extare unde ea quatenus omnino ad salutem est necessarium cognosci indubitatò possit At nihil tale extare praeter sacras literas Nam si dicas Ecclesiam esse unde ea cognitio semper peti possit primum statuendum tibi erit Deum etiam decrevisse ut Ecclesia vera falsa enim ad eam rem inepta est semper usque ad mundi finem extet Sed ut Ecclesia vera extet à quâ omnes salutaris vâ—ritâ—tis notitiam indubitatè pevere queant requiritur ut homines complures coetum aliquem qui in omnium â—oulos incurrat constituant At non est quod quis certam aliquam Ecclesiam hoc privilegio a Deo donatam esse contendat ut fide excidere nequeat Deinde non posse Ecclesiam veram certo cognosci nisi prius cognoscatur quae sit salutaris Christi doctrina praeterea indipsum saltem debuisse alicubi in sacris literis clarè ac perspicuè scriptum extaâ—e debere ab Ecclesia peti omnia quae ad salutem scitu sunt necessaria quaenam ea sit Ecclesia ac unde debeat cognosci clare describi ne quis in câ cognoscenda facile errare posset Nam si quippiam scriptu fuisset necessarium hoc sane fuisset sine quo reliqua omnia quae cripta sunt nihil aut parum admodum prodessent Denique eam Ecclesiam quam isti Pontificii perpetuo extitisse volunt constare multis in rebus atque adeo in iis quoquâ— quâ— ad salutem sunt necessariae gravissime errare Things usually pleaded by Mr. Chillingw and his followers but whether borrowed from these I can say nothing ‖ See below § 47. n. Thus the Socinians lay the platform of their Religion and when the Protestants for confuting their errour urge Fathers and Church-authority against them they reply That they have learnt this from them to receive nothing besides Scripture and to neglect the Fathers ‖ See Simlerus de Filio Dei S. Spiritu Prafat Mean-while Appeals of the Fathers in Controversies of Religion to the trial of the Holy Scriptures I acknowledge frequent and that also somtimes waving Church-authority ‖ See S. Austin contra Maximinum l. 3. c. 14. but never made in opposition to it former or present Their great humility which also kept them Orthodox hindred them from presuming this and had any of them done it posterity would not have stiled him a Father The second thing is §. 40. n. 2. that as to the sufficiency or intirenesse of the Scriptures 2 for the containing all those points of faith that are simply necessary of all persons to be believed for attaining salvation Roman Catholicks deny it not but only deny such a clearness of Scripture in some of those as Christians cannot mistake or pervert Catholicks contend indeed that there are several things necessary to be believed by Christians according as the Church out of Apostolical Tradition hath or shall declare and propose them as touching the Government of the Church several Functions of the Clergy Administration of the Sacraments and some other sacred Ceremonies and particularly concerning the Canon of the Scriptures which are not contained in the Scriptures at least as to the clear mention therein of all those appertinents which yet have bin ever observed in the Church And touching the obligation of believing and due observing of several of these Traditions as descending from the Apostles learned Protestants also agree with them ‖ See Dr. Field of the Church l. 4. c. 20. Dr. Tailor Episcopacy asserted § 19. Reasons of the University of Oxford against the Covenant 1647. p. 9. and in particular concerning the believing of the Canon of Scripture though it be a thing not contained in Scripture See Mr. Chillingworths Concession p. 55. ‖ See also p. 114 where he saith That when Protestants affirm against Papists that Scripture is a perfect Rule of faith their meaning is not that by Scripture all things absolutely may be proved which are to be believed For it can never be proved by Scripture to a Gain-sayer that there is a God or that the Book called Scripture is the Word of God For he that will deny these Assertions when they are spoken will believe them never a whit the more because you can shew them written But their meaning is that the Scripture to them that presuppose it divine and a Rule of faith as Papists and Protestants do containes all the material objects of faith is a compleat and total and not only an imperfect and a partial Rule Where in saying all material objects of faith he means only all other after these he names presupposed and pre-believed But though I say Catholicks maintain several Credends that are not expressed in Scriptures necessary to be believed and observed by Christians after the Churches Proposal of them as Tradition Apostolical amongst which the Canon of Scripture Yet they willingly concede that all such points of faith as are simply necessary for attaining salvation and as ought explicitly by all men to be known in order thereto either raâ—ione medii or pracepti as the doctrines collected in the three Creeds the common Precepts of manners and of the more necessary Sacraments c. are contained in the Scriptures contained therein either in the Conclusion it self or in the principles from whence it is necessarily deduced ‖ Bellarmin de verbo Dei non scripto lib 4. cap. 11. Illa omnia scippta sunt ab Apostolis quae sunt omnibus simpliciter necessaria ad salutem Stapleton Relect Princip Doctrinae fidei Controver 5. q. 5. art 1 Doctrinam fidei ab omnibus fingulis explicitè credendam omnem aut ferè omnem scripto commendarunt Apostoli The main and substantial Points of our faith saith F. Fisher in Bishop White pag 12. are believed to be â—postolical because they are written in cripture S. Thom 22. q. 1. art 9. primus ad primum art 10. ad primum In Doctrina Christi Apostolorum he means câ—pâ—a weritas fidei est sufficienter explicata sed quia pervesi homines Scripturas peâ—vertunt ideo necessaria fuit temporibus proceâ—encibus explicatio fides contra insurgentes errores Therefore the Church from time to time defining any thing concerning such points defines it out of the Revelations made in Scripture And the chief Tradition the necessity and benefit of which is pretended by the Church is not the delivering of any additional doctrines descended from the Apostles times extra Scripturas i. e. such as have not their foundation at least in Scripture but is the preserving and delivering of the primitive sence and Church-explication of that which is written in the Scriptures but many times not there written so clearly which traditive sence of the Church you may find made use of against Arianisme in the first Council of Nice ‖ See Theod. Hist l. 1 c. 8. Or
at the comming of Luther § 36. 7. They affirm That though the Church Catholick cannot yet General Councils such as are not universally accepted by the Church diffusive may err in absolute necessaries to Salvation and that the Councils also universally accepted may err in non-fundamentals or non-necessaries § 34. 8. Yet that they allow all such Councils as are generally accepted by the Church diffusive to be either lawfully General or equivalent thereto and also to be infallible in necessaries § 35. Where That necessaries in their sence restrained only to a very few points of the Faith and universal acceptation extended to all sects of Christians do free them from any obligation to all or most Councils formerly held in the Church § 36. 9. And that they grant an obedience due to the Definitions and Decrees of such Councels from all inferior persons or Churches § 38. 10. But this obedience not necessarily that of assent to their decrees unless such decrees be in and known to be in necessaries but only of silence and non-publick contradiction § 39. Where Concerning the quality of the obedience that is yeilded by the Church of England to the decrees of the first General Councils § 40. 11. Nor this silence or non-contradiction generally due to all the decrees of such Councils but only to such decrees wherein the error of the Council is not manifest or intolerable § 43. Nor this breach of silence or contradiction of such decrees allowed only so far as to make complaint to Superiors who not allowing their complaint they are to acquiesce but allowed so far as that they may proceed upon the Superiors by them-conceived neglect of a redress to a reformation § 44. 12. And the Judgment when such errors are manifest and intolerable and to be reformed left to every particular person or Church for themselves § 47. Chap. 5. 13. Accordingly they declare and confine Heresie to be an error obstinately maintained not against some Church-Definition but some fundamental Article of the Faith without allowing any certain Judge what or how many Articles are fundamental and so what is Heresie § 51. 14. Concerning Schism 1st In respect of inferiors they declare it to be not any separation whatever but a separation causless § 55. or also as some more straiten it a separation in essentials § 57. from the Communion of other Churches or of the Church Catholick here again without leaving us any certain Judge what points are essentials or when the separation causless and consequently when Schism unless perhaps the separatist be this Judge 2. Again In respect of Superiors they enlarge Schism and declare them also guilty of it so often as by requiring unjust conditions of their Communion from Inferiors they give the cause of separation whereby the chief and governing Body of the Clergy of the whole Catholick Church at Luthers appearance seems by them charged with Schism and that from the Catholick Church § 61. Whether the Ecclesiastical Superiors when departing from no other their Superiors can become in respect of their subjects guilty of Schism § 63. n. 1. Chap. 6. A Reflection on the former different Theses of these two parties concerning Church-authority and the obedience due thereto § 64. And A Review of the two present opposite Churches which of them most resembles the ancient Catholick Church § 67. The face * of the ancient Catholick Church Ib. * Of the present Roman Church § 72. * Of the present Protestant Churches § 76. An Enquiry Chap. 7. Whether the Church of England doth not require obedience of Assent or Belief to her Articles of Religion Several Canons in her Synonds seeming to require it § 83. n. 1 The complaint of the Presbyterians conc it § 83. n. 4. The Doctrin of her Divines conc it § 84. n. 1. Where Conc. the just importance of Negative Articles § 84. n. 1. and 85. n. 2. And Conc. conditional assent § 84. n. 4. and 85. n. 10. That to some of the 39 Articles assent is due and ought to be required by the Church of England from her subjects § 85. n. 1. That the Roman Church doth not require assent to all the Canons of her Councils as to points Fundamental i. e. of any of which a Christian nescient cannot be saved § 85. n. 4. That the requiring of obedience either of Assent or Non-contradiction by the Church of England to all the 39 Articles seems contrary to the laws of the Church and to the Protestant Principles § 85. n. 11. Chap. 8. Solutions of several Protestant Questions concerning the Supreme Ecclesiastical Guide or Judge of Controversies § 86. 1. Q. From what we can be assured That Councils are infallible since neither the Texts of Scripture the sence whereof is disputed nor the decree of any Council whose erring is the thing questioned can give such assurance Ib. 2. Q. Whence General Councils have their infallibility such promise if made being made only to the Church diffusive and not delegable by this Church to others or if so no such delegation from the universal Church appearing before hand to have been made to all or any General Council § 91. 3. Q. How the infallibility of General Councils is necessary or serviceable to the Church without which Councils the Church subsisted for several ages most Orthodox § 98. 4. Q. How lawful General Councils which experience hath shewed to have contradicted one another can be all infallible § 100. 5. Q. Lawfull General Councils being supposed to be liable to error in some things How Christians can be assured concerning any particular point that these Councils do not err § 101. 6. Q. Whilst such Councils are supposed infallible How if they should not be so can any error of theirs be rectified § 102. 7. Q. Whether such Councils only when confirmed by the Pope or also unconfirmed by him be infallible § 104. 8. Q. How the Popes confirmation can any way concur to such Council's non-erring since if It erred it doth so still though he approve it if orthodox it is so still he not approving it § 105. 9. Q. In which the Pope or the Council this infallibility lies if in one of them the other needless If in both then either of them sufficient such qualities being where they are indivisible and without integral parts § 106. Chap. 9. 10. Q. If general Councils infallible whether they are so in their conclusions only which will infer Enthusiasm or new Revelation or also in their premises and proofs upon which assent will be due also to all their arguments § 107. 11. Q. Why being infallible in their Conclusions or Definitions They do not end all Controversies but leave so many unresolved § 108. 12. Q. How such infallibility of theirs differs from that of the Apostles and that of their decrees from that of Scripture § 109. 13. Q. How many persons or guides all fallible can make one infallible § 112. 14. Q. Supposing all lawful General Councils
9. and 20. affirm indeed the Church Catholick according to the former Proposicion to be always unerrable in Fundamentals or Necessaries But then by Church Catholick they mean such a Church as neither is nor can be any Guide to us carefully distinguishing between the Church Catholick and her General Councils and holding that even in Fundamentals all her Councils whatever except such as are in their way universally accepted ‖ See below § 36 38 Disc 3 §. 36. may err thought she cannot To this purpose See Mr. Chillingw cap. 3. § 39. discoursing on this manner I must tell you you are too bold in taking that which no man grants you that the Church Catholick is an infallible Director in Fundamentals § 4 For if she were so then must we not only learn Fundamentals of her but also learn of her what is Fundamental and take all for Fundamental which she delivers to be such In the performance whereof if I knew any one Church to be infallible I would quickly be of that Church But good Sir you must needs do us this favour to be so acute as to distinguish between being infallible in Fundamentals and being an infallible Guide in Fundamentals That she shall be always a Church infallible in Fundamentals we easily grant for it comes to no more but this that there shall be always a Church But that there shall be always such a Church which is an infallible Guide in Fundamentals this we deny For this cannot be without setling a known infallibility in some one known Society of Christians as the Greek or the Roman or some other Church by adhering to which Guide men might be guided to believe aright in all Fundamentals Much what the same he saith cap. 2. § 139. You must know there is a wide difference between being infallible in fundamentals and being an infallible Guide even in fundamentals Dr. Potter saith That the Church is the former That is there shall be some men in the world whilst the world lasts which err not in fundamentals for otherwise there would be no Church But we utterly deny the Church to be the later for to say so were to oblige our selves to find some certain Society of men of whom we may be certain that they neither do nor can err in Fundamentals nor in declaring what is Fundamental what is not Fundamental and consequently to make any Church an infallible Guide in Fundamentals would be to make it infallible in all things which she proposeth and requires to be believed And cap. 5. § 60. You suppose untruly that there is any that visible Church I mean any visible Church of one Denomination which cannot err in Points Fundamental § 5 VVhere you may observe that Mr. Chillingworthtaketh the Church-Catholick that is infallible only for some certain persons in some place or other professing Christianity who whilst the world lasts de facto do not err in Fundamentals and that as he affirms no Church of one Denomination to be infallible in Fundamentals so he holds neither any Council nor any visible Body of Ecclesiastical Magistrates whatsoever or how far soever extended that proposeth to Christians matters of Religion to be in fallible in Fundamentals as you may see quite through the third chap. of his Book and as is manifest also from his reasons against the one which are of like force against the other Therefore though he frequently names Church of one Denomination and not Councils yet you shall find that to this Church of one Denomination errable he opposeth not Councils un-erring but only some men in the world whiles the world lasts de facto not erring and to these it is and not to Councils or any Ecclesiastical Governors that he applieth our Saviours promise Yet what hinders but that the Church-Catholick in some times as it stands contradistinct to Heretical and Schismatical Churches may be in his sense a Church of one Denomination nay any Church that is so united as to give Laws and to have all its members involved in one external Communion though it be an aggregate of many particular Churches and those in several Nations truly is so and the Church-Catholick always is but One as we confess it in our Creed But one Body it is and therefore not uncapable of one name or denomination and hence all the Western Churches in the times of Luther having only one external Communion may be said to be a Church of one Denomination and so were for a long time both the Eastern and Western This Caution I thought meet to give you that his seeming limitation of one Denomination may not deceive you § 6 After him thus also Dr. Hammond in defence of the Lord Falkland's Discourse against the Exceptions ‖ c. 1. §. 5 6. p. 23. I shall saith he thus far consent with you First That the universal Church is in Fundamentals infallible But then this Infallibility must signifie no more or is to be no farther extended than that Christ doth and will so defend his Church that there shall be for ever till the end of the world a Church Christian on the earth i. e. that the whole Church shall not at once make an universal defection err from the foundation or do any thing by which there shall cease to be a Church on the earth But then 2ly I say that this very universal Church though it be in this sence infallible in Fundamentals is not yet a Rule or Canon or Guide or Judge infallible even in Fundamentals visible it is infallible it is but it is not a visible Judge or Rule infallible Thus Dr. Hammond Here you see these Authors make a distinction between the Church Catholick and the Body of her Governors or her General Council giving Laws and in allowing Infallibility in Necessaries to the Church Catholick remove it from the General Council because they think it not safe to allow the Church Catholick unerrable as a Guide § 7 But this their denying the Church Catholick to be unerrable as she is a Guide Reply seems utterly contrary both to our Saviour's Promises made to her in the Scriptures and also to the Concessions of other Modern Learned Protestants which see below § 25 c. 32 c. First As concerning our Saviour's Promises from which is collected the Church's Indefectibility all Where That the divine Promises of Indefectibility or not erring in necessaries belong to the Church Catholick as a Guide or to the Guides of the Church Catholick or most of them are expresly made to the Guides of the Church and therefore to the Church as a Guide that so these might be fet for ever to all Nations as a City on a Hill and as a Candle on a Candlestick ‖ Mat. 5.14 15. * See Mat. 28.19 20. Upon our Saviour's sending his Successors abroad to teach the Nations his promising to be with them i. e. with the Teachers of these Nations to the end of the world * See John
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
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
again he using the ordinary care of persons desiring instruction cannot but come to know its Councils and their definitions its doctrines and Laws which we find as the Leaders of all Sects do theirs so those of the Church Catholick are studious to divulge and publish so far as they are by him considering his condition necessary to be known and the profession or practice thereof required of him For Example In the Church of England who is there using the ordinary care necessary in matters of his salvation that first cannot easily discern this Church from the several other later and unheaded sects that are in this Kingdom and this Church known who may not easily attain therein to a knowledg also of its Articles of Religion and Canons its Synods or Convocations delivered by the common Tradition and by the Church-Guides and publick Writings daily inculcated so far as the understanding of them is to him necessary The same evidence therefore in these things must be allowed not to be wanting to those who have once found among the many Societies of Christians that Church which is their right Guide § 49 And litle reason have the reformed to affirm a necessity that all Necessaries should be made most evident even to the unlearned in the Scriptures if asserted on this account because such people have no means of attaining any certain knowledge of them from the Ministry of the Church And with litle reareason seem Mr. Stillingfleet and others to affirm which yet is used by many late Protestant-Writers as a main ground of evacuating the authority of the Church * that it is no easier a thing to know what the Church defines than what Scripture determines and That the same Arts that can evade the texts of Scripture will equally elude the Definitions of Councils Tillots Rule of saith p. 21. as if all writings were equally plain or equally obscure or if none free from therefore all equally liable to cavils Again * That the Argument of the willingness of all Protestants to submit their judgments to Scripture will hold as well or better for their unity as that of the readiness of all those of the Church of Rome to submit their judgments to the sence and determination of the Church will hold for their unity And this unity to be effected by the Scriptures he speaks of as to those matters wherein the sence of the same Scriptures is controverted amongst Christians for in such only it is that Christians for their unity seek to the decisions of the Church As if they undertook to defend this That a living Judge set up for the expounding of the dubious places of the Law to the sentence of which Judg all are agreed to assent yet is no more effective for ending controversies about the sense of the Laws and for uniting parties than the Laws themselves are without such Judge Mr. Stillingfleets words are ‖ p 101. Your great Argument for the unity of your party because whatever the private opinions of men are they are ready to submit their judgments to the censure and determination of the Church if it be good will hold as well or better for our unity as yours because all men are willing to submit their judgments to Scripture which is agreed on all sides to be infallible If you say that it cannot be known what Scripture determines but it may be easily what the Church defines It is easily answered that the event shews it to be far otherwise for how many disputes are there concerning the power of determining matters of faith c concluding thus so that upon the whole it appears setting aside force and fraud which are excellent principles of Christian unity we are upon as fair termes of union as you are among your selves Where doth he not say this in effect that the true Church being known and its authority granted infallible as that of the Roman Church is by its subjects Yet we can no more know what this Church defines suppose what the Church of Rome or of England defines concerning Transubstantiation St-Invocation Sacrifice of the Mass c. than what Scripture determines concerning these points and that Canons Catechisms c. authorized by a Church can no further clear any point to us than Scripture did formerly and that only the Church is so unfortunate in her publick interpretations of Scriptures that her Expositions are no plainer than the Texts and that only force or fraud unites her subjects in their opinions And if so what fault hath the Council of Trent made in its new definitions if after these it seems ‖ Stillingf p. 102. there is as much division and then liberty also of opinions as was before them Why do they accuse its decrees as plain enough but erroneous and not invalidate them rather as dubious and uncertain Why dispute they not whether these we have now extant be its genuine Acts Would it not be advantageous to the reformed to shew that this Council makes nothing against them In such unreasonable Contests hath Mr. Chillingworth by inventing many captious questions to weaken Church-authority engaged his followers As if though Catholicks allow several things in Councils obscurely delivered some proceedings in some things unjust the legality of some Councils disputed c yet there could not remain still enough clear and unquestionable both of Councils and their Canons both * to establish the most illiterate subjects of the Catholick Church in all such as is thought necessary faith whose obligation is not to believe all things defined but all things sufficiently proposed to them to be so and * to overthrow the past Reformation THE THIRD DISCOURSE CHAP. I. Roman-Catholicks and Protestants agreed 1. That the Scriptures are God's Word § 1. 2. That in these Scriptures agreed on it is clearly declared that the Church in no age shall err in Necessaries § 2. 3. That the Church-Catholick is contra-distinct to Heretical and Schismatical Churches § 4. 4. That Christ hath left in this Church Pastors and Teachers to keep it from being tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of Doctrine § 5. § 1 1st BOth Roman Catholicks and Protestants are agreed That there is sufficient certainty in the General Tradition of the Catholick Church descending to the present Age that the Bible or Holy Scriptures are the Word of God 2ly They are agreed That it is clearly declared in these Scriptures that the Catholick Church § 2 in no age shall err in Credends or Practicals necessary for obtaining Salvation From which Christians seem to be secured That in their approving § 3 and conforming to what is granted generally to be held by the Church-Catholick of any age whatsoever they shall incur no Error or Practice destructive of Salvation Whereas a hazard herein may be in their departing from the Doctrine or Practice of the Church-Catholick or of all the particular Churches of any age all or some of which must be the Catholick § 4 3ly
for ever must be so infallible the Church-Catholick being ever so and never consisting of People only without Pastors It is necessarily devolved also upon the much major and more-dignified part of this united Body of the Clergy to be so Because else the Catholick Church would not be One in its Constitution but a Body divided in it self and so which could not stand if two several Parties in such Council without any just subordination to one another might both pretend themselves to be the unerring Guide 6ly For these Church-Guides being affirmed unerrable in Necessaries Catholicks here do understand Necessaries § 9 not in so strict a sence as to be restrained and limited only to those few points of Faith that are so indispensably required to be of all explicitly believed as that salvation is not possibly consistible with the disbelief or ignorance of any of them But affirm they ought to be understood in a sence more enlarged comprehending at least all such points as are very requisite and beneficial to salvation either in respect of Christian Faith or Manners either for the direction of particulars or Government of the whole Society of Christians Of which see what is spoken more largely in the 2d Disc § 9. § 10 7ly Concerning the particular Manner or Measure of these Church-Governors when assembled in a lawful General Council their being affirmed unerrable or infallible 1st As Catholicks do not hereby understand them absolutely unerrable in any matter whatever which they may attempt to determine but only in such matters as appear to them of necessary Faith taken in the sence before-mentioned ‖ §. 9. Disc 2. §. 9. So neither do they hold touching these necessary points * any inherent habitual infallibility residing either in the whole Council or some Members thereof whereby they perceive and know themselves infallibly inspired as to such points after the same manner as the Apostles or Prophets did but only * an actual non-erring in those things which they define * from the promised Divine Assistance and super-intendent Providence constantly directing their Consultations into the Truth by what several ways or means it matters not to know or also * from the clear Evidence of former Revelation and Tradition of the point defined from which Evidence Protestants also grant that those may be certain for some divine Truths who are not infallible in all 2ly Catholicks affirm These Guides in all ages since that of the Apostles equally infallible and that the present Church doth not or way not pretend to any infallibility or exercise any authority consequent thereof which the ancient Catholick Church did not claim and also practise in the four first or other General Councils But yet as this ancient Church also required Assent under Anathema to its Definitions and inserted some of them into the Creeds and some of these also points of great difficulty and subtle discussion that so may the present or the future Church do the like § 11 8ly Catholicks affirm That of the several Councils that have been assembled in former ages to know which or how many of them have been lawfully general or in their obligation equivalent thereto any Christian without going about to satisfie himself in all those curious Questions moved by Protestants several of which are considered below § 86. c. may securely relie on the acceptation and acknowledgement or non-opposition of them and their Decrees * by the Church-Catholick of that age wherein they were held and of the ages following i. e. by the Teachers and Writers therein unanimously maintaining or not gainsaying the Doctrines of such Councils and by the Church's practice conforming to their Injunctions Or where some persons or Churches dissent from the rest * by the Major part of these Churches accepting them when these are united also with St. Peter 's Successor the always Prime Patriarch and Supreme Bishop of the Christian world the Bishop of Rome As for Example Catholicks hold that a Christian may securely embrace and obey the Decrees of those Councils as Generall or in their obligation equivalent thereto the Decrees whereof were accepted by the whole Church-Catholick tacitly at least in their Liturgies Writings Practices being conformable thereto or not dissenting therefrom at the Appearance of Luther and are accepted still both by the much major part of the Christian world and also ratified by the Supreme Pastor of the Church-Catholick § 12 The Reason of this 1 Because if a Christian may not securely rely on such an Acceptation a few persons or Churches resisting or standing out perhaps those who are condemned also of Heresie and Schism by such Councils This will void the obligation of all Councils whatever And upon the same termes the Arrian Bishops and their Churches that dissented will void the Obligation of the first General Council of Nice and those dissenting Persons and Churches of the Nestorians and Eutychians or Dioscorites some of which continue in the Eastern or Southern parts of the world unto this day will void that of the third and fourth General Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon See more of this Disc 2. § 25. c. And 2 Because considering the nature of a multitude such thing can hardly be but that some will dissent from the rest and therefore it seems as necessary to proceed according to the same Rule in the Church-Catholick's accepting the Council's Decrees as in the Council's making them viz. that the Vote of the much major part conclude the whole to render the actions of such great Bodies valid § 13 9ly Concerning the Acceptation of Councils by the whole or major part of the Church-Catholick this seems reasonable That though the representatives of some considerable part of the Church-Catholick should be wanting in some of these Councils especially when they are assembled for deciding some Controversies arising only in that of Christianity where the Council sits yet the certain concurrence of that absent part of the Church-Catholick in their doctrines with the decrees of such Councils should pass for a sufficient acceptation of them and such absence no way prejudice the obligation of such Decrees For it may well be presumed the members of such Churches if present would have voted in the Council what they hold out of it hold before it contradict not after it § 14 10ly Catholicks do hold all particular persons and Churches taken divisim as being only a part of and subordinatâ—â—â— to the whole ‖ See Disc 2. §. 23. as also all particular Bishops are only single members of the whole Body of them assembled in a Council to stand obliged in submission of their judgement and in obedience of assent to the Definitions and Decrees of the whole in these Supremests Courts thereof wherein it can give its judgement viz. it s lawful General Councils when these accepted also by the Church-Governors absent in the manner forementioned § 15 The Reason Because these Supreme Courts are secured for ever by our Lords
ecce illic ecce in deserto quasi ubi non est frequentia multitudinis ecce in cubiculis quasi in secretis traditionibus atque doctrinis Habetis Ecclesiam ubique diffundi crescere usque ad messem Habetis Civitatem de quâ ipse qui eam condidit ait non potest Civitas abscondi super montem posita Ipsa est ergo quae non in aliquâ parte terrarum sed ubique notissima est And Contra Cresconium l. 1. c. 33. He iterates the same Si autem dubitas quod Ecclesiam quae per omnes gentes numero sitate copiocissimâ dilatatur haec S. Scriptura commendat multis manifestissimis testimoniis ex eâdem authoritate the Scriptures prolatis onerabo where he that will say this Father speaks of the Church Catholicks only as it was in his not as it is to be in all times must also interpret those Scriptures from which he proves it to speak of his or some times only not of all which is absurd and would have voided S. Austine's arguing used against the Donatists then as well as any others now who might have replyed to him that these Texts were verified of some but not of their times And indeed they did urge that S. Austine's sence of them in application to the Church failed in the Arrian times and upon this See in his 48 Epistle his vindicating them to be verified of it in all times And it seems all reason that in the Scripture's describing that Church to whose bosome and Communion all people were for ever to resort the marks to know it by should be Universal and no more demonstrate to Christians the Church of one age than of another no more that in S. Austines times than that in ours to whose Faith and Communion Christians have in all times a like duty to conform and whose judgement a like necessity to consult Though it is willingly granted that such Properties admit of several degrees nor is it necessary either for its multitude extent or eminency that the Church should alway enjoy them in an equal proportion 3 ly Concerning our duty of crediting §. 82. n. 4. and adhering to the Church's testimony and judgement in matters controverted and obscure he thus discourseth ‖ Contra Cresconium l. 1. c. 33. against the Donatists who pleaded nothing in Scriptures could be shewed clear against them Proinde quamvis hujus rei certe de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum earundem tamen Scripturarum etiam in hac re a nobis tenetur veritas cum hoc facimus quod universae placuit Ecclesiae quam ipsarum Scripturarum commendat authoritas ut quoniam Sancta Scriptura fallere non potest quisquis falli metuit hujus obscuritate quaestionis eandem Ecclesiam de illâ consulat quam sine ullâ ambiguitate Sancta Scriptura demonstrat Again De Vnitate Ecclesiae c. 19. Hoc saith he aperte atque evidenter i.e. in the Scripture nec ego lego nec tu Nunc vero cum in Scripturis non inveniamus c puto si aliquis sapiens extitisset cui Dominus Jesus Christus testimonium perhibet that we should be directed by his judgment Et de hac quaestione consuleretur a nobis nullo modo dubitare deberemus id facere quod ille dixisset ne non tam ipsi quam Domino Jesu Christo cujus testimonio condemnatur repugnare judicaremur Perhibet autem testimonium Christus Ecclesiae suae 4. Lastly Concerning the benefit in adhering to §. 82. n. 5. and relying on the Church authority or testimony before that proved to us which yet she delivers to us he discourseth thus in his Book De utilitate Crerendi i.e. credendi Ecclesiae ‖ cap. 13. written not long after his Conversion to a former acquaintance ' qui irridebat as he saith ‖ Retract 1. l. c. 14. Catholicae fidei disciplinam qua juberentur credere homines non autem quid esset verum certissima ratione docerentur Recte saith he Catholicae disciplinae majestate institutum est ut accedentibus ad Religionem fides i.e. adhibenda anthoritati ecclesiae persuadiatur ante omnia and c. 10. Sed inquis nonne erat melius rationem mihi reddere ut quocunque ea me duceret sine ulla sequerer temeritate Erat fortasse sed cum res tantasit ut Deus tibi ratione cognoscendus sit omnesne putas idoneos esse percipiendis rationbus quibus ad divinam intelligentiam mens ducitur humana an plures an paucos ais existimo Quid Paucos caeteris ergo hominibus qui ingenio tam sereno praediti non sunt negandam Religionem putas If not such must receive this their Religion not from Reason but authority And c. 16. Authoritate decipi miserum est miserius non moveri Si Dei providentia non praesidet rebus humanis nihil est de Religione satagendum Non est desperandum ab eodem ipso Deo authoritatem aliquam constitutam qua velut gradu incerto innitentes attolamur in Deum Haec autem authoritas seposita ratione qua sincerâ intelligere it diximo difficilimum stultis est dupliciter nos movet partim miraculis paâ—â—â—â—â—quentium multitudine And c. 8. He thus exhorts his scepties Friend Honoratus seduced by the Manicheans Si jam satis jactatus videris sequere viam Catholicae Disciplinae quae ab ipso Christo per Apostolos ad nos usque manavit abhinc ad posteros manatura est Those who can humble their reason so far as to embrace this holy Counsil through the abundant providence of God will find no great difficulty in discerning their right Guides and chusing the true Religion CHAP. VII Whether the Church of England doth not require assent to her Articles of Religion Several Canons in her Synods seeming to require it § 83. n. 1. The complaint of the Presbyterians concerning it § 83. n. 4. The Doctrine of her Divines § 84. n. 1. Where concerning the just importance of Negative Articles § 84. n. 1. and 85. n. 2. and concerning conditional assent § 84. n. 4. and 85. n. 10. That to some of the 39 Articles assent is due and ought to be required § 85. n. 1. That the Roman Church doth not require assent to all the Canons of her Councills as to points Fundamental i. e. of any of which a Christian nescient cannot be saved § 85. n. 4. That obedience either of assent or non-contradiction if required by the Church of England to all the 39. Articles seems contrary to the Laws of the Church and to the Protestant Principles § 85. n. 11. AFter this view of the 2. present opposit Churches §. 83. n. 1. which of them more resembles the ancient Catholick the latter whereof the Protestant Churches seem to build the defence of the Reformation and the Vindication of their liberty from former Church-laws upon the denial of any such obedience
of assent or belief due thereto as was exacted by the former Church and her Councils of which matter see what is said before § 39. c. I think fit before I proceed to the 2 d. thing proposed ‖ §. 66. the answering the many difficulties and objections urged against any Infallible Church Authority to search here first more particularly whether this liberty which Protestants claime in respect of an authority superiour the Councils and former Church yet be not denyed by them to their Subjects at least by the Church of England if we may informe our selves out of the most obvious sence of several of those Canons made in the late National Synods thereof 1. That then the National Synods of the Church of England notwithstanding their heavy accusations of the Council of Trent for the like practices do exact the Obedience of Assent to their Decrees and that under pain of Excommunication or of such persons being out off from the Unity of the Church and so if the Excommunication be just of such person if impenitent being cut off from the Body of Christ and taken of the whole multitude of the Faithful as an Heathen and Publican ‖ Ar. of Church of England 33. See 1 st the Synod held under K. James 1603. the 4 th anon whereof runs thus Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that the forme of Gods Worship established by Law and contained in the Book of Common Prayer containeth any thing in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures let him be Excommunicated ipso facto and not restored but after his Repentance and publick Revocation of such his wicked Errors Again thus Can. 5. Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that any of the 39. Articles agreed upon by the whole Clergy in the Convocation held 1562. for the avoiding diversities of opinions and for the establishing of consent touching true Religion are in any part erroneous or such as he may not with a good Conscience subscribe unto let him be Excommunicated ipso facto and not restored but after his Repentance and publick revocation of such his wicked errours To which may be added * the title Prefixed to the 39. Articles which saith that these Articles were drawn up for the avoiding diversities of opinions for the establishing of consent touching true Religion And * those words in the Preface to the same Articles Requiring all the Subjects of this Church to continue in the uniforme profession thereof and prohibiting the lest difference from the said Articles Here then 1 st the Church of England in the Title and the 5 th Canon declares that these Articles were drawn up for the avoiding of diversities of opinions and for the establishing of Consent But how doth the drawing-up or also the imposing of these Articles effect the avoiding diversities of opinions if the Church by this act layes no restraint at all upon opinions nor the Subscription required to them imply any assent to or belief of them or how effect the establishing of consent if all the obedience the Church requires to them be only a non-contradiction 2. Again here in the preface to the Articles not only silence and non-renouncing but professing of them is required but none are tied to profess any thing but what they also are tied either to believe or to profess though against their Conscience 3. Again In the 5 th Canon the words Erroneous or such as he may not with a good Conscience subscribe do imply that he cannot with a good Conscience subscribe to them who thinks them erroneous but any may subscribe to them with a good conscience though they be erroneous if the subscription only oblige to non-contradiction for none are bound in conscience to contradict every thing that they hold an errour 4 ly Here in the 4 th and 5 th Canon the Church of England Excommunicates them that affirme such and such things not till they repent of and publickly revoke their unpeaceful or turbulent contradiction of her decree but till they repent of and revoke their wicked errours and see Can 12 revoke their Anabaptistical errours where Annabaptisticall joyned to Errour clearly applies the word Errour not to the act of contradicting but to the matter wherein such a one contradicts Now Excommunication here till one revokes his Errours is till one changeth or at least professeth that he changeth his opinion for one may revoke or Repent of his Contradiction who doth not at all of his Errours which contradiction is not an Errour of the understanding but a fault of manners which also we easily rectifie without repenting of or revoking any former opinion and consequently without revoking our Errour But here the Excommunication extends to this latter Where if by any ones publickly revoking his wicked Errours be meant only the revoking of the divulging of his wicked Errour then would such a recantation as this be sufficient to restore such an excommunicated person to the Churche 's Communion I hold indeed my former tenent still but heartily repend and am sorry that I have divulged it nor will I for the future do the like But such reconciliative recantations we know are never accepted amongst the Reformed unless such persons condemn also their former Doctrines as false and acknowledge for true and Orthodox those of the Church Again In this matter I aske If any one when required by the Church to declare his opinion doth affirm such a wicked Errour to the affirmers whereof the Church hath denounced Excommunication for Example affirms the King not to be Supreme in Ecclesiastical matters against the 2d Canon whether is he not in such a case by that Canon liable to Excommunication If he be them it is not because he declareth what he holdeth for how can the Church Excommunicate him for doing that which she requireth of him i. e. for declaring what he holdeth upon her interrogation but because he holdeth that which he ought not i. e. for his opinion for his wicked Errour as she there calls it And doth not the Church of England likewise allow of the King 's requiring in the Oath of Supremacy touching this point not only a non-affirmation of the contrary or a non-contradicting of such a truth but a sincere acknowledgment in his conscience and a believing of it I do utterly testify and declare in my conscience c. So also the Parliament 13 Elizab. 12. requireth That every one that hath an Ecclesiastical living declare his assent and subscribe to the 39. Articles of Religion And that no person be admitted to any Benefice with cure except he shall first have subscribed the same Articles with declaration of his unfeigned assent in the same Here you see the subscription interpreted assent Now will the Church deny the lawfulness of the Act of the State passed by the Lords Spiritual as well as Temporal Or may not a Church though fallible enjoyn or require as much acknowledgement as much assent in a matter of Faith as the said Church
allows a fallible King or Parliament to do But see Canon 36. Of the same Synod 1603. where the Church also requires the Subscribers not only not to affirm the 3. Articles contained in that Canon to be erroneous Namely That the Kings Majesty is the only Supreme Governour of his Realm in spiritual things 2. That the Book of Common prayer containeth in it nothing contrary to the Word of God c. But in the third Article more expresly requires him to subscribe That he alloweth and acknowledgeth i.e. confesseth believeth all the 39. Articles to be agreeable to the word of God Add to this That whereas the Canon 140. excomminicates till they publickly revoke their wicked error any who shall affirm that those who had not given their voices to the decrees made in the Sacred Synod of this Nation are not subject to the decrees thereof and therefore in the conference at Hampton-Court the Puritan Party moved this question how far such Ordinances of the Church were to bind them without impeaching their Christian liberty They received from the King this answer I will have one Doctrine and Discipline one Religion in Substance and Ceremony and therefore I charge you never to speak more to that point How far you are bound to obey When the Church hath ordained it This Injunction of King James to Puritans had it been obeyed by the first Reformers would it not have prevented the birth of Protestantisme and the dispute at Hampton-Court Again the Church of England §. 83. n. 2. in some of those Canons excommunicates men for not doing something which she commandeth to be done now in all such in junctions of Practicals there is involved an injunction of assent fiâ—st that such practises are lawful The ninth Canon runs thus Whosoever shall hereafter separate themselves from the Communion c. in the Church of England accounting the Christians who are conformable to her Doctrine c. to be profane and unmeet for them to joyn with in Christian Profession let them be excommunicated ipso facto and not restored till after their repentance and publick Revocation of such their stored till after their repentance and publick Revocation of such their wicked errors Here the Church of England requires under pain of Excommunication that none do account her Communion profane c. For whosoever accounteth the Church of England such her self being judge ought to separate from her an erronious conscience obliging Neither may any say that the Church here for his restitution enjoyns repentance only for his separating but rather for his accounting those who conform profane 1. for his errors from which once granted a separation ought to follow Again Canon 12. Those who submit themselves to be ruled by any Ecclesiastical constitutions made without the Kings authority are excommunicated Here the Canon requiring men not to submit to be governed by such constitutions requires them to believe also such Ecclesiastical Constitutions to be unlawfully made and not obliging else men ought to submit unto them Canon 59. Those Parsons who do not teach on Sundays the Catechism set forth in the Common-prayer Book are excommunicated But if they hold any thing in such Catechism unlawful they may not teach it therefore the Synod in expresly requiring them under pain of Excommunication to teach it virtually under the same penalty requires their assent that it is lawfully to be taught 2 ly In the National Synod §. 83. n. 3. held under King Charles 1640. See the third Canon 2. where it is ordered That all Popish Recusants though silent though nothing affirming whatever way they can be discovered whether by their refusing to take the Oath of Allegiance which Oath exacts their punctual assent to several Dâ—ctrines or by their refusing to receive the Communion with the Members of the Church of England a practice that requires their assent that this Church is not Schismatical be excommunicated Where whilst the Church of England thinks she hath sufficient authority to exclude from her Communion all that hold the Popish Tenents why complains she of the tyranny of the Roman Church in excluding from her Communion all that hold the Protestant Tenents Again in the fourth Canon it is decreed That any one who is accused of Socinianism unless he will absolutely in terminis abjure it be excommunicated Now he that is required upon pain of Excommunication to abjure the Popish or the Socinian Tenents is required under the same penalty so often to assent to the Protestant or the Anti-Socinian Tenents where ever these are immediately contrary or contradictory to the other as many times they are So whoever is obliged to abjure Filium non esse Consubâ—â—antialem Patri Is obliged by the same Canon to assent Filium esse Consubstantiatem Patri Lastly in the sixth Canon there the Synod requires * assent and approbation of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England as containing all things necessary to Salvation and * the Profession of this assent upon Oath I A. B. do swear that I do approve and sincerely acknowledge the Doctrine and Discipline established in the Church of England as containing all things necessary to Salvation that is I do assent and believe it to contain c. Thus much of several Injunctions and Canons of the Reformed Synods of the Church of England which seem to tye her Subjects to as strict an Obedience of assent and approbation for any thing I can diâ—cern to all her Doctrine and Discipline as any other Councils have done and to give as little liberty to any to oppose her decrees not withstanding what she saith of the Church and of Councils Art 20. 21. Hence that complaine of the Presbyterian Ministers §. 83. n 4. concerning their obligation to these Articles and Canons in their Reasons shewing necessity of Reformation printed 1660 * That if they might not subscribe with such an addition so far forth as the same Articles are agreeable to Gods Word it must needs be granted that the composers of them are admitted to be infallible or else that the Statâ—te 13. Elizabeth 12. intendeth to tyrannize over the Consciences of men i. e. in requiring them to profess what their conscience tells them is not truth * That the Statute requireth Belief of every one of these Articles when it enjoyns not only subscription but an assent unto them punishing all with deprivation that shall affirm and maintain any Doctrine repugnant to them which every man must do if they be found contrariant to the Word or he muâ—t be false to God And p. 36. Concerning obligation to Ceremonies * That these ought not to be imposed on those who cannot be fully perswaded in their own minds and consciences that they are lawful and therefore must sin if they use them Thus the Presbyterians Yet this course as most necessary was long ago hinted by Mr. Calvin to the first Founder of the English Reformation the Lord Protector in
English Church in obliging her Subjects to believe these points Errors which the Roman Church doth hers to believe Truths hath in his as large a Creed as the other if the other hath Twelve new Articles so in her stating the contrary to them hath she and is equally tyrannical or more because the Articles of the other are the elder of the two the Subjects of the one having no liberty left to affirm them as of the other to deny them For Example A Subject of the Church of England supposing him obliged to believe her Articles true hath no more liberty left to hold Transubstantiation a Truth than a Romanist hath to hold it an Error Or to instance in the implyed affirmative that is maintained in opposition to Transubstantiation on the Church of Englands side a Subject of this Church hath no more liberty left to hold the remaining of the Substance of the Symbols in the Eucharist an Error than those of the Roman have to hold it a Truth This of the first sort those who as peremptorily deny a thing as the others affirm it But next you may observe that neither are the later sort who suspend their judgment because such point seems not proved to them in this always the most secure and safe If the proposers to them of that point be such persons as they are commanded to believe unless themselves can prove the contrary to it which is the case of all those who have Spiritual Superiors and if the knowledge of such a Truth be any way profitable to their Salvation which Truths I suppose these Superiors never define without foreseeing First such Doctrines defined beneficial to be known This from § 85. n. 2. is my 2d. Observation concerning the Church of Englands negative Articles 3ly You may observe §. 85. n. 4. that when these Protestant Writers say Obs 3 that these 39 Articles that is the most of them or the negatives see Observation 1. ‖ §. 85. n. 1. are not made by them Articles of their Faith they explain themselves to mean not made fundamental Articles of their Faith or such the belief of which is necessary ratione medii for attaining salvation and such as extra quas creditas non est salus ‖ § 84. n. 1. they meanwhile not denying that whatever is Scripture and a revealed Divine Truth is an Article of our Faith i. e. as Bp. Bramhall Necessary to be believed and assented to by us when it is known to be revealed Now as they do not make the most of their 39 Articles the rule or articles of their Faith in the forenamed sense so neither doth the Roman Church or Council of Trent her Canons whatever Protestants tell the World so often to the contrary Fundamental indeed they call sometimes all points defined by the Churches Councils and hold them necessary to be believed for attaining salvation but not necessary in such a sense as ratione medii necessary or absolutely extra quas creditas non est salus but onely necessary to be believed upon supposition of a sufficient proposal of them to any person that they have been so defined Again necessarily to be believed also for attaining Salvation not because that no person can be saved and that after the Churches definition of them in his not believing them But because if after such proposal and sufficient notice given him of their being defined he believe them not he now stands guilty in this his disobedience to his supreme spiritual Guides of a mortal sin unrepented of destructive of his Salvation A thing spoken plainly enough by the answerer of the Archbishops Book §. 85. n. 5. and yet misrepresented by the Replier ‖ p 48 49. who imposeth these propositions as maintained by the Roman Church That what the Church determines as matter of Faith is as necessary to be believed in order to Salvation as that which is necessary from the matter i. e. necessary ratione medii And that an equal explicit faith is required to the definitions of the Church as to the Articles of the Creed and that there is an equal necessity in order to Salvation of believing both of them Whenas he might easily have informed himself that there is not an equal necessity required by the Roman Church of the very Articles of the Creed in order to Salvation and whenas not onely this one condition of the Churche's having defined them for none are obliged necessarily to believe explicitly whatsoever the Church hath defined but a second also of a sufficient proposal to us of what the Church hath defined renders her Definitions necessary to be believed and then necessary to be believed indeed as to the doing of our duty in order to our Salvation but not all of them necessary to be believed as if the knowledg of them were so necessary to our Salvation as that without this it could not be had as that of some of the Articles of the Creed is Neither is the Greek Church one ground of this authors mistake by F. Fisher or others of the Roman Church charged as guilty of Heresie in any other manner save this that supposing a lawful General Council accepted by the Church Catholick to have defined The procession of the H. Ghost à Filio so many of the Greek Church as have received a sufficient proposal that such a Council hath so defined it if they continue to deny or disbelieve it are guilty of Heresie leaving the rest free unless it can be proved that à Filio is a Fundamental in the other sense i. e. ratione medii free I say so many amongst them as happen to be either by natural defect and incapacity or external want of instruction invincibly and inculpably ignorant either of the just authority of such a Council or of its Divinely assisted inerrability in all necessaries or of such its Decree or of the true sense thereof which persons indeed by reason of the evidence of all these things cannot be the most or the learned but yet may be some for all in an Heretical Church are not affirmed Hereticks though the Churches censures according to the reasonable grounds of conviction concerning any such point generally published are passed upon all that are involved in such a Society whilst God who knows all capacities absolves from them whom he seeth innocent and preserves his Wheat from the fire though by the Church bound in the same bundle with the Tares As for the other ground of the Replyers mistake ‖ Stillin p 48. That famous passage of Pius Hanc veram Catholicam Fidem extra quam c. he might have learn'd to have made a more moderate and qualified construction of it from his own descant on the like clause in the Athanasian Creed Haec est Fides Catholica quam nisi quisque c. where he ‖ p. 70 71. could well discover a conditional necessity as to some of the Articles thereof viz. A necessity
of believing them upon conviction that they were of Divine Revelation why not then allow such a one here extra quam nulla salus i. e. to such as receive a sufficient proposal of their being so defined and therefore do or might receive a sufficient conviction that they must also be Divine Truth Though for a fuller answer to that clause of Pius I must refer you to the considerations on the Council of Trent § 80. n. 2. Now to proceed in our Discourse Fundamental therefore the Church of Rome affirms many of her Canons for I speak not of all not so to be §. 85. n. 6. but that 1st A Christian may be ignorant of them without loss of his salvation and indeed amongst the vulgar who is there that is not ignorant of several of them Onely in time of need and where danger of seducement as any Canon is of greater moment or the truth thereof particularly invaded the Pastors are vigilant to inform their Sheep of the Churches former definitions of them 2ly Nay further may hold the contrary to some of them though defined yet if not sufficiently proposed to him that they are so without loss of salvation 3ly In ones holding the contrary to them after sufficiently proposed I mean both the decree manifested to him and the just authority that made it and the divine assistance thereof the loss of salvation doth not ensue nor the Churche's censures take hold on such a person for the simple non-believing the matter of such Canon or for the holding of the contrary For if this the meer non-believing or the holding of the contrary to any Church-definition whatever abstracting from a sufficient proposal that such thing hath been defined by the Church were enough to destroy any ones salvation then so this would be before the Churches determination of such Point or so would be to the invincibly ignorant after it a thing which no Catholick affirms and see S. Austins stating of this matter de Baptis 4.16 before § 18. Though it is freely granted here that the ignorance of such a truth as is beneficial for our salvation which all definitions of Councils are supposed to be to some or other both after and also before the Councils defining thereof may confer something in its degree according to the benefit of the truth one miscarries in to the loss of his salvation The Churche's censures therefore I say as to many of her Canons are incurr'd and salvation ruin'd not for the meer disbelieving such Point defined but for obstinately doing this after sufficient ground of conviction that such an authority hath so defin'd it Posiquam ea quae ad fidem pertinent authoritate Vniversalis Ecclesiae determinata sunt si quis tali ordinationi pertinaciter repugnat haereticus censetur ‖ S Thom. 22.11 q. 2. Qui autem ex ignorantiâ crassâ vel etiam affectatâ saith Layman out of the common Doctrine of the Casuists †Theol moral â—2 Tract 1 13. c. propter inquirendi taedium c. errorem aliquem contra fidem tenet eum statim derelicturus si intelligat Catholicae Ecclesiae repugnantem esse talis non est pertinax nec Haereticus So that the Churches Anathema in many of her Canons seizeth on a person not so much for the matter of his error though this not denied to some degree hurtful to him and diminishing his perfection in the Faith as the pertinasy of his erring and the contumacie and perverseness of his will disobeying the Church and his Spiritual Superiors sufficiently manifesting the contrary truth to be her Doctrine and a portion of the Christian Faith and manifesting it always for some good ends of preserving her Sons orthodox in such parts thereof as she sees to be invaded by some contrary error of perilous consequence Now let it be considered whether the Church of England if the sense of the 5. Canon related above ‖ § 83. n. 1. stand good doth not make her 39 Articles Fundamental and exclude from Salvation those who affirm or hold any of them erroneous on the same manner whilst she excommunicates i. e. cuts off from the Body of Christ if the Excommunication be just as she thinks it is such persons as remain in this wicked error till such time as they repent and publickly revoke it For I ask what is this wicked error for which unrepented of he is so cut off from Christ and consequently his Salvation destroyed but his holding or if you will his not repenting upon her Admonition but persisting to hold the contrary to some one or more of her Articles or Definitions if she declare then his Salvation lost in his holding the contrary to such Article is not the Article then after her proposal made in the sense we are speaking of fundamental to him Or suppose his wicked error be not holding but saying the contrary to such Article when he holds otherwise which I cannot apprehend to be sense i. e. that any one can be said to erre in a thing when he saith onely that he holds it but really doth not hold it at least thus far then as to non-contradiction the Article still is made fundamental for here whoever contradicts unrepenting thereof is damned 4ly For the application of Haec est Fides extra quam non est salus which is so often said by Protestants to be made to all the Definitions of the Council of Trent and the confession thereof necessary to the enjoying of the Communion of this Church 1st No such Sentence is applied to the definitions by the Council it self except onely to the Nicene Creed of which they say it is Fundamentum firmum unicum Sess 3. but onely by a Pope after it And 2ly If we should also grant the sense of this clause to be that which Protestants put upon it whereas it is capable of another sense which they cannot disallow of which see Consid Conc. Trid. § 80. namely this That an explicit belief of every one of the Definitions and Canons of all the lawful General Councils that have ever been or made any such for Pius speaks of all Canons of Councils as well as those of Trent is necessary to every one and that ratione medii for attaining Salvation For thus the Protestants will needs understand it a thing so irrational that any one may see that a Church that holds this must damn all or most of her children for who is there especially among the laity or vulgar that hath an actual knowledg or explicit faith of every Canon of every lawful General Council that hath been in the Church Yet is it not required by Pius of all men that they assent to this truth for their enjoying the Roman Communion but onely of those who enter into Sacred Orders or Religions But 5ly It may be noted also concerning this Bull of Pius which seems of a long time the main grievance of Protestants the main Apology for their
relinquishing the Roman communion and that in which she is chiefly charged to have violated the Unity of the Catholick Church ‖ Sâ—â—llin p. 55. that it came forth many years after the Protestants discession from this Church whether we look at Luther's or that under King Edward or the last under Queen Elisabeth and many years too after the birth of their XXXIX Articles made against the Roman Faith both after those composed under Edward VI. A. D. 1549 and reconfirmed under Queen Elisabeth 1562. This Bull not being made till 1564. So that herein they seem to take their chiefest excuse for their discession from that Church from a thing that hapned long after it as if they departed from it out of the foresight of an offense which though it then was not yet would be given them by it The 4th thing I have to observe to you touched before is §. 85. n. 7. Obs 4 that though the Church of England in her Synod affixeth not particular Anathemaes to her Articles as the Roman-Catholick doth in that of Trent with a Si quis dixerit c. Anathema sit yet the forementioned 5th Canon of this Church pronounceth in general an Excommunication to a Si quis affirmaverit that any of these Articles is in any part erroneous The weighty value of which Excommunication also you may learn out of their Art 33. These things premised §. 85. n. 8. now to speak briefly to the former Protestant-Defence made Resp to α. § 84. n. 1. c. To α I answer that by the instances in the Canons c. produced before § 83. n. 1. and some of the expressions § 84. n. 3. the Church-Governours intention in requiring this Subscription seems to be Assent To β That as the Church of England requires submission to her Articles onely from her own Children or Subjects So doth the Council of Trent whose Subjects if it be a general one ‖ Or which see Consid on Coun of Trent § 15 c. is all Christianity if a Patriarchal ‖ Of which see Ib § 43. all the Western Churches and amongst the rest that of England To γ That as subscription to the Articles in the Church of England is only required from those who are to be initiated into holy Orders or admitted to Ecclesiastical Preferments so is Pius's oath to the Canons only exacted from those who enter into sacred Orders or Religions But as the Anathemaes in the Council of Trent extend to all persons so doth the Excommunication of the Church of England Can. 5. To δ That though these are not penned with a particular Anathema yet they are with a general Excommunication Can. 5. To ε That as not by them to their Articles so neither by the Church of Rome to her Canons is subscription required as to Articles of her Faith or Articles Fundamental if Faith or Fundamental be understood in such a sense as the Protestant quotations above explain them This hath been shewed § 85. n. 5 6. To ξ By this it is confessed that of the 39 Articles no more are Articles of the Church of England's Faith than those only wherein Rome doth agree with her and then if to the rest of her Articles no assent be exacted of any as is contended above § 84. one in all things believing and being of the same perswasion with the Church of Rome is freely admitted into the Church of Englands Communion nay may without violation of her constitutions lawfully enter into her holy Orders and Ecclesiastical preferments and there remain without any engagement to defend the Church of England's Doctrine or teach and instruct the people against the Roman Errors To n That her Negative Articles involve Affirmatives and those too pretended divine Revelations see before § 85. n. 3. which are the objects of Faith and do bind so strictly on one side as the Roman Canons do on the other and supposing assent required to them do admit as little latitude of opinion and at Luther's appearance the matter of these Roman Canons being in possession as to the common belief and practice of the Church these Negatives of them of the two will prove the Innovations Lastly In what sense Protestants say these Negatives are no Articles of their Faith i. e. faith necessary ratione medii to salvation in the same sense the Roman Church saith neither are her Positives that contradict them To θ Of the many Canons in the Council of Trent made in opposition to them Luthers many errors and innovations of Doctrine which were daily collected and brought into the Council were the cause And as to the main Points that are in debate between the Church of Rome and of England the Negatives in the English Articles equal the Affirmatives in the Canons of Trent To χ Whether assent to the Articles be required in subscription or only non contradiction as to any uniform accord in their later Writers I see nothing clear and the later seems more agreeable with their Principles but in the former instances out of some Canons c. assent seems as strictly required in this Church and that upon Excommunication as in the Roman upon Anathemaes and the Act of Parliament Elisabeth 13. recited before § 83. n. 1. an Act passed not only by the Lords Temporal but Spiritual i. e. the Governours of this Church is most express for it Review it ‖ § 83. n 1. To λ § 85. n. 9. It is true also in the Roman Church that thought is free and Ecclesia non judicat de occultis or peccatis merè internis i. e. no way discovered but true also that the Ecclesiastical Magistrate may lawfully inquire into mens thoughts and beliefs and question a person herein for this is done in Baptism and that not only words are punishable as faults by this Magistrate but thoughts if any one shall reveal that he thinks so i. e. thoughts when they are any way discovered as any one upon examination manifesting any blasphemous thoughts or tenents of his may be lawfully excommunicated and in such a case is excommunicated not for the revealing them in word but for the holding them so who defignes a treason and afterward reveals it is justly punished not for the revealing but designing thereof and this the Church of Rome doth and if the Church of England extend not her Inquisition or censures thus far especially as to those persons she admits into the Clergy she may expect a Babel of Religions and dissenting judgements in points of greatest consequence under the mask of one external Communion To μ §. 85. n. 10. Only a conditional Assent required seems to signifie little for establishing unity of Faith or consent in Religion which tyes none so but that of two Subscribers one may absolutely assent another dissent the same person assent to day dissent to morrow And a Socinian confident of his opinion as freely subscribe as any other of the Reformed a Presbyterian
as I conceive satisfactory For 1st Had I an obligatior of submission of judgement to lawful General Councils you cannot prove this such a one and those the decrees thereof which are now extant with such a certainty as is necessary to build thereon an Article of my faith For to prove this you must satisfie me in all those things questioned concerning General Councils * by Mr. Chillingworth p. 94. * By Dr. Pierce in his answer to Mr. Cressy p. 18. c. * By Mr. Whitby from p. 428. to p. 433. where he concludes 1st That we never had a General Council 2ly That a General Council is a thing impossible * By Mr. Stillingfleet p. 508. c. 495. 119-123 c. Who also against the being of such a General Council as is the representative of the whole Church Catholick thus disputes †p. 515. 516. The representation of a Church saith he by a General Council is a thing not so evident from whence it should come for if such representative of the whole Church there be it must either be so by some formal act of the Church or by a tacite consent It could not be by any formal act of the Church for then there must be some such act of the universal Church preceding the being of any General Council by which they receive their Commission to appear in behalf of the universal Church Now that the universal Church did ever agree in any such act is utterly impossible to be demonstrated either that it could be or that it was But if it be said that such a formal act is not necessary but the tacite consent of the whole Church is sufficient for it then such a consent of the Church must be made evident by which they did devolve over the power of the whole Church to such a Representative And all those must consent in that act whose power the Council pretends to have of which no footsteps appear The utmost then saith he that can be supposed in this case is that the parts of the Church may voluntarily consent to accept of the decrees of such a Council and by that voluntary act or by the supreme authority enjoyning it such decrees may become obligatory Thus he But I suppose its decrees obligatory then only to those parts of the Church that voluntarily consent to accept of them which the Arrians did not to receive the Decrees of Nice 2ly Though it be shewed a lawful General Council representing the whole Church as it ought if such yet what obligation can there lye upon me of consenting to it since it may err even in Fundamentals if it be not universally accepted as indeed this Council was not for several Bishops there were that were dissenters in the Council and many more afterward †See before § 13. 3ly Were it universally accepted yet unless you can shew me by some means that this point wherein I differ from its judgment is a fundamental or necessary point to salvation both it and the Catholick Church also that accepts it may err therein 4ly The judgement of this Council seems justly declinable also on this account That whereas the Guides of the Church many years before this Council were divided in their opinion Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria and Hosius a Favourite of the Emperors heading one party and Arrius and the Bishops adhering to him whom I mentioned formerly †§. 13. heading another and whereas afterward in the prosecution of this difference both the foresaid Alexander in one Provincial Council held in Egypt and Hosius sent thither by the Emperor in another had there condemned Arrius and his Confederates yet so it was ordered that in this General Council assembled for an equal hearing and decision of this Controversie of these two professed Enemies to the other party the one Hosius was appointed to sit as President of this Council and the other Alexander held in it the next place to him and poor Arrius excluded and the Bishops who favoured him in the Council though at first freely declaring their dissent yet at last over-awed to a subscription as also was Arrius himself chiefly by the Emperor Constantine's overbearing authority who before somewhat indifferent in the contest yet upon Arrius his undutiful and too peremptory letters had some years before taken great offence at him and also as he was very eloquent publickly written against him †See Baronius A. D. 318 319. Which over-awing hence appears in that the same Bishops that were adherents to Arrius when this Emperor being deceased Constantius his son countenanced their cause returned I say not to their former opinion only but to their publick profession of it By which we may guess that if the Controversie had at that time been committed to equal and disingaged Judges and such as had not formerly shewed themselves a party or if the Oriental Bishops without any fear of the Prince upon them might have given free votes and the Arrian cause then had a Constantius instead of a Constantine things wherein Protestants well understand me because on the same grounds they have rejected the Council of Trent we may presume then the issue would have been under Constantine the same that it was under his Successor I say before Judges equal and indifferent and not such as were before a party though this party should be compounded of the chief superior Prelates of the Church For as Mr. Stillingfleet urgeth †p. 478. We must either absolutely and roundly assert that it is impossible that the superiors in the Church may be guilty of any error or corruption or that if they be they must never be called to an account for it or else that it may be just in some cases to except against them as parties And if in some cases then the question comes to this whether the present he speaks of Idolatry I of Consubstantiality be some of these cases or no And here if we make those superiors Judges again what you grant before comes to nothing Prot. I perceive Mr. Chillingworth's observation is right †p. 60. That in controversies in Religion it is in a manner impossible to be avoided but the Judge must be a party I add also that in matters of Religion where every man is concerned and in great Controversies especially where is any division of Communion all both Laity and Clergy speedily own and range themselves on one side or other Clergy interessing themselves for the necessary direction of their Subjects Laity in obedience to their Superiors neither can such a Judge be nominated that is not to one side suspected So that in controversies of Religion we must deny any Judge as he did †Ib. §. 17. or this plea that the ordinary Judge that is assigned us 〈◊〉 is a party must not be easily hearkened to § 19 Soc. But I have not yet said all For 5ly Were there none of the forenamed defects in it †Whitby p. 15 Stillingf
superiors the condition of whose Communion containes nothing really erroneous or sinful though the doctrine so proposed as the condition of their Communion be apprehended by him to whom it is thus proposed to be false remaines in Schism Soc. And at this rate all those who separate from the Church requiring their assent to what is indeed a truth will be Schismaticks and that whether in a point fundamental or not Fundamental though they have used all the industry all the means they can except this the relying on their Superiors judgment not to err unless you will say that all truths even not Fundamental are in Scripture so clear that none using a right industry can neither err in them which no Chillingworth hath maintained hitherto § 34 Prot. But we may let this pass for your separation was in a point perspicuous enough in Scripture and so you void of such excuse was in a point Essential and Fundamental and in which a wrong belief destroyes any longer Communion of a particular Person or Church with the Catholick Soc. This I utterly deny nor see I by what way this can ever be proved against me for you can assigne no Ecclesiastical Judge that can distinguish Fundamentals Necessaries or Essentials from those points that are not so as hath been shewed already And as Mr. Stillingfleet †p. 73. urgeth concerning Heresie so may I concerning Schism What are the measures whereby we ought to judge what things are essential to the being of Christianity or of the Church Whether must the Churches judgment be taken or every mans own judgment if the former the Ground of Schism lies still in the Churches definition contrary to what Protestants affirm if the latter then no one can be a Schismatick but he that opposeth that of which he is or may be convinced that it is a Fundamental or essential matter of Faith If he be only a Schismatick that opposeth that of which he is convinced then no man is a Schismatick but he that goes against his present judgment and so there will be few Schismaticks in the world If he that opposeth that which he may be convinced of then again it is that which he may be convinced of either in the Churches judgment or in his own if in the Churches it comes to the same issue as in the former If in his own how I pray shall I know that I may be convinced of what using a due indeavour I am not convinced already or how shall I know when a due industry is used and if I cannot know this how should I ever settle my self unless it be upon Authority which you allow not Again I am taught that any particular whether person or Church may judge for themselves with the Judgment of Discretion And in the matter of Christian Communion †Stillingf p. 292. That nothing can be more unreasonable than that the Society Suppose it be a Council imposing conditions of its Communion Suppose the Council of Nice imposing Consubstantialiity so should be Judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no And especially in this case where a considerable Body of Christians judg such things required to be unlawful conditions of communion what justice or reason is there that the party accused should sit judg in his own cause Prot. By this way no Separatist can ever be a Schismatick if he is constituted the judge whether the reason of his separation is just Soc. And in the other way there can never be any just cause of separation at all if the Church-Governors from whom I separate are to judge whether that be an error for which I separate § 35 Prot. It seems something that you say But yet though upon such consideration a free use of your own judgment as to providing for your own Salvation is granted you yet methinks in this matter you have some greater cause to suspect it since several Churches having of late taken liberty to examine by Gods Word more strictly the corrupt doctrins of former ages yet these reformed as well as the other unreformed stand opposit to you and neither those professing to follow the Scriptures nor those professing to follow Tradition and Church authority neither those requiring strict obedience and submission of judgment nor those indulging Christian liberty countenance your doctrin But you stand also reformers of the reformation and separated from all Soc. Soft a little Though I stand separated indeed from the present unreformed Churches or also if you will from the whole Church that was before Luther yet I both injoy the external Communion and think I have reason to account my self a true member of the Churches reformed and as I never condemned them or thought Salvation not attainable in them so neither am I that I know of excluded by or from them so long as I retain my opinion in silence and do not disturbe their peace and I take my selfe also on these termes to be a member in particular of the Church of England wherein I have been educated For all these Churches as confessing themselves fallible in their decrees do not require of their Subjects to yeeld any internal assent to their doctrines or to profess any thing against their conscience and in Hypocrisie and do forbear to use that tyranny upon any for injoying their Communion which they so much condemn in that Church from which for this very thing they were forced to part Communion and to reform Of this matter thus Mr. Whitby †p. 100. Whom did our Convocations ever damn for not internally receiving their decrees Do they not leave every man to the liberty of his judgment They do not require that we should in all things believe as they believe but that we should submit to their determination and not contradict them their decisions are not obtruded as infallible Oracles but only submitted to in order to peace and unity So that their work is rather to silence than to determine disputes c. and p. 438. We grant a necessity or at least a convenience of a Tribunal to decide controversies but how Not by causing any person to believe what he did not antecedently to these decrees upon the sole authority of the Council but by silencing our disputes and making us acquiesce in what is propounded without any publick opposition to it keeping our opinions to our selves A liberty of using private discretion in approving or rejecting any thing as delivered or not in Scripture we think ought to be allowed for faith cannot be compelled and by taking away this liberty from men we should force them to become Hypocrites and so profess outwardly what inwardly they disbelieve And see Mr. Stillingfleets rational account p. 104. where speaking of the obligation to the 39. Articles he saith That the Church of England excommunicates such as openly oppose her doctrin supposing her fallible the Roman Church excommunicates all who will not believe whatever she defines to be infallibly
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
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
as Dr. Field It is that forme of Christian doctrine and Explication of the several parts thereof ‖ Of the Ch. P. 375. which the first Christians receiving of the same Apostles that delivered to them the Scriptures commended to posterity Thus he This then being the Tradition that is chiefly vindicated by the Roman Church it is not the deficiency of Scripture as to all the main and prime and universally necessary-to-be-known Articles of faith as if there were any necessity that these be supplied and compleated with other not written traditional Doctrines of Faith that Catholicks do question but the non-clearness of Scriptures for several of these points such as that they may be miss-understood which non-câ—earness of them infers a necessity of making use of the Church's tradition for a true exposition and sence is the thing that they assert and wonder that after the appearance of so many grievous Heresies and should deny For as to the Scriptures containing all the chief and material Points of a Christian's belief what Article of Faith is there except that concerning the Canon of Scripture which Protestants also grant cannot be learnt out of Scripture and excepting those Practicals wherein the Church only requiring a Belief of the Lawfulness of them it is enough if they cannot be shewed to be against Scripture I say what Speculative Article of Faith is there for which Catholicks rest meerly on unwritten Tradition and do not for it alledge Scripture I mean even that Canon of Scripture which Protestants allow A thing observed also by Dr. Field ‖ l. 4. c. 20. but too much extended This is so clear saith he That there is no matter of Faith 't is granted no principal point thereof delivered by bare and only Tradition that therein the Romanists contrary themselves endeavouring to prove by Scripture the same things they pretend to hold by Tradition as we shall find if we run through the things questioned between them and us they contrary not themselves in their holding several things to be delivered clearly by Tradition which are also but obscurely or more evadably contained in the words of Scripture Again ‖ Ib. p. 377. So that for matters of Faith saith he we may conclude according to the judgment of the best and most learned of our Adversaries themselves that there is nothing to be believed which is not either expresly contained in Scripture or at least by necessary consequence from thence and by other things evident in the light of Nature or in the matter of Fact to be concluded Thus he I say then not this whether the main or if you will the entire body of the Christian Faith as to all points necessary by all to be explicitly believed be contained there but this whether so clearly that the unlearned using a right diligence cannot therein mistake or do not need therein another Guide is the thing here contested § 41 For a particular Reply then to what is here said To α 1st I ask if all Necessaries be clearly revealed R. to α and all necessary Controversies clearly decided in Scripture even to the unlearned how have Controversies in Necessaries as concerning the Trinity our Lord's Deity and Humanity c. in several Ages arose and gained many Followers Here will they say that such Controversies are not in Necessaries How then came the first General Councils extolled by Protestants to put them in the Creed or to exact Assent to them upon Anathema which Councils they affirm in non-necessaries fallible and in what they are fallible unjustly imposing Assent Or will they say that they are in Necessaries and that the unlearned may easily discern and decide them and that not by Tradition but only Scripture How happened it then that heretofore so many learned unlearned when forsaking the Church's guidance erred in them But if they say this hapned for want of a due diligence in the search of the Scriptures thus they leave men in great perplexity when the Scripture is plain and only obscure to them through their negligent search and so when the point perhaps may be necessary Thus an illiterate Christian not discerning from clear Scripture whether Sociniansme or Anti-Socinianisme be the Catholick Faith which he is very sollicitous to live and die in and consulting them concerning it they tell him there is no other director left him besides Scripture whose Judgment he may securely follow the judgment of the Church or Councils here being waved by them because this judgment allowed or authorized will infer the Belief of some other points which they approve not Only this satisfaction they seem to leave him that if neither side be clear to him in Scripture neither much matters it which side he holds for truth For God say they hath there clearly revealed all necessaries But he enquiring further whether they do not firmly believe Anti-Socinianism and also ground their Faith of this upon the Clearness of Scripture in it And then it appearing to them clear in Scripture how they know but that it may be a necessary truth and so his salvation ruined if he believe the contrary Here what they can answer that will not more perplex him I see not Since so long as he may possibly fail in a due diligence though only required according to his condition he cannot be satisfied whether the point to every due Searcher be not clear in Scripture and also be not a Necessary Nor yet will they allow him any other certain Director in it but the same Scripture which appears to him ambiguous Hear what Mr. Stillingfleet interposeth in this matter It seems reasonable saith he ‖ Ration account p. 58. that because Art and Subtilty may be used by such who seek to pervert the Catholick Doctrine and to wrest the plain places of Scripture which deliver it so far from their proper meaning that very few ordinary capacities may be able to clear themselves to such Mists as are cast before their eyes the sence of the Catholick Church in succeeding ages may be a very useful way But why not a necessary way I pray upon the former supposa for us to embrace the true sence of Scripture especially in the great Articles of the Christian Faith As for instance in the Doctrine of the Deity of Christ or the Trinity Therefore you see in the greatest Articles Scriptures confessed not so plain especially to the unlearned and ordinary capacities § 42 2 ly If all Necessaries so clearly revealed in Scripture may we not so much the more securely and certainly rely on the judgment of our Ecclesiastical Guides and Teachers in them to whom they must needs be as or more plain than to us especially on their Judgment when assembled in a General Council on it for these Necessaries at least It seems no and that the case is now altered Even now Necessaries were so plain in Scripture as the unlearned using ordinary diligence could not mistake in them Now Necessaries are
is so great and considerable as to invalidate the ratification of the rest when not Nor see I how it can be reasonably defided yet a thing of greatest consequence unless herein the minor will be content to follow the judgment of the much major part concerning what Councils stand thus admitted or rejected which rule were it observed then both in a valid acceptance of the Councils held in the Western Church in latter ages Protestants will be cast and by the determinations of those Councils several of their Disputes ended Mean while upon these and other pretences so it is that of 16. Councils or thereabouts reckoned up by the Cardinal ‖ De Council l. 1. c 5. whose Decrees all the Western Churches wherein several of these Councils the most General that those times could afford were called for ending of some Controversies that both a rose in and troubled only the West of 16. Councils I say which the Western Parts generally accepted when Luther appeared and which all the rest of the Western Churches except these Reformers continue still to approve they allow none of them that have handled matters of Controversie wherein the present times are concerned after the four first or the 5 th and 6 th but then cutting off here the Canons made in Trullo even those wherein both East and West consented and so do allow none of any note that have been held in the Church for near this 1000 years there being none of the more famous of them and the acts whereof are exstant wherein something hath not been passed that is contrary to the present Protestant Tenents ‖ See 1 Disc §. 50. n. 2. § 38 9ly To the Decrees of these General Council also when universally acknowledged such which yet when so they say may err in non necessaries they grant indeed an obedience due by all Inferiors Persons or Churches And consequently to those Decrees in which they hold such Councils unerrable i. e. in necessaries if all these necessaries were certainly distinguishable from all other points that are not so they must allow due an obedience of assent § 39 But 10ly They allow not absolutely This obedience of assent to their decrees ‖ Stillingf p. 506. but onely where inferiors see just cause of dissenting as sometimes they say they may since all these Councils are liable to error in non-fundamentals which also it is not known how far they do extend that of silence and non-publick contradiction § 40 The Church of England indeed professeth her Assent to the Definitions of the first four General Councils and Mr. Stillingfleet I know not on what Protestant ground saith ‖ P. 375. It is her duty to keep their Decrees and be guided by the sence of Scripture as interpreted by them But you may observe that this assent is not yeilded to those Councils because lawfully general and so presumed to be assisted by our Lord in the right defining and delivery of all necessary Faith for they say lawful General Councils not universally accepted in their sence may err in Fundamentals and those Councils that are universally accepted may err in Non-fundamentals but because the matter defined by them the Church of England being for Her self judge hereof ought to be assented to as being agreeable to the Scriptures and the Assent * is not yeilded for the Authority defining as infallibly assisted in necessaries but for the seeming evidence of the thing defined or at least for the non-appearing evidence of the contrary * is not yeilded because that particular persons or Churches are to take that for the true sence of Scripture which these Councils may possibly give of it but because those Councils gave in their Definitions that sence of Scripture which such particular Persons or Churches judge the true so that the reason which they give for their Assent to these General Councils obligeth as much their Assent to them had they been Provincial And upon the same terms as one person or Church assents to these Councils because they judge their Decrees consonant to Gods Word another without withdrawing any due obedience may dissent who judgeth the contrary and the authority or decision laies on Christians no ground of obligation as to belief save the reasonableness or non-appearing unreasonableness of the Councils Doctrines and submission of judgement is held not lawfully yeilded by any to whom the contrary seems evident and by all others is to be only conditional viz. until the contrary shall appear evident To this purpose §. 41. n. 1. see the 21 Article of the Church of England General Councils may err wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation have neither strength nor authority unless it may be declared that they were taken out of holy Scripture See the Act of Parliament 1 Elizabethae c. 1. wherein the determing or adjudging any thing Heresie by any Council is thus limited If in such Council the same is declared Heresie by the express and plain words of the Canonical Scriptures The words are Provided that such persons c. shall not have authority to determine any matters to be Heresie but only such as heretofore have been determined ordered or adjudged to be Heresie by the authority of the Canonical Scriptures or by the first four General Councils or any of them or by any other General Councils wherein the same was declared Heresie by the Express and plain words of the said Canonical Scriptures And see in Soave p. 344. 366. the exceptions taken by Protestants at the safe-conduct of the Council of Trent for not adding to the authority of Councils and Fathers fundantesse veraciter in Scriptura as it run formerly in the safe-conduct of Basil That the Councils Fathers c. conformable to the Scripture should be Judges by which means the Protestants reserved this retreat when Councils appeared against them that yet they were not obliged by them because these Councils went also against the Scriptures See Dr. Fern Consid p. 19. To all the determinations of the Church we owe submission by Assent and belief conditional with reservation for evidence out of Gods Word and In matters of Faith saith he we cannot submit to any company of men by resignation of our judgement and belief or standing bound to receive for faith and worship all that they shall define and impose for such for such resignation gives to man what is due to God See Arch-bishop Laud p. 245. General Councils lawfully called c. cannot err keeping themselves to Gods Rule And p. 239. In all truth necessary to Salvation saith he I shall easily grant a General Council cannot err if suffering it self to be led by the Spirit of Truth in the Scripture and not taking upon it to lead both the Scripture and the Spirit See Dr. Field p. 666. It is not necessary for us expresly to believe whatsoever the Council hath concluded though it be true unless by some other means it appear unto us
clear sayings of one or two of these Fathers truly alledged by us to the contrary will certainly prove that what many of them suppose it do affirm and which but two or three as good Catholicks as the other do deny was not then matter of Faith or Doctrine of the Church for if it had these had been Hereticks accounted and would not have remained in the Communion of the Church Thus with him if one or two of the Ancients that are not therefore at that time accounted Hereticks for it can be shewed to dissent the concurrence of all the rest is held not sufficient to prove a Catholick Doctrine in a matter of Faith nor such an accord of them sufficient to be called a Catholick consent or such as that all maintaining the contrary thereof after it is declared by a Council to be such a Catholick Doctrine will be Heresie Whereas contrary it is manifest both that some Dissenters from a Catholick Doctrine of Faith especially if not so universally evident as some others are or a consequential that is in those times not so much considered are not therefore guilty of Heresie before a more publick declaration and clearing of such points by a Council witness S. Cyprian in the Point of Non rebaptization and yet that the Doctrine may be truly called Catholick before the Council and the Dissenters also perhaps not free from a culpable ignorance therein For if the dissent of some few Fathers in the Council as in that of Nice or Chalcedon hinders not that a Point may be declared then a Catholick Doctrine neither doth the dissent of some few Fathers before the Council hinder that then it was not a Catholick Doctrine But to return to Mr. Stillingfleet Such conditions they say must the Point have in which the Church-Catholick is unerring and the obligation to believe and conform to which is universal and the opposite whereof is Heresie which conditions if you please to apply to the Articles of Faith opposing the Arrian Nestorian or Pelagian Hereticks you shall finde scarce any of them but that the Opposers thereof upon a deficiency in some of these requisites may withdraw his obedience thereto without any guilt of Heresie But 2 ly They leave us also still uncertain which or how many these Fundamentals or necessaries are Or who shall judge what points have or have not such an universal attestation as they require from the Church and therefore they leave us also uncertain what is or is not Heresie leave us also uncertain by whose sentence and judgment such Hereticks may be restrained proceeded against and punished since they hold Councils no certain Judge concerning these Points what are necessary and Fundamentals or universally attefted what not and likewise since they hold these Fundamentals as to private men varying according to a sufficient proposal of them more Points being Fundamental to one than to another ‖ Chill p. 137. Still P. 98.99 and consequently Heresie in opposing them varying accordingly they having cast off also that of the Church from being a sufficient proposal of any ones conviction therein § 53 And indeed if 1 st Protestants maintain that no Councils or Church without tyranny may require belief or internal assent from their Subjects to their Definitions or Articles of Religion a practice much exclaimed against in the Church of Rome and if I misunderstand them not denied to be lawful by several reformed And 2 ly this be granted that the holding of a Tenent contrary to some Fundamental Point and not only the outward profession and publick maintaining of such a Tenent is Heresie I see not how the reformed Churches though they should declare a particular Tenent to be an Heresie yet can discover any Heretick whatever unless he voluntarily publish his Heresie nor how they can or do remove any such out of their Communion or also sacred Orders if 1 neither those who hold such Heretical opinions stand anathematized by their Canons nor there may be the exacting from such entring into Orders a confession of their belief or an acknowledgement of any internal assent to their Articles of Religion Both which for such Points are the practise of the Catholick Church But if it be maintained that this also is the practise of the reformed Churches or at least this of England why is the requiring of such assent to and belief of the contrary of that which she deems Heresie blamed in the Roman § 54 Lastly the description which is made by Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ p. 153. of that Catholick Church which our Blessed Saviour instituted in the world mentioned before § 41. seems to take away all such Judge upon the earth by whom Heresie can be discovered or made known for if the Church-Governors cannot prescribe infallibly i.e. infallibly without mistake for there is no need that infallibly here signifie any thing more in any Controversie on which side is Divine Truth but That men are to be left herein to judge for themselves according to Scripture that is what seems to them out of Scripture to be truth because saith he overy one is bound to take care of his soul and of all things that tend thereto Then neither could the Fathers of Nice Judge concerning the Consubstantiality of the Son a thing strongly questioned and put it into the Creed Nor those of Ephesus and Chalcedon judge so concerning one person of our Lord and 2. natures and put these in the Creed Judge I say so as that others can be obliged to hold that to be Heresie in these points which they pronounce so Nor was there then any way to convince the Arrians infallibly of Heresie but that they are still to be left to judge for themselves as bound to take care for their own souls and of all things that tend thereto The same may be said much more concerning Pelagianism and other errors formerly condemned for Heresie which do expresly oppose no Articles in our Creeds By this way then an Ecclesiastical restraint of external profession there may be but none of belief or opinions nor obstinacy in holding them where no Obligation acknowledged to hold otherwise This of those who express Heresie as an obstinate error against some Fundamental or necessary article of faith universally attested such by the Church in the manner before mentioned But Dr. Hammond ‖ Of Heresie §. 2.11 n p. 70. somewhat more condescending and enlarging the compass of Heresie though he makes it indeed to be an opposition of the Faith in any one or more branches of it by way of Emphasis and excellence that was once delivered to the Saeints and that was set out by Christ or his Apostles from him to be by all Men belâ—eved to their Righteousness and confest to their Salvation And an opposition of such faith saith he ‖ §. 5. n. 2. as descends to us from the Apostles by a Catholick Testimony truly such i. e. universally in all respects 1 of place 2
whatever she defines to be infallibly true And The Church of England bindeth men to peace to the Churches Determinations reserving to men the liberty of their judgements on pain of Excommunication if they violate that peace And Mr. Chillingworth saith ‖ P. 375. That Protestants cannot with coherence to their own grounds require of others the belief of any thing besides Scripture and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it without most high and most Schismatical presumption plain irrefragable indubitable consequences such therefore cannot be the most of the 39. Articles we know by how great a part of Christianity controverted denied Lastly thus the Arch-bishop answering to the fifth Canon of the Church of England objected by A. C. ‖ P. 51. It's one thing for a man to hold an opinion privately within himself and another thing boldly and publickly to affirm it as if that Canon prohibited only the latter of these This then seems of late the commoner exposition of subscription and most suitable to the Protestant Principles 8. But 8 ly Some other expressions also fall from the same Writers §. 84. n. 3. and others intimating assent required For 1 st The Arch-bishop saith concerning the fifth Article that perhaps only publick affirmation is the sence of it but speaks nothing clearly against assent required by it and I suppose he saw good reason for it I pray you view the place in him So in the precedent page he saith The Church of England is not such a shrew to her Children as to deny her blessing or denounce and Anathema against them if some peaceably dissent in some particulars remoter from the Foundation Where this restriction remoter from the Foundation seems so to indulge dissent in respect of some of the 39. Articles as that she doth not allow it generally in respect of them all unless any will say all the Articles are such So Mr. Whitby ‖ P. 100. in his Answer to Mr. Cressy amongst other ifs puts in this for one If they the English Church-Governours require a positive assent it is because the thing determined is to be evident in Scripture c. We do use saith Bishop Bramball ‖ Reply p. 349. to subscribe unto them indeed not as Articles of Faith but as Theological verities is not this a subscribing that they assent to or hold them for Theological verities So p. 264. We do require Ecclesiastical persons only to subscribe them as Theological Truths for the preservation of unity among us and the extirpation of some growing errors and Mr. Stillingfleet useth the same expression from him To subscribe them as Theological Truths meaneth he not here to subscribe that they are Theological Truths For the preservation of unity means he not unity of Opinion and of the Profession of such Truths As the title also prefixed to the Articles mentioned before ‖ §. 83. n. 1. imports saying That the Articles were drawn up for the avoiding diversities of Opinions and establishing consent Else where diversity of Opinion is allowed in all things what extirpation of errours which follows in the next words can be hoped 9. μ Lastly §. 84. n. 4. I find frequent mention in these Authors of a conditional assent or belief required in general as due to the Churches proposals whether concerning matters of Faith or other constitutions yet without any particular application thereof to the 39. Articles Conditional viz. Then * when a person is not competent to search her grounds or * where the Church adheres to and forsakes no part of the Apostles depofitum or * when she proveth and evidenceth to them the truth of what she proposeth or * so long as they cannot evidence and prove to her the contrary But then they leave the judgement of this condition when she sufficiently proves such a thing or they the contrary when the party is not competent to search grounds or when the Church adheres not to the Apostles Depositum to themselves and not to the Church reserving to every private person the ultimate judgement a judgement of discretion as they call it See Dr. Ferne's Case between the two Churches p. 40.48 49. Division of Churches p. 45.47 61. Considerations p. 19. Dr. Feild p. 666. Dr. Jackson on the Creed l. 2. § 1. c. 5. 6. out of which see some Quotations before § 20. Dr. Hammond's answer to a Catholick Gentleman p. 16.17 Dispatcher dispatched c. 5. p. 358. Having seen this defence of Learned Protestants for the Church of England her composing new Articles of Religion §. 85. n. 1. and exacting of her Subjects subscription and conformity to them wherein they endeavour to represent the Yoke of these her Articles and her Excommunications very light though the Presbyterians groan under the weight thereof in comparison of that of the Roman Canons and their Anathemas Now give me leave to make some reflection on what they have said and out of these to return answers to the precedents so far as it seems necessary Obs 1 1 st Then this is clear that they confining their Rule of Faith within as narrow a compass as they please yet some of their 39. Articles will be found to be a part of it and to be such supernatural truths as are necessary to be known of every Christian necessitate medii and such as extra quo◠non est salus as well as some of those in Pius's Bull or in the Council of Trent are Of this sort must several of the 1 st 8. Articles be concerning the Trinity Son of God c. And I ask whether they are not willing that some other of them as 8. The fall of Adam 18. Salvation only by Christ 15. Christ only without sin 11 Justification by Faith 25.27 Two Sacraments ordained by Christ and these not only bare signs but effectual Instruments of Grace 6. Sufficiency of the holy Scripture for Salvation be admitted into the Rule of the Protestants Faith but thrown amongst Theological and inferior verities Since then it is most certain that some of their Articles are part of their Rule and of the most necessary and fundamental Faith Next I ask concerning these whether in the liberty they profess in their Church and the want of it they accuse in the Roman they require no assent from their Subjects or at least from those of them whom they admit to H. Orders and Ecclesiastical Preferments to these Articles or whether they do not require them to profess and teach all or some of them at least which they cannot do unless they also oblige them to hold them for none may profess against what he thinks and therefore who is tyed by them to profess so is by them tyed to think so But if they do not require such assent then may one that holds against them the 〈◊〉 Doctrines in several of the prime Articles of their Faith not only enjoy their Communion but sit down among their Doctors only if as he believeth professeth
as a Prelatist For since the judgment here concerning the condition viz. when the Church proves what she proposeth or when the Subscriber proves the contrary when he is competent to search grounds or the Church unfaithful in conserving her Depositum is left not to the Church but to the Subscriber it casts the assent and dissent also wholly into his dâ—sposal and arbitrement and note here also that who may require only a conditional assent can likewise exact only in such points as are practical a conditional conformity i. e. that none be absolutely enjoyned to practice such a thing but onely upon supposition that the Church first prove it to him lawful to be done or that he cannot prove it to the Church to be unlawful or that he is a person unable to searth the grounds of the lawfulness or unlawfulness thereof c. of which conditioâ—s himself also not the Church is judg For otherwise he that obligeth a person absolutely to the performance of a thing obligeth him also absolutely to the believing that thing lawful to be done which later the Church of England not owning neither may she the first and who ought to have his liberty for the one ought so for the other too Now 't is ordinary in the English Canons to require upon pain of Excommunication conformity to her Constitutions where had this secret been known to the Presbyterians that it is understood onely of such a conditional conformity I suppose there would have been no cause of their forbearing subscription or complaining of the English Church-Laws their being as rigorous and unjust as those of Rome Thus I have made a search into the obedience §. 85. n. 11. which is required of her Subjects by a Church that seems not well grounded in her authority by reason that having disjoyned herself from that which she acknowledgeth was formerly the Catholick Church and from Superior Councils she can neither lay claim to that Infallibility in necessaries which from our Lords perpetual superintendency resides in the whole as all members throughly consenting with the whole and guided by it do lay claim to such Infallibility and therefore do require obedience from their Subjects in the same manner as the whole doth as to all such doctrines wherein they agree with the whole nor can she standing apart and alledging the reason of it the former Churches errors have the confidence to claim a new Infallibility to herself and therefore it is no wonder if there seem some uncertainty what obedience she requireth where there is what authority she possesseth and where such obedience is grounded rather on the pretended clear evidence of the matter proposed than the soveraign and undeclinable authority of the Proposer Meanwhile whether she challengeth an obedience of assent from her Subjects §. 85. n. 12. or that of non-contradiction I see not how she can be justified by the Laws of the Church or by her own Principles For 1st By the Laws of the Church if she justly require assent from her and was she not in conscience obliged to yield it These as well as she determining nothing but what they think a clear truth Or can she blame the fallible Church of Rome for requiring assent to her Canons upon Anathema when she fallible requires the same upon Excommunication For the disparities that are made here have been formerly answered and any evidence or certainty Protestants pretend for those Doctrines to which they require assent the Roman Church pleads the like for hers and so sub judice lis est Concerning this hear Mr. Chillingw †p. 375. Any thing besides Scripture and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it I suppose he means appearing such not onely to the Church-Governors but their Subjects and that all the 39 Articles have not such an evidence well may Protestants hold it as matter of opinion but as matter of Faith and Religion neither can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it themselves nor require the belief of it of others without most high and most schismatical presumption But 2ly If laying assent aside onely a non-contradiction of her Articles or a non-affirmation that they are any way erroneous is required upon excommunication of the person so offending yet neither will this be justifiable by the Laws of the Church for no Canon of a National Synod can justly pronounce Excommunication on any for affirming so many points in their Articles erroneous as have been determined by Superior Councils a General or a Patriarchal Synod contrarily For example It is not lawfull for a National Synod in England to excommunicate a person for affirming their Articles erroneous in denying Transubstantiation because this hath been determined affirmatively by many former Superior Synods accepted by the whole Western Church as is shewed before 1. Disc § 57. which therefore oblige Christians to the belief and profession of it against the Decrees of any Inferior Western Synod Neither 2ly Do they seem to inflict Excommunication on every one that affirms any of their Articles erroneous without condemning their own Principles because what they say of General Councils is as true I suppose for their own Synods viz. That they may err grosly and manifestly in which case they say one may lawfully affirm these Councils in such thing erroneous else how can they ever be corrected See before § 43 44. c. The case therefore is the same as to their own Synods And then for what they say a person may lawfully do they cannot lawfully excommunicate him But if it be replyed §. 85. n. 13. that their Synods challenge an obedience of non contradiction onely to what they are certain is truth and therefore none may lawfully in such case contradict them or affirm they err 1st It follows they may upon the same terms require assent also of which they seem more shie But 2ly As theirs plead certainty so do other Councils whom yet they will not excuse upon this pretence for requiring assent as hath been but now said 3ly It seems unreasonable that a certainty either from the sense of Scripture necessary Deduction former universal Tradition or any other way should be pretended by a particular Church in any such matters from which a major part of Christianity perusing the same evidences dissents †Disc 2 §. 5. Disc 4 § 11 12. such as are several of the 39 Articles 4ly Protestants themselves affirm that those who are certain of truth yet may not require an absolute but conditional assent from others who first know them in general to be fallible and next do not know or have it not proved to them that in this particular they dot err See before § 85. n. 10. And the same they say for non-contradiction required that it must be onely conditional i. e. if the contrary truth to the error defined do not appear to the Churches Subjects necessary to be divulged Meanwhile it is not denied which was also
Church or in such representation to be infallible But 2ly Neither can it be made evident that the universal Church de facto hath either by a formal act or by a tacit consent devolved either its infallibility or its whole power and authority on or given any commission to any General Council to appear in behalf of the universal Church which Commission must precede the being of such a Council and also is necessary not only to the first but toties quoties to every General Council but that the universal Church did ever agree in any such act is utterly impossible to be demonstrated either that it was or could be 3ly Neither suppose it had such a delegation yet can this representative upon this lay title to our Lords or to any divine institution of which there cannot be produced one tittle from Scripture of Christs conveying over the Churches power to it or any particular order from the Apostles concerning it but only to the Church's i. e. humane institution And if we enquire thus instituted what authority it hath The utmost saith Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ p. 510. that can be supposed is this That the parts of the Church i. e. such parts whom by their delegation and chusing of them the persons in the Council represent may voluntarily consent to accept of the decrees of such a Council and by that voluntary act or by the supreme authority enjoyning it such decrees may become obligatory Thus he And thus I think the authority of General Councils is sufficiently pared 1 Their authority only delegative from that Body which yet they pretend to bind by their acts 2. None of them a representative of the whole which neither hath nor can make any such representative 3. Commissioned by some parts of the Church only 4. The promises of divine assistance as to infallibility not made to them if any made but only to the whole diffusive Body of the Church Catholick from whose laws let us but take away Councils Protestants are secure enough 5. Nor possible by the Church diffusive to be made over or assigned to them 6. These not of our Lords nor Apostolical but only humane institution 7. Obligatory only to those parts of the Church who voluntarily consent to accept of their Decrees One would suspect that General Councils have been no great friends to Protestantism when they put in so many bars to keep out their Decrees from annoying the Reformation Men seldom vilifie an Authority that favours them § 92 To this I answer 1st That the Church Governours whenever assembled in Council do act by the self same authority received from our Lord and from their Divine Institution by which they act singly in their several charges and that all the rest of the Church Catholick are their subjects obliged in all duty to them as much when con-as dis-joyned For as Dr. Hammond answers the Catholick Gentleman ‖ p. 27 28. in clearing of himself that his mentioning of Schism against Bishops Metropolitans and Primats involved also Schism against the Councils compounded of all these It is evident that this Power which severally belongs to these Bishops is united in that of the Councils compounded of them and so the despising of that the power of such Councils is an offense under the first sort of Schism and a breach of the subordination to all the rancks of our Ecclesiastical Superiours What authority then and whence they had it singly they have united Neither is this their authority either in their several Provinces or in their Synods delegative save from Christ and his Apostles § 63 2. Next That they are not pretended to have their infallibility in necessaries by any assignment from the Church diffusive but that they have it immediately from the divine promises made principally and primarily to them to whom is committed the feeding of our Lords sheep for ever and the guiding them in the right way of which see Disc 1. § 7.14 and that the Church diffusive is therefore unerring for ever in necessaries because these Guides are so and the reason why the gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church the building is because in the chief place they shall not prevail against these Pastors and Teachers the Rocks and Foundations whereon it is built And if such promise made primarily to them then surely made to them in this their most comprehensive capacity when all joyned together If at any time the Church in the Acts ‖ cap. 15 28. might use the stile Visum est Spiritui sancto nobis then in their general assembly and when they were collecti in unum ‖ ver 25. every smaller meeting of them or also every single person seeming muchless capable thereof and if this inerrability necessary to them in any manner at all most necessary in these highest Courts to which ultimately all others do appeal and whose Laws all are bound to obey See before § 8. § 94 3ly As to the convening and composure of this conjunct Judicature of the Clergy I answer 1st That these Church Governours are by our Lord's and Apostolical constitution placed in a due subordination one to another †See Disc 2. §. 23 24. and several Superiours indued with power to assemble them in greater or lesser Bodies as the business requires and times permit these Superiors being sometimes assisted herein by the secular powers as in the times after Constantine yet sometimes also without them as in the ages preceding Constantine the Diocesan Synod being convened by the Bishop Provincial or National by the Metropolitan or Primat and General by the Prime Patriarch and Bishop of the chief Apostolick See For why not an Ecclesiastical person have the right of calling a General Council as well as the Metropolitan of a Provincial Synod the Primat of a National and as Dr. Field ascends higher the Patriarch of a Patriarchal ' For it is evident saith he †p. 668. p. 518. that there is a power in Bishops Metropolitans Primates and Patriarchs to call Episcopal Provincial National and Patriarchal Synods yet the last of which consisteth of the Bishops living under the temporal Government of several Princes and that neither so depending of and subject to the power of Princes but that when they are enemies to the faith I add by the same reason or enemies to the Orthodox faith they may exercise the same without their consent or privity and may subject them that refuse to obey their summons to such punishments as the Canons of the Church do prescribe in cases of such contempt or wilful negligence Thus he 2. Next That these conjunct Proceedings and Judicature of the Church-Guides in greater causes do appear also to be sufficienly allowed and authorized by our Lord and his Apostles both * from those Texts which mention and refer to a conjunct authority as from Mat. 18.17 tell the Church which signifies a presence of more than one of those who were to
Tradition namely that both of Christians and Mahometans than this that the Bible is God's Word and yet this later carries with it a sufficient evidence and Protestants themselves †See Disc 2. §. 40. n. 2. do both allow and practise several Traditions as Apostolical which yet have not the same fulness of Tradition as the Scriptures nor indeed more than several of those points have whereof yet they deny a sufficient Tradition 2. Again the Tradition of a smaller number of persons if eminent in sanctity and miracles and other forenamed †§. 121. motives of credit may be as or more credible than that of a greater number not so qualified Of several other Traditions then what or how many in particular carry a sufficient fulness and evidence in them though all do not the same to beget a rational belief this after the Church's authority once established by Scripture and Tradition private men may safely learn from the same Church § 140 But 8ly This certainty of Tradition allowed by Protestants for Scripture's being God's Word and whatever is contained in it infallible seeming unsufficient to assure to Christians their faith in several Articles thereof because wherever the sence of these Scriptures is ambiguous it will still be uncertain whether such Articles of our faith be grounded on the true sence which only is God's Word or on the mistaken sence which is not so Next therefore Catholicks proceed farther yet And both from the same Scriptures thus established and from other constant Tradition descending from the Apostles for which see the proofs given before Disc 1. § 7. Disc 2. § 17. Disc 3. § 7. 87. c. do also gather and firmly believe an infallibility in the Church or its Governours for all necessaries from a promised perpetual assistance of the holy Ghost And this Article of the infallibility of the Church thus established becomes to them a new ground of their faith from which they do most firmly believe and adhere to all the rest of those Articles of their faith wherein the Divine Revelation either of Scriptures or Tradition is not so perspicuous and clear to them as it is in this other of the Churches infallibility And from this infallibility of the Church believed all the definitions of the same Church that are made in points where the true-sence of Scriptures is in controversie and that are delivered by her as infallible and Divine Revelations are straight believed as such and among others these points also when the Church defines them in any doubtful case what belongs to the Canon of Scriptures or what are Traditions Apostolical § 141 Thus if I first receive and believe the Church-infallibility from a clear Apostolical Tradition afterward from this Church-infallibility defining it I may become straight assured of the Canon of Scripture Or 2ly If I receive and believe some part of the Canon of Scripture from clear Apostolical Tradition and out of this received Canon become assured of Church-infallibility afterward from this infallibility defining it I may certainly come to know other parts of the same Canon that are more questioned Again when I have already learned the Church-infallibility from the Scriptures afterward I may become from its definitions setled in the belief of all those Articles of faith wherein the expressions of the same Scriptures though believed by me before the Churches infallibility yet being ambiguous in their sence which sence properly and not the words is the Divine Revelation can beget no certain and firm faith in me until they are expounded by the Church infallibly relating from God's Spirit assisting it the traditive sence of them to me So that though I believe the infallibility of Scripture's as well as the Church yet in so many points wherein the meaning of the Scriptures is not clear to me I receive the firmness of my faith in them not from the infallibility of the Scriptures expression of that which is God's Word but of the Church expounding them If then the Scripture or Tradition-Apostolick be clearer for this of Church-infallibility than for some other points of faith that person must necessarily be conceded to have a firmer ground of his faith for so many points who believes the Church infallible than another who believes only Scripture so and such person also is preserved in a right faith in these points when the other not only may err in his Faith but become heretical in his error by opposing the definition of the Church So had the Arrians and Nestorians believed the Church infallible this Article of their faith firm and stedfast had preserved them from Heresie in some others § 142 Here then appears a great firmness and stability of the Catholicks Faith by reason of this Church-infallibility for many points wherein the Protestants faith fluctuates and varies For whilst the Protestant only extends and makes use of the certitude of the Church Tradition as to one of these points the delivery of the Scriptures and acknowledgeth no further certitude of the same Church-Tradition written in the Scriptures or unwritten for the other point the infallibility of the Church divinely assisted in the exposition of the same Scriptures and in the discerning of true Traditions And again while the sence of these Scriptures in many weighty points as experience shews hath been and is controverted the Protestant here for so many of these points as are upon such misinterpretation of Scripture defined by the Church in the definition of which Church assisted as he believes by the holy Ghost the Catholick remains secure hath no rational Anchor nor ground of confidence in his faith but that which rests upon the certainty of his own judgment concerning the sence of God's Word and truth of Tradition and that judgment of his too for several points of his faith going against the judgment and exposition of the major part of the present Church and against his Superiors Where the last refuge Protestants betake themselves to ordinarily is this that they say In all things necessary the sence of Scripture is not ambiguous but clear enough to the unlearned and that in points not necessary there is no necessity of a right faith or of any decision of controversies and so no need of an infallible Church or any unerring Guide save Scripture which defence hath been examined in Disc 2. § 38. c. § 143 The sum of what hath been said here is this 1st I take it as a principle agreed on That a divine is such a faith as quatenus divine ultimately resolves it self into Divine Revelation § 144 2ly There must be some particular ultimate Divine Revelation assigned by every Christian which may be not to all the same but to some one to some another beyond which he can resolve his divine faith no further and for proving or confirming which Revelation he can produce no other divine Revelation but there must end unless a process be made in infinitum or a running
in that most reverend Council of Nice upon pretence that you have not had a convincing Proposal that this Definition was therein made according to Gods Word or the Scriptures yet how will you clear your self or your Socinian Congregations of Schism avoidable upon no plea of adherence to Scripture if it shall appear that you have for this opinion deserted the Communion of the Catholick Church out of which Church is no Salvation Soc. †Dr. Potter p. 75. I grant there neither is nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himself therefore I utterly deny that our Churches have made any separation from the Church Catholick at all and this for many reasons For 1st †Chillingw p. 274. We have not forsaken the whole Church or the external Communion of it but only that part of it which is corrupted and still will be so and have not forsaken but onely reformed another part of it which part we our selves are and I suppose you will not go about to perswade us that we have forsaken our selves or our own Communion And if you urge that we joined our selves to no other part therefore we separated from the whole I say it follows not in as much as our selves were a part of it and still continued so and therefore can no more separate from the whole than from our selves Prot. So then it seemes wee need fear no Schism from the Church Catholick tilla part can divide from it self which can never be § 29 Soc. Next As for our separating from all other particular Churches the ground of our Separation being an error which hath crept into the Communion of these Churches and which is unjustly imposed upon us in order to this Communion we conceive in this case if any They not We are the Schismaticks for as the Arch. Bp. †Lawd p. 142. The Schism is theirs whose the cause of it is and he makes the separation who gives the first just cause of it not he that makes an actual separation upon a just cause preceding § 30 Again Though we have made an actual Separation from them as to the not-conforming to or also as to the reforming of an error yet 1st As to Charity we do still retain with the same Churches our former Communion †Dr. Ferne Division of Churches p. 105. and 31 32. Not dividing from them through the breach of Charity Or condemning all other Churches as no parts of the Catholick Church and drawing the Communion wholy to our selves as did those famous Schismaticks the Donatists § 31 Next as to matter of Faith We hold that all separation from all particular Churches in such a thing wherein the unity of the Catholick Church doth not consist is no separation from the whole Church nor any more than our suspension from the Communion of particular Churches till such their error is reformed For as Mr. Stillingf †p. 331. There can be no separation from the whole Church but in such things wherein the unity of the whole Church lies Whos 's therefore separates from any particular Church as to things not concerning their being is onely separated from the Communion of that Church and not the Catholick Now that for which we have separated from other Churches we conceive not such as is essential or concernes the being of a Church so that without it we or they cannot still retaâ—n the essence thereof we declare also our readiness to joyn with them again if this error be corrected or at least not imposed And †Stilling Ib. as Mr. Stillingf faith Where there is this readiness of Communion there is no absolute separation from the Church as such but onely suspending Communion till such abuses be reformed or not prâ—ssed upon us And as Bp. Bramhall †Vindic. of the Church of England p. 9. When one part of the universal Church separateth it self from another part not absolutely or in essentials but respectively in abuses and innovations not as it is a part of the universal Church but onely so far as it is corrupted and degenerated whether in doctrine or manners it doth still retain a Communion not onely with the Catholick Church and with all the Orthodox members of the Catholick Church but even with that corrupted Church from which it is separated except onely in such Corruptions § 32 Prot. Saving better Judgments methinks a separation if causeless from the Communion of all other Churches or from those who are our Superiours in a lesser matter than such a Fundamental or essential point of Christianity as destroyes the being of a Church should be Schism and the smaller the point for which we separate the greater the guilt of our separation Were not the Donatists Schismaticks in rejecting the Catholick Communion requiring their conformity in such a point in which St. Cyprian's error before the Churches definâ—ng thereof was very excusable and the Affrican Congregations in his time not un-churched thereby Soc. †Dr. Potter p. 76. But the Donatists did cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which they separated which is the property of Schismaticks And †Stillingf p. 359. Division of Churches p. 106. They were justly charged with Schism because they confined the Catholick Church within their own bounds But as Dr. Ferne saith †Had the Donatists only used their liberty and judgment in that practise of rebaptizing Hereticks leaving other Churches to their liberty and though thinking them in an error for admitting Hereticks without baptising them yet willing to have Communion with them as parts of the Catholick Church saving the practices wherein they differed then had they not been guilty of Schism In that which I hold I only follow my conscience condemn not the Churches holding otherwise On the other side †Chillingw p. 278. Christ hath forbid me under pain of damnation to profess what I believe not be it small or great and consequently under the same penalty hath obliged me to leave that Communion in which I cannot remain wothout the Hypocritical Profession of such a thing which I am convinced to be eroneous †Ib. 279. At least this I know that the Doctrine which I have chosen to me seemes true and the contrary which I have forsaken seemes false and therefore without remorse of conscience I may profess that but this I cannot and a separation for preserving my conscience I hope will never be judged causeless § 33 Prot. At this rate none will be a Schismatick but he who knowes he erreth i. e. not who holdeth but only who professeth an error or who knows that the point for the non-conformity to which required of him he deserts the Church is a Truth and the contrary which he maintaines an error But Dr. Hammond †Of Schism p. 23. 24. 25. tells you That he that doth communinate with those I suppose he means
true That the Church of England blindeth men to peace to her determinations reserving to men the liberty of their judgments on pain of excommunication if they violate that peace For it is plain on the one side where a Church pretends infallibility the excommunication is directed against the persons for refusing to give internal assent to what she defines But where a Church doth not pretend to that the excommunication respects wholly that overt Act whereby the Churches peace is broken And if a Church be bound to look to her own peace no doubt she hath power to excommunicate such as openly violate the bonds of it which is only an act of caution in a Church to preserve her selfe in unity but where it is given out that the Church is infallible the excommunication must be so much the more unreasonable because it is against those internal acts of the minde over which the Church as such hath no direct power And p. 55. he quotes these words out of Bp. Bramhall †Schism guarded p. 192. To the same sence We do not suffer any man to reject the 39. Articles of the Church of England at his pleasure yet neither do we look upon them as essentials of saving faith or legacies of Christ and his Apostles but in a mean as pious opinions fitted for the presâ—rvation of unity neither do we oblige any man to believe them but only not to contradict them By which we see what vast difference there is between those things which are required by the Church of England in order to peace and those which are imposed by the Church of Rome c. Lastly thus Mr. Chillingworth †p. 200. of the just authority of Councils and Synods beyond which the Protestant Synods or Convocations pretend not The Fathers of the Church saith he in after times i. e. after the Apostles might have just cause to declare their judgment touching the sence of some general Articles of the Creed but to oblige others to receive their declarations under pain of damnation what warrant they had I know not He that can shew either that the Church of all ages was to have this authority or that it continued in the Church for some ages and then expired He that can shew either of these things let him for my part I cannot Yet I willingly confess the judgment of a Council though not infallible is yet so far directive and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to afford it an outward submission for publick peace sake Thus much as the Protestant Synods seem contented with so I allow Again p. 375. He saith Any thing besides Scripture and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it Well may Protestants hold it as matter of opinion but as matter of faith and religion neither can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it themselves nor require the belief of it of others without most high and most schismatical presumption Thus he now I suppose that either no Ptotestant Church or Synod will stile the Son 's coequall God-head with the Father a plain irrefragable indubitable Scripture or consequence thereof about which is and hath been so much contest or with as much reason they may call whatever points they please such however controverted and then what is said here signifies nothing § 36 Prot. Be not mistaken I pray especially concerning the Church of England For though she for several points imposed formerly by the tyranny of the Roman Church hath granted liberty of opinion or at least freed her subjects from obligation to believe so in them as the Church formerly required yet as to exclusion of your doctrin she professeth firmly to believe the 3. Creeds and concerning the additions made in the two latter Creeds to the first Dr. Hammond †Of Fundamentals p. 90. acknowledgeth That they being thus settled by the universal Church were and still are in all reason without disputing to be received and imbraced by the Protestant Church and every meek member thereof with that reverence that is due to Apostolick truthes with that thankfulness which is our meet tribute to those sacred Champions for their seasonable and provident propugning our faith with such timely and necessary application to practice that the Holy Ghost speaking to us now under the times of the New Testament by the Governors of the Christian Churches Christs mediate successors in the Prophetick Pastoral Episcopal Office as he had formerly spoken by the Prophets of the Old Testament sent immediately by him may finde a cheerfull audience and receive all uniform submission from us Thus Dr. Hammond of the Church of England's assent to the 3. Creeds She assenteth also to the definitions of the 4 first General Councils And the Act 1. Eliz. †cap. 1. declares Heresie that which hath been adjudged so by them now in the definitions of these first 4. General Counclls your tenent hath received a mortal wound †But lastly the 4th Canon in the English Synod held 1640. †Can. 4. particularly stiles Socinianism a most damnable and cursed Heresie and contrary to the Articles of Religion established in the Church of England and orders that any convicted of it be excommunicated and not absolved but upon his repentance and abjuration Now further than this namely excommunication upon conviction No other Church I suppose hath or can proceed against your Heresie It being received as a common axiom in the Canon Law that Ecclesia non judicat de occultis And cogitationis poenam nemo patitur And Ob peccatum mere internum Ecclesiastica censura ferri non potest And in all Churches every one of what internal perswasion soever continues externally at least a member thereof till the Churches censures do exclude him § 37 Soc. The Church of England alloweth assenteth to and teacheth what she judgeth evident in the Scripture for so she ought what she believes or assenteth to I look not after but what she enjoynes Now I yeeld all that obedience in this point that she requires from me and so I presume she will acknowledge me a dutiful Son Prot. what obedience when as you deny one of her chiefest and most fundamental doctrins Soc. If I mistake not her principles she requires of me no internal belief or assent to any of her doctrins but only 1st silence or non-contradiction †See Disc 3 § 84. n. 2. n. 4. or 2ly a conditional belief i. e. whenever I shall be convinced of the truth thereof Now in both these I most readily obey her For the 1st I have strictly observed it kept my opinion to my self unless this my discourse with you hath been a breach of it but then I was at least a dutiful subject of this Church at the beginning of our discourse and for the 2d whether actual conviction or sufficient proposal be made the condition of my assent or submission of
of their Doctrine out of the Scripture words understood with piety and the fetching their Definitions regularly from the sense thereof which the General Churches had received down from the Apostles †Of Heresie p. 96. Upon which follows that in such case where a Lawful General Council doth not so as possibly it may and Inferiors are to consider for themselves whether it doth not there may be no Heretical autocatacrifie in a dâ—ssent from it nor this dissent an evidence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his being perverted and sinning wilfully and without excuse Lastly thus Mr. Stillingfleet concerning Heresie †p. 73. The formal reason of Heresie is denying something supposed to be of divine Revelation and therefore 2ly None can reasonably be accused of Heresie but such as have sufficient reason to believe that that which they deny is revealed by God And therefore 3ly None can be guilty of Heresie for denying any thing declared by the Church unless they have sufficient reason to believe that whatever is declared by the Church is revealed by God and therefore the Churches Definition cannot make any Hereticks but such as have reason to believe that she cannot err in her Definitions From hence also he gathers That Protestants are in less danger of Heresie than Papists till these give them more sufficient reasons to prove that whatever the Church declares is certainly revealed by God Thus he Now such sufficient proving reasons as Protestants plead that Papists have not yet given them concerning this matter of Church-authority I alledge that neither have they nor others given me To be self-condemned therefore in my dissent from the definition of the Council of Nice I must first have sufficient reason proposed to me to believe and so to remain self-condemned and Heretical in disbelieving it this point viz. That the Church or her Council hath power to define matters of Faith in such manner as to require my assent thereto Which so long as I find no sufficient reason to believe I suppose I am freed without obstinacy or Heresie or being therein self-condemned from yeilding assent to any particular matter of Faith which the Church defines And had I sufficient reason proposed to me for believing this point yet so long as I am not actually convinced thereof I become only guilty of a fault of ignorance not obstinacy or autocatacrisie or Heresie for if I am self-condemned or guilty of obstinacy in disbelieving the foresaid points †See Mr. Stillingf p. 99. Then I become so either by the Churches definition of this point or without it By reason of the Churches definition of this it cannot be for this very power of defining is the thing in question and therefore cannot be cleared to me by the Churche's defining it †Still p. 74 and thus That thing is proposed to me in the definition to be believed which must be supposed to be believed by me already before such proposal or definition or else the definition is not necessary to be believed †Ib. p. 99. Nor without or before such definition can I have an autocatacrisie because this autocatacrisy you say with Dr. Hammond ariseth from my disobedience to the Church Prot. Methinks you make the same plea for your selfe in this matter as if one that is questioned for not obeying the divine precepts or not believing the divine revelations delivered in Scripture should think to excuse himself by this answer that indeed he doth not believe the Scripture to be Gods Word and therefore he conceives that he cannot reasonably be required to believe that which is contained therein And as such a person hath as much reason though this not from the Scripture yet from Apostolical Tradition to believe that Scripture is Gods Word as to believe what is written in it so have you though not from the Nicen Council defining it yet from Scripture and Tradition manifesting it as much reason to believe its authority of defining as what it defined It s true indeed that had you not sufficient proposal or sufficient reason to know this your duty of Assent to this definition of the Council of Nice you were faultless in it but herein lies your danger that from finding a non actual conviction of the truth within hindred there by I know not what supine negligence or strong self-conceit c. you gather a non sufficient proposal without § 37 Soc. It remains then to inquire who shall judge concerning this sufficient proposal or sufficient reason which I am said to have to believe what the Nicen Council or the Church hath declared in this point †Stillingf p. 73. Whether the Churches judgment is to be taken by me in this or my own made use of If her judgement the ground of my belief and of Heresie lies still in the Churches definition and thus it will be all one in effect whether I believe what she declares without sufficient reason or learn this of her when there is sufficient reason to believe so It must be then my own judgment I am to be directed by in this matter †See Stilling p. 479. and if so then it is to be presumed that God doth both afford me some means not to be mistaken therein and also some certain knowledg when I do use this means aright for without these two I can have no security in my own judgment in a matter of so high concernment as Heresie and fundamental faith is Now this means in this matter I presume I have daily used in that I finde my conscience after much examination therein to acquit me unless you can prescribe me some other surer evidence without sending me back again to the authority of the Church Prot. Whilst your discovery of your tenent to be an Heresie depends on your having sufficient reason to believe it is so And 2ly The judgment of your having or not having sufficient reason to believe this is left to your self the Church hath no means to know you or any other to be an Heretick till they declare themselves to be so And thus in striving to free your selfe from Heresie you have freed all mankind from it as to any external discovery and convincement thereof and cancelled such a sin unless we can finde one that will confess himself to maintain a thing against his own conscience Soc. If I so do the Protestants for they also hold none guilty of Heresie for denying any thing declared by the Church unless they have reason to believe that what ever is declared by the Church is revealed by God and of this sufficient reason they make not the Church or Superiors but themselves the Judge The V. CONFERENCE His Plea for not being guilty of Schism 5. PRot. I have yet one thing more about which to question you If you will not acknowledge your opinion Heresie in opposing the publike judgment § 28 and definition of the Catholick Church