilary then an Exile for the Catholick Doctrine in the East was present informed the Council of the constancy of the Western Bishops in the Nicene Belief and in the Council himself earnestly contended for it being also assisted by the Egyptian Bishops except Georgius the Alexandrian Usurper as himself saith in his Book contra Constantium This Council supposed in a great part Semi-Arrian proceeded no further than only to the confirming of the forementioned Antiochian Creed in which I said nothing was contained not Catholick and afterward to the excommunicating of the Arrians But after this Council dissolved the subscription made at Ariminum by the Occidentals being brought into the East and the like for a general union with great importunity required by the Emperor many of these Seleucian Bishops at last yielded to it the Arrian Agents first pretending but falsely to the West that the Eastern Bishops would by no means admit of Substantia to be mentioned in the Creed and then urging to these Eastern Bishops professing it the prescription of the West for omitting of it Mean-while by the same deception and fraud was this subscription procured in the East from the Bishops most of them Orthodox or at most but semi-arrians as at Ariminum Of which Seleucian Bishops Sozomen saith ‖ l. 4.18 that omnes paucis exceptis in eo uno dissederunt quod pars filium Patri Consubstantialem pars autem substantia similem esse dicerent And of the fraud used there toward the Orthodox see much-what the same complaint made by Nazianzen his father a Catholick Bishop amongst others being involved in it as is by S. Ierom for the West Impietati saith he ‖ Orat. in land Athana◠per script◠dogmatis ambiguitatem fenestram aperuit Concilium Constantinopolitanum hoc quidem praetextu quasi Scripturam vereretur ac vocum probatissirnarum usum amplecteretur And Eares permultos è nobis invictos alioqui viros in fraudem impulit qui quamvis mente nequaquam prolapsi fuerint subscriptione tamen transversi acti sunt c. See also Liberius his Letter to the Eastern Bishops in Socrates l. 4. c. 11. Yet was not this subscription any more then the VVestern at Ariminum so universal but that besides Athanasius and most of the Egyptian Bishops there were several others of note that fully and openly professed the Nicene faith as Cyril Bishop of Ierusalem Meletius who made that valiant confession thereof not only with his mouth but when that stopped with his hands before the people of Antioch Ensebius Samosatenus and others Nor yet was it so grateful to the Arrians but that in a meeting of them shortly after at Antioch ‖ Sozozem l. 4. c. 23. they grew bold to alter it and at last to put in the Creed not only what was general or ambiguous but false i.e. their own Anti-Nicene Tenent Thus passed Constantius his times For some three years §. 27. n. 2. after the Ariminum subsicription very severe But he dying the face of the Church was suddenly altered and Iulian succeeding him equal to all or rather less disaffected to the Catholicks though a friend to none the Nicene faith flourished as formerly nor so much by a new Conversion of the Arrian Bishops to the truth as by a restorement of the formerly deprived Catholick Bishops to their honours and the possession of their Churches Of which thus S. Jerom ‖ Adversus Lucifer l. 2. Periclitabatur navicula Apostolorum Dominus excitatur imperat tempestati Bestia Constantius moritur tranquillitas rediit Manifestius dicam Omnes Episcopi qui de propriis sedibus fuerant exterminati per indulgentiam novi Principis Iulian who favoured at first the Catholicks ad Ecclesias redeunt Julian slain after some years under Valens ruling the East and siding with the Arrians a new storm arose there against the Nicene faith and a persecution and expulsion of many of the Catholick Bishops and these times it is that S. Basil in his Epistles so sadly deplores But 1st This persecution extended not to the West where Valentinian a Catholick Emperour ruled and where was only a toleration of the Arrians and so some of them by seeming Catholick as Auxentius Bishop of Millan before S. Ambrose did some hurt But then by Gratian his Son and Successor this Toleration was revoked and also in the East upon Valens his Uncle's death were the Catholick Bishops restored again to their seats and the Arrians crushed 2ly In the East it never swelled so high but that the Body of its Prelats also though suffering much from the other favoured Party remained Catholick as may appear more particularly by Liberius his Letter to the Oriental Bishops ‖ Apud Socr. l. 4. c. 11. and the 75 and 293. Epistles of S. Basil written in the same time of Valens his persecution In which 75th Epistle thus S. Basil Fuerat autem
justius res nostras aestimare non ex uno aut altero eorum qui ad veritatem baud recto pede ingrediuntur sedex multitudine totius orbis Episcoporum qui gratiâ Christi conjuncti nobis sùnt Vnamines omnes eodemque sensu praediti sumus Itaque si quisque Communionem nostram fugit ne prudentiam vestram lateat ab universâ illum Ecclesiâsese divulsisse §. 27. n. 3. And now by this Relation may be understood the true sence of those places of the Fathers that are urged for a defection of the greatest part of the Church in these times from the true faith which as they are now pressed by many Protestants against the Roman Church so some of them were anciently by the Donatists against S. Austin to whose 48. Epistle I refer you to peruse his Answer When therefore S. Hierom saith ‖ Dialog-adv Luciferianos Tunc after the Council of Ariminum usiae nomâ—â— abolitum est tunc Nicaenae fidei damnatio conclamata est And Nomine unitatis fidei infidelitas soripta est he meaneth Iâ—fidelitâ—s c. according to that sence and glosse as the Emperor and Arrian party made of the decree after the Council ended Saying also Ingemuit totus Orbis totus Orbis because the Eastern Bishops at Constantinople as well as the West before them at Ariminum by the same fraud made the same subscription miratus est se esse Arianum see the like Comment in Galat. 5.9 Arianum i. e. quite contrary to their intention and sence and by an Interpretation of some part of the decree so as it contradicted another therefore also ibid he saith how afterward Concurrebant Episcopi qui Ariminensibus do lis irretiti sine conscientiâ Haeretici ferebantur contestantes Corpus Domini quicquid in Ecclesia sanctum est se nihil mali in suâ fide suspicatos Whence he expostulates with the Luciferians Cur damnassent eos qui Ariani non erant Cur Ecclesiam scinderent in concordiâ fidei permanentem c. From which may be gathered the meaning of several passages urged ‖ See Tillot Rule of faith p. 167 c. out of his Chronicon declaring the establishment of Arrianism in the Arimine or Sirmian Council and out of his Dialogue against the Luciferians of the Confessors but a few admitting all the rest to their Communion which he saith there expresly was done Non quod Episcopi possent esse qui Haeretici fuerant sed quod constaret eos qui reciperentur haereticos non fuisse So Liberius his words ‖ apud Socrâ— l. 4. c. 11. Omnes illi ferè Episcopi qui Arimini convenerant quique vel fallacibus inescati illecebris vel vi compulsi à fide tum quidem desciveraut c. with whom he also joines the Oriental Orthodox Bishops to whom he writ Quibus item vos per versutas blanditias c are to be understood only of their failing from such a plenary confession of their faith as their Christian duty obliged them to whom I do not go about here to excuse from all fault but from heresie and such expressions as these subscriptionem pristinam damnabant fidei formulae Ariminensi Anathema denunciârunt to be understood that they condemned it not as in their own former sence false but as by the later Arrian sence perverted In the same sence are those things said by Vincentius Lirinensis ‖ Severus ‖ and others to be expounded and those passages of Nazianzen ‖ Hist l. 2. c 6. where he speaks of the complying lapse of many of the too-credulous Eastern Bishops and among the rest of his father yet always constantly Catholick As for S. Bâ—sils sad complaints ‖ In Orat. de laud. than dâ— sunere Patris of the overflow of Arrianism to which may be added several in Nazianzen ‖ Epist 71. c. they were made concerning the times of Valens and then concerning the East subjected to his power * Orat. in Arrian when can be no question as to the Church universal of the major part of its Prelats their professing the Catholick faith Of which see his forequoted Epistles ‖ Epist 75.293 As neither can there be of the times before Ariminum as to the West the persecution then being in the cause of Athanasius not of the Nicene faith so that how long soever the Arrian errour may be said to have continued as it hath to this day in the Mahometans and of late the Socinians yet the great eclipse which the Nicene Faith may be thought to have suffered thereby was only from Ariminum to the restorement of the Catholick Bishops made by Inlian i.e. for the space of three years though then also the Lights of the Church were not extinguished but only obscured because removed out of their Candlesticks And what hath bin said here of the Catholick's subscription to the Arrian forme of faith may be said of their communion also with them which lasted only for that small time that they imagined them from the additions made to the forme at Ariminum and before the manifesting of their equivocation good Catholicks Lastly one thing more in this Arrian defection is very considerable that the Anti-Nicene faction divided presently into two Sects as is usual to those who leave the unity of the Church the Arrians and the semi-Arrians Which Sects persecuted excommunicated ejected out of their Chairs one another Now one of the properties of the Church-Catholick in the Creed being its unity Credo unam c. for the discerning of it always from other Societies by its more eminent magnitude and extent it is sufficient if of all those Bodies or Churches that can any way pretend to this property and that are any way united within themselves and contradistinct to others it be the greatest still and most diffused as if of the two divided parties neither the Arrian nor semi-Arrian equalled the Catholick though by the whole masse of all these Bodies that fight with one another cast up together it should be exceeded Of which see what is said before § 26. n. 1. I have contrary to my first intention related this matter more at large as well knowing this defection of the Church in the time of Arrianism to be the main or only instance wherewith Protestants seek to countenance that later and more universal defection which many of them charge upon it since the times of Antichrist from A.D. 600. or sooner till the coming of Luther a defection as some say of above a thousand years durance Now to return to the matter in hand 13. From these things Catholicks infer §. 27. n. 4. Prop. 13. That both the Decrees in a Council and acceptation of them out of it made by a much major part of the Church-Governours especially this major part also being joyned to the supreme Pastor of the Church ought undeniably to conclude the whole and that all the obedience forementioned is
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
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
Promise that they shall not err or misguide the Churches subjects in Necessaries § 6 7 I mean Necessaries taken in the sence above explained 2 Disc § 9. And next because what or how much is to be accounted thus necessary the judgement of this belongs also to these Church-Governors not their subjects as is shewed before 2. Disc § 6 7. CHAP. III. R. Catholicks proceeding to affirm 11. That all persons dissenting from and opposing any known Definition of the Church in a matter of Faith are Hereticks § 16. 12. All persons separating on what pretence soever from the external Communion of the Church-Catholick Schismaticks § 20. But yet that difference of Opinions or Practices between co-ordinate Churches may be without Heresie or Schisme on any side where no obligation to these lying on both from their common Superiors or from the whole § 23. § 16 11ly TOuching the two great Crimes of Heresie and Schisme dividing such persons or Churches as are guilty thereof from the Catholick Church and Communion See before Prop. 3. § 4. 1st For Heresie the Catholicks affirm That any particular Person or Church that maintains or holds the contrary to any to him made-known Definition passed in a matter of faith of any lawful General Council i. e. of those Councils that are accepted by the Church-Catholick in the sence mentioned before ‖ See §. 12. as such is Heretical Not medling here whether some others also besides these for the opposing some Doctrines clearly contained in Scripture or generally received by the Church and such as are by all explicitly to be belived may be called so 2ly They affirm That those may become Hereticks in holding an error in the faith after the Churches Definition of such a Point who were not so before § 17 Where The Reason why the certain judgement of Heresie is made not from the testimony of Scripture but of the Church and why all holding of the contrary to such definition known is pronounced Heresie though sometimes the same error before it was not so is because no Error in Faith can be judged Heresie but where there appears some Obstinacy and Contumacy joyned thereto Neither can such Obstinacy and Contumacy appear especially as to some Points of Faith from the Scriptures because the sence of Scripture as to some matter of Faith may be as to some persons ambiguous and not clear But the sence of the Church or her General Councils which is appointed by God the Supreme Expositor and Interpreter of the sence of the Scriptures that are any way doubtful and disputed is so clear as that any rational or disinteressed person to whom it and the authority delivering it and the divine assistance of that authority are proposed according to the evidence producible for them can neither deny her just authority over him nor her veracity and her Exposition of Scripture clearly against him who yet cannot see or at least hath not the same cogent evidence to acknowledge the Scripture in such point to be so and so such person will thenceforth become in this sence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and self-convinced and if others happen by their contracted fault not to be so their guilt in general at least is not lessened but aggravated thereby Tit. 3.10 Therefore the Apostle writes to Bishop Titus that after a second Admonition he should reject a man Heretical or still adhering to his own Opinion knowing that such a one sinneth being self-condemned viz. that he disobeyeth the doctrine of the Church concerning which Church he either hath or might have sufficient evidence that he ought to believe Her And our Lord commands that he who in matters controverted refuseth to hear the Church should be withdrawn from by the Christian as a Heathen or Publican was by the Jew Thus it seems by these Texts is Heresie known and Hereticks to be rejected § 18 And the Fathers also are frequent in declaring those to be Hereticks who after the Church Definition continue to retain an opinion contrary thereto whereas themselves or others in holding the same Opinion before such Definition were not so Thus St. Austin ‖ De Civ Dei l. 18. c. 51. Qui in Ecclesiâ Christi morbidum aliquid pravumque sapiunt si correpti i by the Church ut sanum rectumque sapiant resistunt contumaciter suaque mortifera pestifera dogmata emendare nolunt sed defensare persistunt haeretici fiunt It seems one holding dogma pestiferum mortiferum before the Churches corrâ—ption may be no Heretick who yet is so after it And elsewhere of the Donatists he saith ‖ De Haeresibus Post causam cum eo Caeciliano dictam atque finitam falsitatis rei deprehensi pertinaci dissentione firmatâ in haeresim schisma verterunt tanquam Ecclesia Christi propter crimina Caeciliani detoto terrarum orbe perierit Audent etiam rebaptizare Catholicos ubi se amplius Haereticos esse firmarunt cum Ecclesiae Catholicae universae placuerit nec in ipsis haereticis baptisma commune rescindere Where observe that they are charged by this Father for Heresie which Hereticalness of theirs Protestants would fain divert to other matters in the point of rebaptization and that because this point now setled by the Church And so Vincent Lirinen ‖ c. 11. O rerum mira conversio Auctores ejusdem opinionis Catholici consectatores vero haeretici judicantur absolvuntur magistri condemnantur discipuli c. the wonder here is that in holding the self same opinion the one are not Hereticks the other are i. e. after a General Council had condemned the Tenent Again St. Austin ‖ D. Haeresibus gives Quod-vult-Deus for avoiding Heresies this General Rule Scire sufficit Ecclesiam contra aliquid sentire ut illud non recipiamus in fidem It seems this was a Principle with the Father Nihil recipiendum in fidem or credendam contra quod sentit Ecclesia And we know what follows Credendum quod sentit Where the contraries are immediate sublato uno ponitur alterum But this latter also is expresly said by him ‖ Epist 118. Si quid horum per orbem frequentat Ecclesia hoc quin ita faciendum sit disputare insolentissimae insaniae est This concerning doing and then it holds also for believing the Church's Faith being if either more sure than her practise But for believing too he saith ‖ De Bapt. l. 1. c. 18. Restat ut hoc credamus quod universa Ecclesia a Sacrilegio schismatis remota custodit And Quod in hac re sentiendum est plenioris Concilii sententiâ totius Ecclesiae consensio confirmat Therefore after the Churches definition he saith One in holding the contrary then first becomes an Heretick when he knows or by his fault is ignorant that the Church hath defined it See de Baptism contra Donat. l. 4. c. 16. Constituamus ergo saith he duos aliquos isto modo unum eorum
be such an evidence as proposed to any man and therefore to these Superiors and understood the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent unto it And therefore hence one would think when these Superiors upon this proposal do not assent the complainer ought to presume his reasons tendred to them to be no demonstrations § 45 But next neither is this obedience of silence yeilded obligatory in such a case i. e. after that such complaint is made and that the Superiors declare they see no just cause for it nor reason demonstrative in it but they further maintain That a former General Council erring manifestly and intolerably i. e. in the imagination and setled fancy of such a particular person or Church and the present Superiors complained to neglecting to call or procure another General Council to reverse such error then an authority inferiour may oppose and publickly contradict such errors of a former General Council and an inferior Synod National or Provincial for themselves may rescind such Decrees and reform against them ‖ A p. Lawd p. 227. Mr. Still p. 534.479 For indeed this gap must necessarily be left open to let in Luthers reforming in the points mentioned § 26. against the Decrees of several former Councils that had found before in the Church a General acceptation for they maintain ‖ See before §. 34. also the whole Church liable to error in all such points as they think fit to call Non-necessaries and against the very publick Service of the whole Catholick Church which was in the Protestant computation at Luthers appearance of 900 years standing And if a National or Provincial Synod may claim such priviledge to reform against a former General Council I see no reason why much more a Province may not claim it against a National Synod a Diocesse against a Provincial a Presbyter against his Diocesan because these inferior Synods are still more liable to manifest intolerable errors And the Fundamental Reformation by Luther was the lowest of these the Reformation of a Presbyter against his Diocesan § 46 Lastly there remains yet one considerable more as to qualifying this licence of publick contradicting which as it seems most reasonable so if it were observed the Church's Unity and Peace would yet suffer by such contradictions or reformations no great diminution or damage Namely that those inferiours only who think they can evidence and demonstrate the errors of such Councils may claim the priviledge to speak and teach publickly against them or joyn with those that do so but yet that so many as do not pretend to have the like evidence or demonstrations against the Superior's Doctrine be instructed that they stand so long obliged in such case to relinquish the Inferior's and still to adhere and submit to the Svperior's judgement For Example The Bishop or a Provincial Council teaching one thing the Metropolitan or a General Council another that so many of such Diocess or Province as cannot demonstrate what the Bishop or Provincial Council maintain know that they are bound to continue their obedience still to the Metropolitan or General Council not to the Provincial Council or Bishop For thus there would be no more deserters of such Councils and the former Church's Communion no more Members of the Reformation than are themselves pretenders of Demonstration and those I suppose would not be many But so it is that these inferior Guides justify their reforming not only for themselves but for all their Subjects too so far as now within their several Precincts to impose an obedience of silence upon all toward them that cannot demonstrate against them This concerning the Protestants claimed liberty * of breaking the obedience of silence * of complaining * of reforming for themselves upon neglect of their complaints errors of Councils supposed by them manifest and intolerable § 47 12ly Since errors intolerable and manifest they affirm may be in any Decrees whatever of Councils if such Councils be not in their sence uinversally accepted or of such also as are so accepted if their Decrees be made in non-necessaries Next they contend That the judgment when such Decrees of past Councils are errors and those intolerable and over-weighing a peace and so these publickly contradictible and reformable is to be left to every particular person or Church ‖ See Still p. 539.292 But because this may seem of very ill consequence Hear how it is bounded and restrained This judgment then not so left to them saith the Arch bishop That every private spirit may fall on reforming what errors he fancies such but that they bring such Evidence and demonstration as is described before ‖ §. 44. proving such to be manifest and intolerable errors and then again that the judgment of such demonstration brought by them be left to a future Council which Council not allowing them for such these inferiours aâ—e to acquiesce as to silence at least in its judgment For saith he ‖ A p. Lawd p. 246. if the Demonstration be evident to any man according to the former definition they give it then to so many Learned men as are in a Council doubtless And if they cannot but assent to it 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 it 's probable it is no Demonstration and the producers of it ought to rest and not to trouble the Church Thus he But 1st if the Ecclesiastical Superiours upon this complaint neglect to call such Council the Arch-bishop then makes every particular person or Church Judges themselves of their Demonstrations upon which he saith They may proceed to reform for themselves such errors ‖ A p. Lawd p. 245. 227. comp §. 33. Consid 6. n. 1. with §. 32. n. 5. But say I if the Demonstration be such as is evident to any man then so will it be to these Superiors complained to and then here the producers of it ought to rest But this he saw would presently stop the passage to all Reformation against Superiors whereas the Council appealed to especially such as they will allow they see is far enough off from checking their pretended evidences For what future Council can ever be hoped for that will not be liable to most of their exceptions made against that of Trent for the place or for the calling of it or for the Voters in it c and till then every private man's or particular Church's demonstrations as to reforming stand in their full force Power and Vertue in the Arch-bishop's stating this Point But then 2ly Imagine we such a second Council called and this for the lawfulness and proceedings thereof void of exception yet can it end no controversie any more than the former nor is it more free from appeals for so long as this future Council as well as the former is liable to errors manifest and intolerable
supernatural verities which God hath revealed in Christ his Son 2 ly The use of such holy Ceremonies and Sacraments as he hath instituted and appointed 3 ly An Vnion or connexion of men in this Profession and use of these Sacraments under lawful Pastors and Guides appointed authorized and sanctified to direct and lead them in the happy ways of eternal Salvation A particular person or Church therefore having the two first properties yet failing in the last a due union and connexion with the whole under its lawful Superiors of which see 2 Disc § 24. wants something necessary to the Being of a Member of the Catholick Church And see also l. 1. c. 13. where he denies Schismaticks to be of the Church i. e. Catholick because Though they retain an entire profession of the truth of God as did saith he the Luciserians and some others in the beginning of their Schism yet they break the Unity of the Church and refuse to submit themselves and yeild obedience to their lawful Pastors and Guides and their Communion and conjunction with the rest of Gods people is in some things only and not absolutely in all wherein they have and ought to have fellowship Thus Dr. Field and much what the same you may find in Dr. Ferne ‖ The Case between two Churches p. 48. quoted before in 2 Disc § 24. who on this account makes Presbyterians Schismaticks Next see Dr. Hammands Treatise of Schism where he makes * that Vnity of the Catholick Church of which Schism is a breach to consist In the preserving all those Relations wherein each Member is concernd one towards another amongst which is that of subordination the Vnity whereof consists in a constant due subjection and obedience of all inferiors to all their Superiors c. ‖ C. 3. §. 3. and * the denying this obedience in any particular lawful command of these Superiors or the casting off all obedience together dethroning them c. to be Schism ‖ C. 3. §. 9. But this lawful command and so Schism in disobeying it may be in no Fundamental point Lastly thus Bishop Branhall ‖ Reply to Chalced p. 8. That all Schism is about Essentials of Religion is a strange paradox Many Schisms have arisen in the Church about Rites and Ceremonies about precedency about Jurisdiction about Rights and Liberties of particular Churches about matters of fact Obstinacy in a small matter is enough to make a Schisme From all these I think it is clear that a separation from the Communion of the Church Catholick or our lawful Superiours for any thing true or lawfull the practice or belief of which is injoyned by her as a condition of her Communion though this be not in Fundamentals is Schisme and inconsistent with being a true member of the Catholick Church learned Protestants consenting And then to learn in matters controverted and doubtful what is true and what is lawful we know to whose judgment Inferiours and Subjects are directed to repair and if they will sit in Moses's chair themselves and judge it and happen to mistake I leave them to read their doom in D. Hammonds c. 2. of Schisme § 8. Now which way soever they turn sure to Sin remaining in Errour and Schisme on the one side if they desert upon this judgment the Churches Communion and by flying from that advancing to lying and Hypocrisy on the other side i. e. if they externally profess contrary to their persuasion This from § 75. concerning some Protestants restraining Schisme to a departure in the Essentials of Religion § 61 But the same persons though they contract Schisme thus in the case of Inferiours yet in another way they enlarge it where Catholicks do not admit it namely to the Church Governours themselves Affirming 1 st ' That they even in the supremest Body of them Lawful General Councills may err in non-fundamentalls and impose unjust conditions of their Communion followed with an Excommunication of non-conformists And 2 ly That so often as they do so they in giving such just cause of separation incurr the guilt of Schisme ‖ Ap. Laud P. 133.142 and thereby do become divided themselves from the Communion of the Catholick Church from which they would divide others †Stillingfleet P. 356. c. 359. For instance should a General Council consisting both of the Eastern and Western Churches and Generally accepted § 62 before the times of Luther require assent to a Substantial Conversion in the Eucharist to the lawfulness of St. invocation to the Sacrifice of the Mass c. as they must grant that if both these Churches did not yet possibly they might because Protestants say 1 That the whole may err in non-fundamentals and 2 That these points are such they affirme That thus the Governours of the whole Christian world would become Schismatical and no longer members of the Church Catholick Mr. Stillingfleets words to this purpose are these ‖ p. 356. ' Suppose any Church though pretending to be never so Catholick doth restrain her Communion within such narrow and unjust bounds that she declares such excommunicate who do not approve all such errours in doctrine and corruptions in practise which the Communion of such a Church may be liable to i. e. when the errours and corruptions are such as are dangerous to Salvation that Church becomes thereby divided from the Communion of the Catholick Church and all such who disowne such an unjust inclosure do not so much divide from the Communion of that Church so inclosing as returne to the Communion of the primitive and universal Church And p. 359. he saith Whatever Church makes such extrinsecall opposed so essentiall things the necessary conditions of Communion so as to cast men out-of the Church who yeild not to them thereby divides it self from the Catholick Church and the separation from it is so far from being Schisme that being cast out of the Church on those termes only returns them to the Communion of the Catholick Church and p. 617. he saith That he cannot possibly discerne any difference between the Judgment of the Catholicks concerning the Donatists which Catholicks pronounced them Schismaticks and no members of the Church Catholicks And of the Protestants concerning the Church of Rome Thus he But here 1 st from this assertion that that Church which requires unjust things as conditions of her Communion doth hereupon divide her self and so becomes divided from the Church Catholick and again that those are unjust conditions of Communion which Protestants have stiled to be so It followes 1 st That since de facto the present Eastern and Greek as well as Western and Roman-Churches do require as conditions of their Communion and even in their publick Lyturgies several things which Protestants call unjust therefore the Eastern as well as Western according to their thesis must stand divided from the Church Catholick and therfore now only the Reformed are that Church Catholick the perpetual existence of which
Church we believe in our Creed 2 ly Since both these Eastern and Western required the very same conditions of Communion as they do now before Luthers dayes it followes that then they were also no less than now Schismaticall and so falne from Catholick for this that all people that are their Subjects conform to such conditions or some not conform alters not their guilt who then imposed such things or if it do it seems then the greater when all do conform and are misled by them and upon this again it followes that there was then the Protestant Church not yet born no Catholick Church at all contrary to the Articles of our Creed the whole being involved in Schisme if all then conformed Of which conformity the Arch-bishop saith ‖ p. 296.297 and Mr. Stillingfleet the same ‖ p. 618 That he that believes as that Church believed speaking of the Roman and so may all those be presumed to believe that live in the Roman Church with a resolution to live and die in it is guilty more or less of the Schisme which that Church first caused by her corruptions and now continues by them and her power together and of all other damnable opinions too in point of misbelief and of all other sins also which the doctrine and misbelief of that Church leads him into And afterward That he who lives in a Shismatical Church and communicates with it in the Schisme and in all the Superstitions and Corruptions which that Church teacheth nay lives and dyes in them if he be of capacity enough and understand it he must needs be a formal Schismatick or an involved one if he understand it not Thus he Or if some then did not conforme to what these Guides required yet it followes at least that there were then no known Ecclesiasticall Governours and leaders no Bishops in or of that Church Catholick that then was for we know of none such that in the age before Luther opposed such a conformity and that it was made up of Laicks and Inferiours i. e. made up only of some Sheep that were departed and strangled from their sheepheards or rather the sheepheards from them absurdities that need be no further aggravated But 2 ly to what is said It is answered 1. That neither can the supreme Guides of the Church Catholick in an approved Council at any time require unjust conditions of their Communion of which see before § 21. §. 63. n. 2. And what St. Austin ‖ Epist 118. saith of general Church practices is as or more true of her doctrines Si quid horum per orbem frequent at or cred it Ecclesia hoc quin it a faciendum or credendum sit disputare insolentissimae insaniae est 2. Nor though this should be granted and also that they excommunicate those that refuse to conforme can they thereby become guilty of Schism For 1 Schisme I mean such as separates and divides from the Catholick Church can never be of a much major and more dignified part in respect of a less and Inferiour subject to it i. e. the main body be a Schismatick from some single member thereof for this main body in any division is rightly taken for that whole see 2 d. Disc § 25. from which a separation is Schisme and to which every member ought to adhere as to the body and the head here upon earth to which it belongs The sin of Schisme I say is of a member departing from the Body not of the Body separating from a member or separating a member from it to which each member ought to conforme otherwise a division in the Church indeed may be seen but on what side the crime of Schisme is cannot by any certain Index of it be known And St. Austin's ‖ De unitat Ecclae c. 4. mark of Schismaticks Quorum communio non est cum toto sed in aliquâ parte separatâ will be fallacious and nothing worth Meanewhile it is not here denyed that the dividing of one or several Superiours from an Inferiour part if it be for any thing wherein such part not they doth agree with the whole may be Schisme but then that which makes this Schisme is the departure of such Superiours from their Superiours or from the whole with which this part coheres and when any Superiour makes any such division from his Subjects he is no longer their lawfull Suâ—eriour but that larger body and those Superiours of his to which his Subjects are joyned and from which he divided 2 Again since Schisme is alwaies a relinquishing of and departure from the external and visible Communion of the Church these Governours cannot be said to depart from that Communion which they still retaine in the same manner as formerly and which is the only visible Communion of the Church at the time of such excommunication External members of the Church therefore they still remaine and so no Schismaticks though all the same persons or many of them by some other mortall sin may be at the same time no internal members of it 3. And as they cannot be rightly called Schismaticks or persons divided from the Church-Catholick §. 63. n. 3. So neither can such Superiours by imposing some error on mens belief or by inflicting an unjust Excommunication be therefore said to be the cause of a Schism or an actual separation in others as they are often charged ‖ Ap. Laud P. 133.142 unless to be excommunicated be such for the Church concurs to no other separation If any so Excommunicated doth not quietly submit thereto and acquiesce therein with patience but proceed so much further as to set up or joyn himself with a Communion diverse from that of the former Church which he is expelled from or presumeth to exercise out of the Church those Ecclesiastical Functions which she hath though wrongfully suspended here indeed begins a faulty separation and a Schisme but by the fault of the excommunicated not of the Church that unjustly Excommunicates him but doth not thereby necessitate him to any such further removal or discession from it Had he rested in the place where the Church left him the Church had been faulty indeed he innocent but on no hand a Schisme and if he will not stay here but set up an Anti-communion and fall on acting against the Church that expelled him here he cannot defend the doing a wrong because he hath suffered one or justly disburden on the Church that fault of his to which no fault of theirs necessitated him Saepe sinit divina providentia saith St. Austin ‖ De verâ Religione c. 6. expelli de congregatione Christianâ etiam bonos viros Quam contumeliam vel injuriam suam cum patientissime pro Ecclesiae pace tulerint neque ullas novitates vel Shismatis vel Haeresis moliti fuerint docebunt homines quantâ sinceritate charitatis Deo serviendum sit c. Neque ullas novitates vel Schismatis Therefore
* 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
the days of Edward the Sixth Expedit quidem saith he prospicere desultoriis Ingeniis quae sibi nimium licere volunt claudenda est etiam janua curiosis doctrinis Ratio autem expedita ad eam rem una est Si exstet nempe summa quaedam doctriâ—ae ab omnibus recepta quam inter praedicandum sequantur omnes ad quam etiam observandam omnes Episcopi Parochi jurejurando adstringantur ut nemo ad munus Ecclaesiasticum admittatur nisi spondeat sibi illum doctrinae consensum inviolatum futurum Quod ad formulam precum rituum Ecclaesiasticorum valde probo ut certa illa extet a qua Pastoribus discedere in functione sua non liceat ut obviam eatur desultoriae quorundam levitati qui novationes quasdam affectant Here I understand him to require the Clergy to be obliged by Oath to receive and Preach such a certain forme of Doctrine and to practice such Ecclesiastical Rites as shall be agreed upon by their Governours In which thing if He speaks reason what can more justify the proceedings of the Church-Catholick in restraining not only her Subjects tongues but tenents and opinions in matters which she judgeth of necessary belief Notwithstanding these evidences cited above §. 84. n. 1. implying assent required to the Articles of the Church of England yet her Divines when charged therewith by Roman Catholicks do return many answers and Apologies whereby they seem either to deny any such thing or at least do pretend a moderation therein very different from the Roman Tiranny 1 rst Then they say α That they require not any oath but a Subscription only to these their Articles ‖ Bishop Bramhal Reply to Chal. p. 264. 2. β Require subscription only from their own not from strangers See Bishop Bramhall vindic p. 155. And This Church prescribes only to her own Children whereas the Church of Rome severely imposeth her Doctrine upon the whole World saith Bishop Lawd ‖ P. 52. 3. γ Nor yet require it of all their own but only of those who seek to be initiated into holy Orders or are to be admitted to some Ecclesiastical preferment ‖ Bishop Brambal vind p. 156. 4. δ These Articles not penned with Anathemas or curses against all those even of their own who do not receive them 5 ly ε Subscription not required to them as Articles of their Faith or at least as all of them Articles Fundamental of their Faith as belief is required to all hers as such by the Church of Rome but only required to them as Theo ogical veritie ‖ Bâ—amh Reply p. 350. and Inferiour truths †Stillingfleet p. 54. To this purpose Bishop Bramhall Reply p. 350. We do use to subscribe unto them indeed not as Articles of Faith but as Thelogical verities for the preservation of unity among our selves Again ‖ Ib. p. 277. Though perhaps some of our negatives were reveald truths and consequently were as necessary to be believed when they are known as affirmatives yet they do not therefore become such necessary truths or Articles of Religion as make up the rule of Faith which rule of Faith he saith there consists of such supernatural truths as are necessary to be known of every Christian not only necessitate praecepti because God hath commanded us to believe them ‖ See Schism guarded p. 396 but also necessitate medii because without the knowledge of them in some tolerable degree according to the measure of our capacities we cannot in an ordinary way attain to Salvation And ‖ Reply p. 264. We do not saith he hold our 39. Articles to be such necessary truths extra quas non est â—alus nor enjoyn Ecclesiastick persons to swear unto them but only to subscribe them as Theological truths And thus the Arch Bishop ‖ p. 51. All points are made Fundamental and that to all mens belief if that Church the Roman hath once determined them whereas the Church of England never declared that every one of her Articles are Fundamental in the Faith To which they add ζ That as for those of these Articles that are positive doctrines and Articles of their Faith they are such as are grounded in Scripture and General Truths about which there is no controversy ‖ Bramh. vindic p. 159. and such saith Mr. Stillingfleet †p. 54. as have the testimony and approbation of the whole Christian World of all ages and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self η And then as for the rest of those Articles they are only negative as the Arch Bishop ‖ p. 52. refuting there where the thing affirmed by the roman-Roman-Church is not affirmed by Scripture nor directly to be concluded out of it Or as Bishop Bramhall ‖ Vindic. p. 159 They are no new articles or innovations obtruded upon any but negations only of humane controverted Traditions †Reply p. 279. and Refutations of the Roman suppositious principles ‖ Ib. p. 277. And though some of them were revealed truths c. as before yet do they not therfore make up the rule of Faith ‖ i. e. as this Rule is before explained θ 6 ly That such subscription whether of positives or negatives is required by the Church of England to a few in comparison of that multitude of Articles made on the other side Though the Church of England saith the Aâ—chb ‖ p. 51. denounce Excommunication as is before expressed yet she comes far shoâ—t of the Church of Romes severity whos 's Anathema's are not only for 39. Articles but fer very many more about one hundred in matter of Doctrine 7 ly ξ Concerning the just importance and extent of such subscription several expressions I find that the Subscribers do not stand obliged thereby * to believe these Articles § 84. n. 2 and the reason given because the Church is fallible but only * not to oppose not to contradict them To this purpose We do not look saith Bishop Bramhall ‖ Bishop Bramh. Schism garded p. 190 Stillingf p. 55. upon the Articles of the Church of England as Essentials of saving Faith or Legacies of Christ and his Apostles but in a mean as pious opinions fitted for the preservation of unity neither do we oblige any man to believe them but only not to contradict them And Si quis diversum dixerit we question him Si quis diversum senserit if any man think otherwise in his private opinion and trouble not the peace of the Church we question him not ‖ Vindic. p. 156. Again λ Never any son of the Church of England was punished for dissenting from the Articles in his judgement so he did not publish it by word or writing After the same manner speaks Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ P. 104. The Church of England excommunicates such as openly oppose her Doctrine supposing her fallible the Roman Church excommunicates all who will not believe
judge and from verse 20. When two or three are gathered together in my name i. e. by my authority for Judicature as appears by the context vers 18. their binding and loosing from which the Council of Chalced. †In their Epistle to Leo c. See Celestins Epist ad Concil Ephesin gathers a minori ad majus the authority of more general assemblies and from 1 Cor. 5.14 15. When ye are gathered together i. e. the Clergy chiefly Excommunication being an Act only of the Clergy of Corinth And also * from the Example in the Acts where upon the first great controversie a Council was called to consider it in which though there was much disputing †Act 15 6 7. as useth to be in other Councils yet the conclusion made therein was injoyned to the whole Church not only by or in the name of the Apostles but of the whole Council and was injoyned by these as assisted by that infallible holy Ghost vers 28. by which holy Ghost also they are said to be constitued Governors of the Church Act. 20.28 And S. Paul afterward every where in his perambulations delivered the decrees of this Council to be observed Act. 16.4 And lastly * from the pattern established by God Deut. 17. of the former Church under the Old Testament which pattern that of the Gospel generally followeth whose chiefest Court for deciding Controversies was a Consisttory or Council which also we find in the four Gospels and in the Acts to be called upon all greater occasions § 95 4ly That in this meeting though all these Governors I mean the Bishops who succeeded the Apostles in the chief ruling of the Church have right and also are obliged in duty to their Superiors summoning them greater inconveniencies not hindering to be present yet the Churches of God having perpetual need of the residency of several of them Hence it is that as some of these successors of the Apostles personally sit in the Council and act there upon no other delegated authority save their own held from Christ so others are only there represented by their fellows who are many times deputed also by them in their necessary absence to declare their sentiments and vote in matters of present debate in their stead In respect of these absent Prelats then it is as to any power of deciding truths or making Laws that this Body is called a representative and not in respect of the multitude that is subject to their Orders and obliged to receive their commands And called a Representative of these absent Church-Colleagues not so as if this Body residing in the Council had no authority but held from them the authority of both being equal or as if they needed for their own Session there any Commission or warrant from the rest when as indeed the absents need rather a Dispensation from them where all being lawfully summoned by their spiritual Superiors out of the duty they owe to them ought to be present and for absence are liable to their mulcts but only as is said for that several of them are deputed by these absents to present their vote and judgement in the things consulted on which necessary occasions hinder them from delivering there themselves § 96 5ly That seeing this Collection of Prelats especially in later times if we take the greatest that hath or morally can be amounteth but to a small number in comparison of the whole Body of Prelats of the whole Vniverse therefore the resolutions of the absent concerning matters to be defined are declared either in Provincial or other lesser meetings before such Council or the things defined which gives less trouble are afterward by them ratified and accepted at least so far as to a tacit consent or non-contradiction of the Acts of such Council of them conven'd whereby those Acts become most firm and universally obliging Where it is also to be noted * That the prudence of the Bishops residing in such Councils though they have not antecedently the formal consent of their Brethren remaining in the Provinces for every thing they define yet doth usually take care to regulate their definitions according to the common clear known Tradition of the Church Doctors both of former and present times present and former Tradition as well for the sence of Scriptures as for other things not mentioned in Scripture being the great director of their proceedings according the ancient Rule of Pope Steven nihil innovetur Tradition I say either of the Conclusion it self that is decided or of the Principles whence it is clearly deduced and * that they do abstain from determining any thing wherein they know Catholick Divines are much divided where any doubt is of a concurrence therein of either all or most of their absent Colleagues This division of judgments hinting to them both that there is more obscurity and uncertainty of the Truth of such Point and less necessity of its being known and they generally apprehend themselves only to be Guardians of the current Tradition not discoverers of any new Science And such a proceeding Mr. Stillingfleet observes in the Fathers of the Council of Trent where he transforming their Christian wisdom into humane subtilty and guilty fear saith †p. 512. That by this Council much care was taken in many of its decrees to pass them in such general terms that each party might find their sence in them and that they were fearful of declaring themselves for fear of disobliging a particular party Thus he Which drawn in fairer colours is only to say That this Council without descending to a compliance with particular opinions in its decrees established only those doctrines which were generally delivered and agreed on by the learned of those Churches which they there represented § 97 6ly Yet that this ratification of absent Ecclesiastical Governors is not held necessary as to all particular persons or Churches for neither had all these absents been present in the Council is the vote of every one there necessary for passing an Act or further than a moderately major part of them To which major part joyned with the See Apostolick as in the Council so by the same reason out of the Council the rest of Prelats and Churches are obliged to conform in their judgment and in the Idem sapientes idipsum sentientes in eâdem permanentes regulâ non prudentes apud semetipsos which is so often inculcated by the Apostle †Philip. 2.3.3.16 Râ—m 12 16. that there may be no Schism but eternal unity and peace in this Catholick Body as for the remainder of the Church diffusive the Laity or also some degrees of inferior clergy as they have no authority to sit here as members so neither have they to confirm or refuse the acts of this supreme Court but are tyed with an obedite subjacere praepositis Heb. 13.17 to submit to their decrees and obey their injunctions to such a degree as they are required And thus do
can be established and that before one error will so be amended many truths whilst its definitions are exposed to the trial of every private fancy will be perverted and that it is much the better of the two that some error in non-necessaries remain unremedied than that no truth in necessaries stand fixed and confirmed Again since all persons for the truth of such things wherein the sence of Scripture is controverted if they will not profess themselves Scepticks ought to acquiesce in some ultimate Judge or other though liable to error let those then who reject a General Council name what other ultimate Judge they will chuse rather I suppose here they will blush to name themselves for that Judge neither can they have shew of reason to name either any other single person or yet inferior Council to be that Judge against a General Lastly The same difficulty and hazard may be charged upon the Protestant's ground of the certainty of his faith †See Disc 2. § 38. viz. That the sence of holy Scripture is clear to all using ordinary industry to understand it in all necessaries For now supposing that indeed the sence of Scripture should not be clear and so such Protestant solely guided by it using his industry yet should err in some such point such error of his is no way to be rectified so long as he maintains this ground A thing observed by Mr. Thorndike Just Weights c. 21. p. 137. 7ly Again it is asked whether a lawful General Council be affirmed infallible only with Q. 7. or also without the concurrence and confirmation of its decrees by the Bishop of Rome § 104 To which waving here what testimony may be produced from Scripture and the Exposition of Antiquity concerning St. Peters supremacy and the Bishop of Rome's succeeding in it 1st I answer in the words of the Apostle †1 Cor. 11.16 standing upon the Church's custom in another matter That the Churches of God alwayes have had such a custom to define nothing in faith without or against the consent of this Successor of Saint Peter and Bishop of the prime Apostolick See and that this hath been constantly delivered by their Tradition See the ancient Canon concerning this Sine Romano Pontifice nihil finiendum * urged by Julius not long after the Council of Nice in his Epistle recited by Athanasius Apol. 2. against the Oriental Arrian Bishops slighting his authority * urged by Innocentius apud August Ep. 91. * mentioned by Socrates l. 2. c. 13 by Sozomen l. 3. c. 9. And it is remarkable that in the times that those acknowledged by all capital errors suppressed in the Athanasian Creed troubled the Church though all the other chief Patriarchs were tainted with one or other of them yet the Bishop of Rome alwayes stood firm and the Church in her vote alwayes joyned with his Chair though divided from some of the other If the Act of Liberius be here objected see what is answered to it Disc 2. § 26. n. 4. And seeing this Prime Patriarch of the Church Catholick presides in General Councils †See before §. 33. as the Metropolitan doth in Provincial therefore as the Canons ordered concerning Provincial Councils Vt nihil praeter Metropolitani conscientiam gerant c. sic enim unanimitas erit †Apostol can 35. Concil Antioch can 9. so there seems the same equity that neither the General Councils should pass any acts without the consent of the Roman Bishop their President and Head But 2ly So long as no Councils are pressed upon Protestants as lawfully general or infallible save only such which this Prime Patriarch hath alwayes consented to and confirmed this question whether the Acts of such Councils may stand good or their authority be infallible without his consent may be superseded 8. Again it is asked Q. 8. How the Pope's Confirmation of its decrees can concur to the not erring of such a Council since his Confirmation follows its final decision For now if it hath erred it is erroneous though he approves it if not it is Orthodox and so may be safely accepted though he rejects it †Dr. Pierce Answ to Cressy p. 17. Stillingf p. 509. I answer his Confirmation secures us that the Council errs not or the Council never errs when he confirms it because supposing that the rest of the Council should decree an error the Grace of God or the Holy Ghost assists this holy Father and Prime Patriarch of the Church Catholick President of these Councils so as that it effectually hinders him after what manner or by what means it pleaseth that he doth never confirm it least so the whole Church should be misguided in something necessary Or again when he perhaps would left to himself confirm an error the same Holy Spirit assists the Council so by what wayes of the divine wisdom it matters not that they do not define it And thus the Council never erreth being confirmed by him either because its decree is Orthodox or his consent with-held Hence then if the decrees be erroneous he never approves if Orthodox he safely approves them 9. Again it is asked Q. 9. if the Council not secure from erring without the Pope's approbation § 106 nor again the Pope without the assistance of a Council in which of the two the infallibility or not erring resides For in which soever we shall place it it renders the other needless I answer where is supposed the consent of both in a truth the actual non-erring lies in both But the Original cause of this not erring may be sometimes in the one and sometimes in the other as also erring may be in either separated as they are by the holy Ghost more effectually illuminated or guided so as in the last question is explained CHAP. IX 10. Q. If General Councils infallible whether they are so in their conclusions only which infers Enthusiasm or new Revelation Or also in their premises and proofs upon which assent will be due to all their Arguments § 107. 11 Q. Why being infallible at least in their conclusions they do not end all controversie but leave so many unresolved § 108. 12. Q. How such infallibility of theirs differs from that of the Apostles And the infallibility of their Decrees from that of Scripture 109. 13. Q. How many persons or Guides all fallible can make up one infallible § 112. 14. Q. Supposing all lawful General Councils infallible yet how can any know infallibly which are lawful General Councils Because of the many conditions required to make them such in some one of which he can never be infallibly certain of any Council that it hath not failed § 114. 10. A Gain it is asked If a lawful General Council be not liable to error whether it is so in its Definitions and Conclusions only or in the Premises also and its right deduction of the Conclusion from them I answer That it is not necessary that it
argumentations alwayes made by them concerning such particular Conclusion so neither do they collect it from any such inspiration which they sensibly pâ—rreive nor from any express testimony that the Spirit gives to such its operation as the Apostles did but only in general from the Divine Promise that in all such Conclusions they shall not miscarry § 111 3ly The Church's infallibility differs from the Apostolical in that it is an inspiration or revelation if you will not of any new Doctrine but of such as was in its principles at least formerly revealed and delivered by Christ or his Apostles and therefore the knowledge thereof if at any time it was not might be attained by deduction from those Principles without any new inspiration and is actually had in the Church still either from such true Principle or by Tradition of the Conclusion it self And to end this question let them who ask it consider in what manner the Church Catholick diffusive is for ever preserved infallible in necessaries a thing they affirm without its equalling infallibility Apostolical And I answer her General Councils are so too To the other part of the Query I answer In what sort their infallibility equals not the Apostles so neither that of their decrees that of Scripture § 112 13. Again Q. 13. it is asked †Dr. Pierce Answ to Cressy p. 9. How many persons or Guides all fallible can make up one infallible any more than many Planets one Sun or many acts of finite knowledge one truly infinite I answer 1st with another question How the whole diffusive Body of the Church consisting of many members all fallible or failable in necessaries yet is affirmed by Protestants that it shall be for ever infallible or unfailable in necessaries 2ly Infallible being understood as it is meant i. e. for the Church actually never erring at such time in such a meeting and treating on such matters the question is no more than this How several persons erring in one thing may be non-erring in any or in another thing Or how the same persons when met together and divinely assisted in the matters they consult about do not or shall not err when the same persons in the same things at some other time when not consulting together and having no certain divine assistance promised to them may and ordinarily do err And it is answered that this is effected by the good pleasure of God divinely assisting and preserving them in such meeting in such matters from error It is also urged †Dr. Pierce Ib. p. 11. That Councils indeed may actually not err as single persons also may not yet that hence none can rightly stile Councils infallible or unerrable and that there is a great difference between the Participle suppose non fallens or non falsus and the Adjective in bilis non fallibilis I answer whatever difference there be between Participles and Adjectives no more is here meant by the second that by the first only with a semper added to it viz. Ecclesia infallibilis i. e. semper non falsa if I may use this word in errabilis i e. semper non errans or de facto nunquam errans Now though particular members of the Church are also unerring in several things yet not alwayes and though this that God may preserve single persons unerring alwayes is true yet that he doth so is denied of them but affirmed of the Church or lawful General Council as to all necessaries Is it not strange that grave Divines rather than be found without a reply should raise mâ—sts and make great difficulties and fall on vindicating the divine Attributes in such a matter as this intelligible to children who one day must give account hereof § 113 After all these objections and difficulties made concerning the infallibility or not erring of lawful General Councils Next supposing that all such are as to all necessary faith an infallible Guide and all the former difficulties concerning this point clearly removed yet a new roll of objections and interrogations is brought in against our discerning or knowing certainly what or how many of past Councils have been lawfully General 14. Next then it is urged That Q. 14. lawful General Councils only being pretended infallible Any § 114 to be certain of any particular Councâ—l it s not erring and so to yeild his assent to its decrees as such must know first whether it is a lawful General Council And for this again must know who are justly the constitutive members of such a body * whether Bishops only or also Presbyters or also the Laity as Act. 15.22 23. the Brethren also are admitted * whether the votes therein ought to be numbred according to the persons or rather to the several Churches and Nations the greater Churches having many times in the Synod the fewer representatives and so the fewer personal votes * whether the Bishops sitting therein were lawful Bishops and in order to this whether 1st truly Priests and truly baptized and whether that some of these Sacraments had no miscarriage for want of the Priests due intention in administring them * whether a sufficient number of Bishops residing in it and those equally from all parts so to make it a full and entire representative of the Church Catholick and * whether the Pope's summons be sufficient thereto though this question seems needlesly asked for all those Councils in the convening of which both the Pope Christian Princes have concurred * 1. whether the Bishops appearing in Council were sufficiently commissioned from those Churches they pretend to represent and 2. * whether sufficiently instructed as to the points to be decided concerning the fence therein of the absent Bishops first declared in their Provincial or other Synods or meetings and 3. * whether those in the Council did truly speak and render this their fence * whether being lawfully assembled they have also lawfully proceeded * whether they came to the Council without prejudice and sought nothing but the truth otherwise they are not gathered together in Christ's name and then neither is he in the midst of them whether a faction or some few more powerful have not out-witted or over-awed the rest and * whether some not corrupted or bribed to give their vote against conscience * whether being lawfully assembled and lawfully proceeding they made indeed such decrees as are pretended theirs * what of these decrees are de fide what not * whether these decrees have that meaning really which the peruser of them apprehends for Scriptures in deciding of Controversies being doubtful and liable to wrong interpretations why may not the decrees of Councils be so too †Stillingf p. 512. Nay much more for we have many other places to compare the help of original tongues and the help of the primitive Church to understand Scripture by when the decrees of Councils are many times purposely framed in general termes and with ambiguous expressions to give satisfaction
c. 7. or if distinct a very small quantity of the blood with very great caution given in the bottom of a spoon For the second the Cross and Pictures and a due veneration of them are used as well in these as in the Greek and Roman Church See for the veneration of pictures in the Abyssine Church according in most things with the Egyptians Thom. a Jesu l. 7. p. 380. And the Priests and Religious are said to carry alwayes a Cross in their hands †Roger's Terre Saincte p. 348. And for the use of crossing see the Liturgies For the third Monastick Vows and Celibacy of the Clergy The first of these cannot be denied to be practised in them all §. 179. n. 1. and from this therefore the lawfulness of the second I mean of an injunction of Celibacy to the Clergy is justified as hath been shewed before § 164 and a necessity of such Celibacy jure divino is not affirmed by the Roman Church But for this second The practice in these Churches is much what the same as in the Greek viz. that persons married are freely admitted to be Priests but none after made Priests suffered to marry which being a yoke that few where liberty to take wives before-hand is granted have a firm mind to undergo hence it so happens that most of the secular Clergy in these other Churches as well as in the Greek are de facto married meanwhile †Thom. a Jesu l. 7. c. 9. the Regulars that are Priests do live alwayes in Celibacy and so do all the Bishops that are chosen out of Regulars as they are so chosen most frequently and in some Churches as in the Abyssine †Terre Saincte p. 347. and I think in the Greek they only can be-chosen Bishops For the fourth Auricular or Sacramental Confession §. 179. n. 2. and penance though such confession in few or none of these Churches wherein the Church-discipline in such a commixture of Mahometanism and Heathenism is much decayed is so strictly observed as in the Roman or yet as in the Greek Church either as to their making it so often as they receive the Communion or as to an enumeration of their particular faults when they make it yet it seems not to be altogether omitted or disused as with Protestants it is Zaga Zabo an Abyssine Bishop saith †Apud Damianum à Goes de Ethiopium morth it is used by the Abyssines and to give it in Brerewood's words ‖ Enquiries p. 166. That presently upon commission of sin they resort to the Confessor and at every Confession though it were every day receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist Again that Mulieres gravidae ante partus tempus semper confitentur corpus Domini confessae accipiunt ut infans capiens inde nutrimentum ex ejus communicatione sit sacratus And They have great respect saith the Fr. Recollect †Terre Saincte p. 361. to all the Sacraments and as for Confession they appoint rigorous penances and those publick for publick offences And with these Authors may those quoted by Daille †De confessione auriculari l. 4. c. 1. to say the contrary well agree whilst they speak of several parts of a vast Country or of an usual omission of it by some of these Sonthern Christians before they receive for all receive frequently viz. on all Festivals †Thom. a Jesu p. 371. and of a perfunctory performance of it only in general by many when they do it So Thom. a Jesu out of the Bishop of Sidon's Relation †p. 387. saith of the Jacobites and Armenians Sacramentum confessionis rarissimè not nunquam apud nationes illas frequentatur multique not omnes communicant sine auriculari confessione And of the Cophthites †p. 361. Moris non est ante vigesimum aut circiter annum unquam Sacramentum paenitentiae recipers And †Ib. p. 416. Sacramentum Confesâ—ionis auricularts ut est apud Ecclesiam Romanam Confirmationis extremae Vnctionis ferè non agnoscunt Sacramental Confession therefore in these Churches seems rather de facto much neglected than de jure not allowed or required and looks rather like a custom by the malignity of time somewhat defaced than never at all known or used And this neglect of Confession perhaps may partly arise from a different judgment they have of mortal sin the only necessary matter of confession whilst they account some few of the greatest only such § 180 Yet for external penances and austerities especially in the Monasticks and Clergy of these Eastern and Southern Churches they are observed to be very great and one of the chiefest causes of their dislike and contempt of the Latine Church besides the difference which they have in several other Ceremonies of Religion to arise from hence that they see many of them in such corporal severities more remiss See Rogers Terre Saincte l. 2. p. 335. And Thom. a Jesu l. 6. p. 284. Species austerioris vitae quae in eorum Hieromonachis Metropolitis Archiepiscopis frequenter cernitur Latinos contemnendi praebet occasionem c. So the Abyssine Religious and Bishops †Roger Terre Saincte l. 2. p. 347. go barefoot wear hair-cloth never eat flesh and in Lent which they begin three dayes after the Purification and other Fasts eat no Fish or white-meats make only one meal a day without any Collation at Sun-set drink no wine though when they happen to be in a Country that affords it as their own doth not use disciplines carry great weights about their bodies See much what the same abstinences of the Greek Bishops and Monks †Ib. p. 337. Goar Eucholog p. 407. who also keep four Lents or solemn Fasts in the year adding to ours that of Advent another from the first of August to the Assumption of our Lady another from the Octave of Whitsuntide to S. Peter's day the same is said of the Maronites †Ib. p. 426. the same * Ib. p. 336. or more of the Armenian Bishops and Religious never eating flesh not indulging themselves in their Lents fish white-meats or so much as oyl or any thing boiled Hence are all these much displeased with the Western liberty of using fish and wine and Collations in Lent and of several Religious Orders eating flesh out of it From what hath been said then may be discovered the defects of that summary account which after a long discourse Dr. Field in l. 1. c. 1. p. 75. gives of the Agreement both of the Greek § 181 and other Eastern Churches with the Protestants in all the principal modern Controversies where he thus informs his Reader 1st saith he They all deny and impugne that supreme universality of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction which the. Bishop of Rome claimeth Of this see below § 186. the Greeks allowing though not so much as the Pope claimeth yet more than I think many Protestants will consent to 2ly
saith he They think him subject to error as all other Bishops are So do Roman Catholicks too 3ly They deny that he hath any power to dispose the Principalities and Kingdoms of the world or depose Kings The Pope's having lawful power to depose Kings is no article of faith in the Roman-Catholick Church 4ly They acknowledge all our righteousness to be imperfect and that it is not safe to trust thereunto but to the meer mercy and goodness of God And the Roman Catholick doctrine is That in many things we offend all that though some may be yet most of the good works of the regenerate are not free from mixture of venial sin or some imperfection that none certain except by extraordinary Divine Revelation of his Justification or as the Protestants had rather call it Sanctification and for this the Cardinal 's Tutissimum est c. is very famous But do no Protestants presume further 5ly They admit not the merit of congruence condignity nor works of supererogation And 6ly They teach not the doctrine of satisfactions as the Romanists do The Doctrine of the Roman Church rightly understood concerning these points is neither contradicted by the Eastern Churches nor by some sober Protestants but indeed much misrelated by Dr. Field l. 3. p. 58 7ly They believe not Purgatory neither pray to deliver men out of temporal punishments I suppose he means or sufferings after this life It is true they believe no purgatory-fire but that they hold some temporal sufferings from which they are freeable by prayer made for them See before § 192. and Sir Edw. Sandy's testimony § 167. And enough confessed in this matter even by Dr. Field l. 3. p. 59. if I rightly understand him 8ly They reject the doctrine of the Romanists touching indulgences and pardons The same is returned to this as to the fifth and sixth 9ly They believe not that there are seven Sacraments This is questioned only for Confirmation Extreme Vnction and see these maintained by Jeremias the Patriarch and many other Authors as to the Greek Church †Resp 1. c. 7. See Goars Eucholog concerning confirmation p. 366. Concerning Extreme Vnction their Officium Sancti Olei p. 408 432. In other Eastern Churches Chrysm or holy Oyl is so used at least for Baptism as it is in the Greek Church and in some Churches also to sick or dying persons ‖ Thom. a Jesu p. 361 398. 387. 10ly They omit many Ceremonies in Baptism which the Roman Church useth as spittle c. Nor doth the Roman Church hold it necessary that they should use the same 11ly They have no private Masses It is accidâ—ntal in the Roman Church that any Masses are private i. e. that the Priest communicates alone and happens only because others are not prepared to receive with the Priest not because they are prohibited and if any faulty herein it is the people or other Clergy that attend the Mass without communicating not the Priest in offering the daily Christian Sacrifice and himself at least participating thereof the Greeks never communicating alone celebrate seldomer viz. only on Festivals on those dayes only one of them all the rest attending him and this in the same Church but once so that their more compleatness in one thing is accompanied with some deficiency in another Lastly the Church of Rome wisheth that no Masses at all were private i. e. where the Priest officiating finds no fellow-Communicants but is loth to purchase this at such a loss as some others do viz. the omission of her frequent and dayly or also hourly intercessions with God for all necessities by this most acceptable sacrifice offered to him by the fervent devotion of so many of her Priests 12ly They minister the Communion in both kinds to all Communicants Of this see what is said before § 163. The Church of Rome holds it not necessary but only lawful and expedient as the times are to do otherwise and also indulgeth receiving in both kinds to several of her Communion 13. They believe not Transubstantiation nor the new real sacrificing of Christ In the Eucharist is affirmed by the Roman Church only a Sacrifice commemorative of that of the Cross and this effective only in the virtue and merit of that Of the Eastern Church's Tenent concerning Christ's corporal presence in the Eucharist and consequently of their use of this Sacrifice agreeing with the Roman Church and contrary to the Reformed See before § 158. n. 2. § 160. 14. They have the Divine Service in the vulgar tongue Some Eastern Churches have so the most have not The Divine Service is celebrated in the corrupt Chaldee or Syriack amongst the Maronites Cophthites Nestorians Assyrians or Jacobites Indians and in the Greek among the Melchites and Georgians the vulgar to all these being Arabick or to some more Easterly the Persian tongue and in the ancient and pure Greek still among the Grecians as it is in the Latine among the Latines where those who speak the vulgar Greek do understand little of it See Brerewood's Enquiries p. 9. 12. 61. 192. 196. only in the East the Armenians in the North the Moscovites and some other Sclavonians in the South the Abyssines people most ignorant of the learned languages have it in their vulgar and in this have only what the Church of Rome maintaineth lawful and easily indulgeth to several Nations of its Communion as it did long ago to the Sclavonians by Pope John 8. and now of late to the Chineses by Pope Paul 5. at the request of the Jesuites 15. Their Priests are married and though they permit them not to marry a second wife without special dispensation yet if any do they do not void nor dissolve the marriage To this see what is said before § 164. with them men married may receive Orders after Orders received none may marry 16. They make no image of God Nor any among the Latines with the same intention as other images viz. thereby to resemble the figure or nature of God such an image verum Idolum constitueret saith Bellarmine †De Imag. l. 2. c. 8. Only this is by many held lawful an holy History in a Table and that to represent to some mens eyes what hath been seen by other men's as the sitting of the antient of days in Daniel c. 7. or the descent of the holy Ghost in Mat. c. 3. That is not to shew what these persons are but how they have appeared where is no danger of mistake by it what they are as also incorporeal Angels are innocently represented winged boyes 17. They have no Massy images but pictures only But they give the same relative veneration to sacred pictures which Protestants omit to mention as the Latines to their images though some Latines also do forbear the use of embossed images 18. They think that properly God only is to be invocated and howsoever they have a kind of invocation of Saints yet they think that God
whole I mean either by a General or any other Superior Council wherewith also the belief or practice of the whole consenteth such Church cannot be freed from Schism Now that several of those points wherein the Protestants have left the Greek and Roman when agreeing in them are such See Disc 1. § 50. n. 2. But not such those wherein the Roman and Western Churches adhering to it do differ from the East and Protestants § 186 To γ. The first of those instances wherein he urgeth the consent of the Eastern Churches with Protestants To γ. viz. their opposing the Pope's Supremacy I answer that though there are several branches of the Pope's Supremacy which the modern Greeks allow not but so there are also some that the French Church doth not admit yet it is well known that thus much the Representatives of the Greek Church in the Council of Florence subscribed That the Bishop of Rome was Successor Petri. Principis Apostolorum totiusque Ecclesiae Caput cui in Beato Petro gubernandi universalem Ecclesiam plena potestas tradita est and the Greek Church never denyed his Primacy and Presidency in General Councils as appears * by the fifth Canon of the second General Council at Constantinople consisting only of Eastern Bishops Constantinopolitanae Civitatis Episcopum habere oportet Primatus honorem post Episcopum Romanum * By the Eastern Bishops in the fourth General Council the most numerous of any that hath been allowing the Presidency to the Roman Bishops Legats witness Arch-Bp Lawd †p. 214. * By Cyril an Eastern Bishop his presiding in the third General Council Vt Celestini Episcopatum antiquae Romae gerentis locum obtinens witness Evagrius †Evagrius 1. c 4. whose Deputy or Legate also he was made for the Excommunication of Nestorius by the authority of the Apostolick See witness the Pope's Letter to Cyril †Act. Conc. Ephes tom 1. Nostrâ vice loco cum potestate usus ejusmodi sententiam exequeris c. and Mr. Stillingfleet †p. 487. * by the Roman Legates also subscribing the first general Council of Nice before all the Patriarches and I know not why it is that Protestants granting this Bishop the Primacy among the Patriarchs and why should he being the Bishop of the chief See saith Mr. Stillingfeet †p. 488. in case of general concernment of the Church as that of Chalcedon I add and of other General Councils not be allowed by his Legates to have the prime place yet should take so much pains †See Stillings from p. 482. to 489 to shew de facto that in some Councils He or his Legats had it not or did dot preside therein § 187 To the second δ. I answer had Mr. Stillingfleet not thrust in the term Roman the infallibility of which To δ. taken singly is no Article of Faith in the Western Church †See Bellarm de Concil l. 2. c. 4. that as for the infallibility of the Church Catholick or of her lawful General Councils in their definitions concerning matter of Faith I suppose he knew the Greek Church to ascribe therein no less to It or Them than the Roman doth Of which thus Jeremy the Constantinopolitan Patriarch in his first answer to the Lutheran Divines Quod i.e. ut legi divinae adversentur de his quae à nobis dicta sunt nullo modo vere intelligi potest Ea enim quae Synodicè constituta sunt omnes Christi fideles tanquam divinitùs inspiratae Scripturae consentanea recipiunt atque amplectuntur semper To which Synodical decrees therefore this Patriarch requires a most strict submission of judgment and constitutes them the ultimate establishers of the Christian Faith in all matters controverted seriously advising the Lutherans to a final acquiescence therein Neque enim nobis licet saith he †Respons 1. Epilog prâ—vatâ confisis interpretatione aliquid divinitùs inspiratae Scripturae aut ipsos intelligere aut aliis tradere nisi quantum cum scopo sanctorum Synodorum Ecclesiaeque sancta Theologorum illud ipsum convenit why so Ne semel ex recto Evangelicae doctrinae tramite abrepti praecipites feramur neve sensus deinceps noster more Protei in hanc illam formam fidei transferatur Again At forte dicet quis vestrum of the Lutherans quae igitur earum rerum quae suo loco dimotae sunt correctionis spes Quae ratio Haec inquam si nihil praeter ea quae nobis à sanctis Apostolis including the Canones Apostolici sanctisque Synodis divinitùs ordinata sunt ordiemur nihil aliud sequemur And Vna sola rerum recuperandarum ratio superest idem semper cum sanctis Conciliis sentire Canonibusque Apostolicis per omnia inhaerere sic in omnibus Christum Dominum Magistrum sequi Thus you see East and West excepting the Protestants do agree in the same language concerning the infallibility of and duty of adherence to the Church and her Councils for matters of Faith And even those Eastern Sects who refuse submission to the third or fourth General Council do it not on this account that lawful and free General Councils may err but that these over-powered by the Emperor were not free thence calling their followers Melchites To the third To ε. ε. I answer That their difference is only about Purgatory-fire a thing never defined in the Roman Church But for the agreement and practice of both Churches in prayer for the dead with the same intentions See before § 162. To the fourth To ζ. ζ. See what is said before § 163. For the fifth To eegr. eegr. I refer you to § 164. And for the sixth To θ. θ. to § 161. leaving to the equal Readers judgment whether in any of those here named there be any considerable difference save in the first This in answer to Mr. Stillingfleet § 188 The Arch-Bp saith As for Jeremias 't is true his censure is in many things against the Protestants but I find not that that censure of his is warranted by any authority of the Greek Church To satisfie this see their modern Liturgies and Rituals and the other authorities that are quoted before for several points § 158. n. 2 c. 〈◊〉 165. concurring with what Jeremias hath delivered § 189 Bishop Bramhal opposeth to this testimony of Jeremias the contrary testimony of Cyril a late Patriarch there in the Confession of his Faith which had not the new set up press at Constantinople been disturbed he intended to have printed there and to have dedicated to the King of England See Knowles Tur. Hist A. D. 1628. c. having sent also some who had relation to him to be educated in Divinity in one of our Universities To which I answer 1st That to shew that the Protestants Reformation was not made from the whole Church Catholick but only the Roman we are to prove not what the