is replied That the whole Catholick Church of Christ is but one body compacted with a due subordination of its members as well Churches as persons for the preservation of truth and peace among them and the avoiding of Schism 3ly That the Church of England is a member of the Western Church and subordinate to the Patriarch thereof the Bishop of the prime Apostolick See joyned with a Council composed of this Body 4 ly That being a part of this Body this Church together with the rest of the Protestants dissented and departed from the consenting judgment not only of one particular Church the Roman but of all the other Occidental Churches in several points of faith that are necessary as the other say but as themselves confess that are of moment and the failings in which are by them charged on the other side as grievous errors which will infer the contrary to be needful truths disceded likewise from their consenting judgments concerning the testimony of Scriptures rightly understood and of the Fathers affirmed by these not to be for but against them 5 ly Departed both from them and the most General Councils that have bin held therein for near this thousand years 6 ly And departed from them in several points wherin the Eastern Churches also consented and do so still with these Occidental Churches and their Councils 7 ly And for submission required to these doctrines §. 55. n. 4. departed also from the external communion not only of all the Western but of the Eastern Churches even of the whole visible Catholick Church of that Age of which in every Age is said Credo unam Sanctam Catholicam Apostolicam Ecclesiam wherein this discession was made From the external Communion I say so as they neither could nor yet can communicate with any Church Eastern or Western in their publick worship and service of God nor in the participation of the blessed Sacrament and Communion of the Altar And the necessity of such their universal discession both sufficiently appeareth from the modern Eastern and Roman Missals compared the Masses of S. Chrysostom S. Basil which admitting som small variations ‖ See Cassand liturg c. p. 24 c. are the present service of all the Eastern Southern Churches not much differing from the Roman and being as well as the Roman disallowed by Protestants And also the Discession it self is confessed both long ago by Calvin lamenting the Protestant's want of Union amongst so many Adversaries ‖ Epist P. Melancthoni p. 145. A toto mundo discessionem facere coacti sumus And by Mr. Chillingworth l. 5. § 55. As for the external Communion of the visible Church saith he we have without scruple formerly granted that Protestants did forsake it i. e. renounce the practise of some Observances in which the whole visible Church before them did communicate See likewise § 56.89 Forsake the external Communion of the whole visible Church i. e. as he expounds himself § 32 by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgies and publick Worship of God Thus he And this surely was done for some Errors extant in this publick Worship else why did Protestants also reform this publick Service And these again such Errors as were not only held and used in but justified and allowed by this Church Catholick and Obedience and Conformity from her Subjects required thereto since if any thing after the holy Scriptures be held by this Church Catholick sacred and authentick and by all her Subjects to be embraced and frequented her publick Liturgy and the most August Sacrifice of the Altar must be so What ground therefore of Discession and what just complaint the Protestants have against the Western Church excluding them from her Communion because requiring something in it they cannot conform to the same ground of complaint they have also against the Eastern Churches as requiring somthing in their Communion to which they cannot assent nor in which join with them This for the external Communion of the Oriental as well as Occidental Church as to God's Publick Worship partaking of their Sacraments forsaken by them And next as to any other Communion internal mean-while professed with these Eastern Churches in the Fundamental Faith and Essentials of Religion they can pretend none but that they have and confess they have the same Communion with the Western Churches too In what sence therefore they stand separated from the Roman Church viz. in external Communion of their publick service of God and receiving with that Church the blessed Sacrament they stand separated from the Eastern also and in what sence they still retain the Communion of the East viz. in the Essential and Fundamental Articles of Faith they still retain this with Rome as much as them How is it then that they say often in the Reformation they left the Roman Church only not the whole Catholick numbring the Greek Russian Abyssine and other Churches as three parts of four and all these as on their side and joined with them And to what purpose is the calculating what proportion the Western Church hath to the whole Catholick when as their separation for communion external is as much from the rest as it and both Churches if any for this their separation equally culpable and when as for the internal Communion i. e. in all the Essentials of Faith they maintain this no more with the rest of the great body of the Catholick Church than they do with the Roman or Western Church But here again if they alledg their further Union with the Eastern Churches not in Fundamentals only but also in some other Points not Fundamental which are but few and none of them on the Greek side defined by any former Superior Council wherein these Churches oppose the Roman among which is named the Pope's Supremacy and Infallibility of the Roman Church the later a thing the Roman Church taken singly pretendeth not to yet what will this help ‖ See Disc 3. §. 185. as to those many other points defined by Superior Couneils ‖ See before § 50. n. 2. and wherein both East and VVest consent as those mentioned in the third Discourse § 26. c. In which Points chiefly Protestants are questioned for having made in the Reformation not a secession from their Western Mother to another part of the Catholick Church but a discession from the consenting judgment of the whole Catholick 8. Departed from the whole in these points which were §. 55. n. 5. at that time of a general belief and practice not only so far as to dissent but also as to contradict and reform against them 9. And all this in several of these Controversies upon pretence of the clearness of those Scriptures the sence whereof by a much major part of the West and by the greatest Councils that could for those times be assembled there where these Controversies arose the sence also of the Eastern Church concurring in the
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
and the sense thereof where evident and not controverted as in many points it is clear by both sides as holding it infallible equally acquiesced in And 2ly Where the true sense of this common Rule happens to be disputed and brought into question and so there is need of some other guide to shew which sense is the right here the guide which Protestants direct men to is not the certain and infallible Scripture but indeed in the last place every mans own judgment or Reason and the guide which the Roman doctrine directs men to is their Spiritual Superiours and in the last place the most supream Council of them Where also 1st that supreme Guide whom the particular Guides of Catholicks hold themselves obliged to follow is affirmed in all their Definitions concerning necessaries to be infallible and 2ly Since such their Definitions are only in things in which the sense of the Scriptures is controverted it may be presumed that the sense of the same Definitions is to private persons much more intelligible and plain than those Scriptures that are explained by them And 3ly this living Guide from time to time as any doubt ariseth can render it self still more intelligible which the Rule of Scriptures cannot § 24 This from § 3. is spoken to those Protestant-Divines who though they make a Promise of Indefectibility or Infallibility in Necessaries absolute to the Church-Catholick yet affirm it to be to the Churches Clergy even taken in the Supremest Consultations and meetings of it only conditional which Promise of absolute Indefectibility being thus extended to the Church but withheld from the Clergy though it implies still an infinite benefit and favour to some particulars yet seems to afford very litle consolation to Christianity in General being a promising no more than this That in all Ages to the end of the World there shall be some men in it that shall not teach but only retain so much faith or divine truth as thereby to be saved which thing may be where is no preaching no Administration of the Sacraments and indeed no external visible Church at all which thing may be though all the Clergy do Apostatize if at least some few Laicks continue Orthodox CHAP. IV. II. Other Protestant Divines granting the Clergy some or other of them alwayes unerring in Necessaries but this not necessarily the Superiour or major part of them § 25. That the subordinate Clergy can be no Guide to Christians when opposing the Superiour nor a few opposing a much major part § 30. § 25 II OTher Reformed Divines there are who allow not a conditional but absolute Promise made to the Clergy some or other II. in a greater or in a smaller number in all times Nay yet further Other Protestant Divines granting the Clergy and Church-Guides some or other of them always unerring in Necessaries but not necessarily the Superiour or major part of them made also to some visible distinct Body and Society or external Communion of them together with the Congregation of faithful adhering to them so that all the Clergy shall never in no Age universally apostatize but some of them still remain Orthodox or also some body of them and there shall always be a visible Orthodox Church or Churches such as hath a right publick profession of Christianity and a true Ministry in it of the Word and Sacraments so that according to these Divines the fore-mentioned Promises ‖ §. 12. advance somwhat higher * That Promise Mat. 28. signifying That Christ will be with some or other of his Clergy in some place or other for ever so as that they shall certainly teach what he hath commanded them And * that Jo. 14. That they shall so love him keep his Commandments as that his Spirit shall abide with them for ever lead them into all Truth Necessary And * that Luk 10. That they shall so faithfully recite the Truths he committed to them as that those who hear them hear him § 26 Of this Church and Clergy so assisted thus Dr. Ferne ‖ Division of Engl and Rome It cannot be imagined saith he that God who promised to be with them and guide them should take away his Truth from all the Guides and Pastors of his Church and preserve it by the Judgment and Conscience of Lay-people but that some Guides and Pastors though of less number and place still be they that shall detect prevailing Errours and preserve the Truth § 27 To the same purpose is that Testimony of Mr. Hooker ‖ 3 l. p. 124 That Gods Clergy are a state which have been and will be as long as there is a Church upon Earth necessary by the plain Word of God Himself a State whereunto the rest of Gods people must be subject as touching things that appertain to their Souls health For where Policy is it cannot but approve some to be leaders of others and some to be led by others This Clergy then to have thus a perpetual Being must never err in Fundamentals and therefore it will be irrational to deny them in these to be a perpetual secure and unerring Guide § 28 To the same purpose speaks Arch-Bishop Lawd ‖ §. 37. p. 318 There must be saith he some one Church or other continually visible For if this be not so then there may be a time in which there shall not any where be a visible Profession of the Name of Christ which is contrary to the whole scope and profession of the Gospel And this saith he such a visible Church as hath in all Ages taught the unchanged Faith of Christ in all Points fundamental ‖ Numb 3 5 And thus Dr. Field also ‖ 1 l. 10. c. p. 14. 15. affirmes That the Church is alwayes visible in respect of the Order of Ministery and due obedience yielded thereunto and them discernable that do communicate therein and below That always an open known and constant Profession of saving Truth is preserved and found among Men and the Ministery of Salvation continued and known in the World for how saith he should there be a Church gathered without a Ministery ‖ See 2 l. 6 c. And in the Preface to his whole Book of the Church he discourseth on this manner Seeing the Controversies of Religion in our times are grown in number so many and in matter so intricate that few have time and leisure fewer strength of understanding to examine them what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which amongst all the Societies of the World is that blessed Company of Holy ones that Houshold of Faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the living God which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth that so he may embrace her Communion follow her Directions and rest in her Judgment Thus he § 29 And thus far went Mr. Calvin long ago holding that there is a visible Society consisting of Clergy and
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-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
Learned Protestants consent with Roman Catholicks ‖ Hooker p. 124. Field l. 1. c. 10. p. 14.15 D. Fern. Divis Engl. Rom. §. 10 Archb. Lawd p. 140. That the Holy Catholick Church which we believe in our Creed is a visible Church in all ages consisting of Pastors as well as People in external Profession and Communion contradistinct to Heretical and Schismatical Churches when such there happen to be in any age See before Disc 2. § 5. § 5 4ly They are also agreed That Christ hath left in this Church-Catholick these Pastors and Teachers to the end of the world for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the Body of Christ that we may not be tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of Doctrine by the slight of men ‖ Eph. 4.11 14. Thus far they agree CHAP. II. Roman Catholicks further affirming 5. That the Church-Guides at least assembled in Lawful General Councils shall never err in their determining Points of necessary Faith § 6. 6. Points necessary not as taken onely for those absolutely required but all very beneficial to Salvation § 9. 7. shall never err in them not as infallibly inspired to teach any new but as divinely assisted in delivering of the former Revelations and Traditions § 10. 8. That for knowing what or how many of former Councils have been lawfully General or Obliging a Christian may safely rely on the most general judgement of the Church since the sitting of such Councils § 11. 9. That in the absence of a considerable part of the Church Governors from some Councils yet their acceptance of its decrees or concurrence with its Doctrines renders it equivalent to a Council General § 13. 10. That particular Persons or Churches Parts of the whole are obliged to submit their judgement to the Decrees and Definitions of the whole § 14. BUt here the two Parties divide in their Superstructions § 6 For 5ly The Catholicks go on and affirm further That these Pastors and Governors of the Church at least when assembled in a Lawful General Council or in so general as the present times of the Church according to the several Requisites of such great meetings are well capable of universally accepted I mean in the sence before explained Disc 1. § 31 36 38. And below § 12. shall never err in their Determinations or teaching of Credends and Practicals necessary for obtaining salvation and therefore that Christians in their assenting to such Determinations remain secure from all such Errors § 7 First The Reason why the Teachers are affirmed thus unerrable is 1 Because most of those places in Scripture from which is gathered the Church's Indefectibility or inerrability in Necessaries Prop. 2. as Mat. 16.18 18.17 comp 20. 28.20 John 14.16 1 Tim. 3.15 Luke 10.16 Eph. 4.11 14. do appear to relate more especially to these Guides thereof than to the Common people And 2 Because this seems no more than necessary Since God hath required nothing to be externally professed by us as Truth or acted by us in obedience to Command but what our Judgement or Conscience first internally assents to as Truth and as Lawful It seems I say no more than necessary that in the many doubts which may arise especially to the more ignorant sort both in Credends and Practicals there be some sure and unfailing Directors of these our interior Judgements herein as to all Necessaries which Director in such doubts can neither be the Scripture the sence of which is ambiguous unto us and the thing wherein we seek direction nor yet is the Civil Magistrate in these spiritual Matters but only the Ecclesiastical to whose Guidance of Souls also we are committed and enjoyned Obedience Heb. 13.17 7. See before § 5. And Disc 2. § 4. Chillingw § 8 2. Next The Reason why these Guides are affirmed unerring at least when joyned in a General Council is because 1st It cannot reasonably be questioned but that what authority every one of them singly hath from our Lord the same all of them retain in this Body united without the need of any new Commission from the Church Catholick 2ly Because if there be any Promise made to them in any capacity of indeficiency in Necessaries then of all manners or ways deviceable wherein they may be so it is in this Conjuncture of them and that the most universal that can be procured used in all ages as the Supreme Court of Appeals that they appear to be most capable thereof and least liable to defect ‖ See Mat. 18.17 20. 1 Cor. 5.4 15. See below §. 94. In which the Catholicks are also * confirmed by the Apostolick practice in the Acts ‖ Act. 15.2 6. where for solving a great difficulty they called an Assembly of the Church-Governors and passed some Decrees therein to which all particular Churches and their Pastors stood obliged Seeming there to fortifie their Authority with these two Expressions Visum est Spiritui Sancio nobis v. 28. And Nobis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 collectis in unum v. 25. As also the Holy Ghost descended on them at first Acts 2.1 when so assembled To which Assembly also the great Apostle St. Paul notwithstanding that his Doctrine was immediatly revealed to him by our Lord Jesus and confirmed to others by his Miracles yet was sent by God's immediate appointment for he saith he went to this Council by Revelation Gal. 2.2 that so his Doctrine might both be the more authorized to his Auditors and his Converts more readily obey it and so he not run in vain nor lose his labour when they knew it to be confirmed and established by this General Council With which thus Theodoret begins his Epistle to Leo. Si Paulus praeco Veritatis Tuba sanctissimi Spiritus ad magnum Petrum cucurrit ut iis qui Antiochiae de Institutis Legalibus contendebant ab ipso afferret solutionem multo magis nos qui abjecti sumus Pusilli ad Apostolicam sedem vestram currimus ut Ecclesiarum ulceribus Medicinam a vobis accipiamus And St. Austin ‖ Contra Faustum l. 28. c. 4. Ipse Apostolus Paulus post ascensionem Demini de Caelo vocatus si non inveniret in carne Apostolos quibus communicando cum quibus conferendo Evangelium ejusdem Societatis esse appareret Ecclesia illi omnino non crederet Sed cum cognovisset eum hoc annunciantem quod etiam illi annunciabant in eorum communione atque unitate viventem c. meruit authoritatem c. And again * confirmed by the Primitive Practice afterward in the first General Councils universally allowed who required Assent under Anathema to their Definitions and inserted them as it was thought meet into the Creeds which sufficiently declares that they held themselves infallible or which is all that is here meant by it actually unerring therein 3ly When any Division happens in this collective Body it being certain that some Clergy
no agreement or union from the Common Superiors of them both and so long as one part divides not from the other in any thing wherein the other agrees with the whole against it or which the whole enjoyns both to the other and it But in such case the division of this part is as from the other part so from the whose and so becomes for its division from the whole and not from the other part Schismatical 2 ly They grant also that one part may lawfully and without Schism separate or rather absent it self from the external Communion of another so often as either the Communion of the other part suspected of Heresiae or Schism before any evidence of the contrary is thought unlawful or as this part requires some condition of its external Communion to which the other is not by the whole or by the Superiors of both any way obliged Thus the Catholicks CHAP. IV. On the other side the Protestants after the four first Propositions conceded thus proceeding to qualifie them 5. In their granting the Catholick Church unerrable in Necessaries understanding thereby only such few Points without which Salvation no way attainable § 24. 6. Affirming the Church Catholick or all particular Churches of some one age or ages errable in several other doctrines dangerous to Salvation gross damnable c. § 25. Because it appears that many of the chief Points from which Protestants dissent were the General Tenents and Practices at the coming of Luther § 26. 7.8 Affirming * the Church's General Councils also when universally accepted to be unerring in Necessaries but not so in other and that is in the most Points And in the former 1 Extending universal acceptation to all particular Churches and 2 Restraining Necessaries as before to those absolutely so Again * The Councils not so accepted to be errable also in Necessaries § 34.35 36. 9.10 Allowing Obedience also due to the Definitions and Decrees of such Councils But not that of Assent but only of Non-contradiction § 39. Where of the Quality of the Obedience yeilded by the Church of England to the four first Councils § 40. 11. Of Non contradiction not generally but where the Error of the Council not manifest and intolerable § 43. Claiming also where the Errour manifest a power against such Council to reform it for themselves § 44. 12. The judgement also as for themselves when there is or is not such Error in Councils left to particular Persons or Churches § 47. § 24 BUt the Protestants after conceding the four first Propositions labour to pull down these superstructures of the Catholicks which they see else would ruine their cause and thus proceed After the first four Propositions above agreed on 5 ly They explain themselves That by the Necessaries wherein Prop. 2 they grant the Catholick Church of all ages unerrable they understand only those few Points spoken of before Disc 2. Prop. 6. without the explicit Belief of which Salvation is not at all attainable For in their saying that she is so unerrable they thus declare themselves That there alwayes shall be a number of men professing Christianity in the world So Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ Stillingf p. 251. A company of men that profess at least so much Truth as is absolutely necessary for their Salvation So Mr. Chillingworth ‖ P. 15. That Christ doth and will so defend his Church that there shall be forever till the end of the world a Church Christian on the earth So Dr. Hammond ‖ Defence of Lord Fulkland c. 1. §. 5.6 p. 23. No more inerrability in Faith you see here affirmed than that without which Salvation is absolutely on what terms soever in the Profession of Christianity not attainable wherein they straiten Christs promises as the Catholicks enlarge them by which they gain the liberty of reforming as they think fit from the universal Church of God as to some age or ages in most of her Doctrines as they granting her not save in some few necessaries unerrable that may as it were still preserve life in Her neither will they concerning this Question what are points necessary wherein our Lord hath promised an indefectibility to his Church what not by any means stand to her judgement § 25 6 ly They say ‖ that though the Church-Catholick is preserved always from errors in absolute necessaries taken in their sence § 24 for otherwise there would cease to be a Church of Christ upon earth yet the same Church or at least any or all particular Churches of some age or ages some one or many or all which particular Churches must be the visible universal Church-Catholick of that age or ages may generally hold and the Governors thereof impose upon their Subjects such errors and corruptions as are dangerous to Salvation gross damnable c. and therefore which upon a general Reformation neglected are corrigible and reformable by any particular Church for it self See what Arch-bishop Laud § 26 § 37. n. 5.6 Mr. Stillingfleet Part 2. c. 2. p. 330. and c. 4. p. 370.371 and c. 8. p. 478 479. Mr. Chillingworth c. 5. § 64.49 45 27. and the 31 st Article of the Church of England have said to this purpose § 27 And the Reason of this Assertion seems to be because these great points of modern controversie § 28 1. A Corporal Presence and a Transubstantiation or substantial Conversion of the Elements into Christs Body § 29 2. Adoration of the Eucharist i. e. of Christs Body and Blood as present in it which followes from the former § 30 3. The Sacrifice of the Mass not onely that of Prayers Praise and Thanksgivings nor only of the Mysteries in the consecrating of them offered as a Commemorative of the Passion a thing conceded also by learned Protestants but also of the very Body and Blood of Christ in these Mysteries which thing follows from the first Point offered in this Service pro vivis Defunctis c. 4. Invocation of the Blessed Virgin and Saints § 31 And 5. Such Prayer for the dead as infers their present condition before the day of Judgement whatever their restraint or sufferings be to be conceived better able by the Intercessions of the Living Do appear to have been universally held and practised and the approbation and conformity to them imposed by the Ecclesiastical Governors both of the Greek and Latine Church at the coming of Luther § 32 The clearning of which because it is a consideration of great importance and not meet to be omitted nor can be here inserted without making too great a Parenthesis and distracting your thoughts from the matter in hand I have rather chosen to annex it at the end of this discourse Cap. 11. § 158. referring you to that place for the perusal thereof if not in this matter already satisfied § 33 This then concerning the 6 th Proposition The Protestants affirming that the Catholick Church of some age may incurr and maintain dangerous
Church we believe in our Creed 2 ly Since both these Eastern and Western required the very same conditions of Communion as they do now before Luthers dayes it followes that then they were also no less than now Schismaticall and so falne from Catholick for this that all people that are their Subjects conform to such conditions or some not conform alters not their guilt who then imposed such things or if it do it seems then the greater when all do conform and are misled by them and upon this again it followes that there was then the Protestant Church not yet born no Catholick Church at all contrary to the Articles of our Creed the whole being involved in Schisme if all then conformed Of which conformity the Arch-bishop saith ‖ p. 296.297 and Mr. Stillingfleet the same ‖ p. 618 That he that believes as that Church believed speaking of the Roman and so may all those be presumed to believe that live in the Roman Church with a resolution to live and die in it is guilty more or less of the Schisme which that Church first caused by her corruptions and now continues by them and her power together and of all other damnable opinions too in point of misbelief and of all other sins also which the doctrine and misbelief of that Church leads him into And afterward That he who lives in a Shismatical Church and communicates with it in the Schisme and in all the Superstitions and Corruptions which that Church teacheth nay lives and dyes in them if he be of capacity enough and understand it he must needs be a formal Schismatick or an involved one if he understand it not Thus he Or if some then did not conforme to what these Guides required yet it followes at least that there were then no known Ecclesiasticall Governours and leaders no Bishops in or of that Church Catholick that then was for we know of none such that in the age before Luther opposed such a conformity and that it was made up of Laicks and Inferiours i. e. made up only of some Sheep that were departed and strangled from their sheepheards or rather the sheepheards from them absurdities that need be no further aggravated But 2 ly to what is said It is answered 1. That neither can the supreme Guides of the Church Catholick in an approved Council at any time require unjust conditions of their Communion of which see before § 21. §. 63. n. 2. And what St. Austin ‖ Epist 118. saith of general Church practices is as or more true of her doctrines Si quid horum per orbem frequent at or cred it Ecclesia hoc quin it a faciendum or credendum sit disputare insolentissimae insaniae est 2. Nor though this should be granted and also that they excommunicate those that refuse to conforme can they thereby become guilty of Schism For 1 Schisme I mean such as separates and divides from the Catholick Church can never be of a much major and more dignified part in respect of a less and Inferiour subject to it i. e. the main body be a Schismatick from some single member thereof for this main body in any division is rightly taken for that whole see 2 d. Disc § 25. from which a separation is Schisme and to which every member ought to adhere as to the body and the head here upon earth to which it belongs The sin of Schisme I say is of a member departing from the Body not of the Body separating from a member or separating a member from it to which each member ought to conforme otherwise a division in the Church indeed may be seen but on what side the crime of Schisme is cannot by any certain Index of it be known And St. Austin's ‖ De unitat Ecclae c. 4. mark of Schismaticks Quorum communio non est cum toto sed in aliquâ parte separatâ will be fallacious and nothing worth Meanewhile it is not here denyed that the dividing of one or several Superiours from an Inferiour part if it be for any thing wherein such part not they doth agree with the whole may be Schisme but then that which makes this Schisme is the departure of such Superiours from their Superiours or from the whole with which this part coheres and when any Superiour makes any such division from his Subjects he is no longer their lawfull Suâ—eriour but that larger body and those Superiours of his to which his Subjects are joyned and from which he divided 2 Again since Schisme is alwaies a relinquishing of and departure from the external and visible Communion of the Church these Governours cannot be said to depart from that Communion which they still retaine in the same manner as formerly and which is the only visible Communion of the Church at the time of such excommunication External members of the Church therefore they still remaine and so no Schismaticks though all the same persons or many of them by some other mortall sin may be at the same time no internal members of it 3. And as they cannot be rightly called Schismaticks or persons divided from the Church-Catholick §. 63. n. 3. So neither can such Superiours by imposing some error on mens belief or by inflicting an unjust Excommunication be therefore said to be the cause of a Schism or an actual separation in others as they are often charged ‖ Ap. Laud P. 133.142 unless to be excommunicated be such for the Church concurs to no other separation If any so Excommunicated doth not quietly submit thereto and acquiesce therein with patience but proceed so much further as to set up or joyn himself with a Communion diverse from that of the former Church which he is expelled from or presumeth to exercise out of the Church those Ecclesiastical Functions which she hath though wrongfully suspended here indeed begins a faulty separation and a Schisme but by the fault of the excommunicated not of the Church that unjustly Excommunicates him but doth not thereby necessitate him to any such further removal or discession from it Had he rested in the place where the Church left him the Church had been faulty indeed he innocent but on no hand a Schisme and if he will not stay here but set up an Anti-communion and fall on acting against the Church that expelled him here he cannot defend the doing a wrong because he hath suffered one or justly disburden on the Church that fault of his to which no fault of theirs necessitated him Saepe sinit divina providentia saith St. Austin ‖ De verâ Religione c. 6. expelli de congregatione Christianâ etiam bonos viros Quam contumeliam vel injuriam suam cum patientissime pro Ecclesiae pace tulerint neque ullas novitates vel Shismatis vel Haeresis moliti fuerint docebunt homines quantâ sinceritate charitatis Deo serviendum sit c. Neque ullas novitates vel Schismatis Therefore
with this reservation unless on the other side there appear evidence to him in God's Word Now of the evidence of Scripture in this point on his side that he hath no doubt § 17. The III. CONFERENCE His Plea for his not holding any thing contrary to the definitions of lawful General Councils the just conditions thereof observed § 18. THat he conceives he ows no obedience to the Council of Nice 1. Because this cannot be proved to have been a lawful General Council with so much certainty as is necessary for the ground of his faith as appears by those many questions mentioned by Mr. Chilling-worth Stillingfleet and other Protestants wherein he must first be satisfied concerning it which see Disc 3. § 86. c § 18. 2. Because though it were a General Council yet it might err even in necessaries if it were not universally accepted as he can shew it was not 3. That though yielded to be generally accepted it might err still in non-necessaries and that Protestants cannot prove this point to be otherwise 4. That the leaders of this Council were plainly a party contestingt his for many years before with the other side condemned and were Judges in their own cause 5. All these exceptions cancelled and obedience granted due to this Council yet that so there is due to it not that of assent but only of silence § 19. 6. But yet not that of silence neither from him considering his present persuasion that indeed the affirmative in this point is an error manifest and intolerable concerning which matter his party having long complained to their Superiors and produced sufficient evidence yet these have proceeded to no redress of it § 20. 7. But yet that he will submit to the judgement of a future Council if it rightly considering the reasons of his tenent decree that which is according to God's Word and he be convinced thereof § 22. The IV. CONFERENCE His Plea for his not being guilty of Heresie § 23. THat he cannot rightly according to Protestant Principles be accused as guilty of Heresie for several reasons 1. Because Protestants holding Heresie to be an obstinate defence of some error against a fundamental he thinks from hence his tenent freed from being an Heresie as long as in silence he retains it unless he engage further to a publick pertinacious maintaining thereof § 23. 2. Fundamentals varying according to particular persons and sufficient proposal none can conclude this point in the affirmative to be as to him a fundamental or of the truth which he hath had a sufficient proposal 3. That a lawful General Council's declaring some point Heresie doth not necessarily argue that it is so because they may err in Fundamentals or at least in distinguishing them from other points § 26. 4. That he can have no autocatacrisie or obstinacy in a dissenting from their Definitions till he is either actually convinced or at least hath had a sufficient proposal either of the truth of such point defined Or that such Councils have authority to require submission of judgement and assent to their Definitions of which conviction or sufficicient proposal that varies much according to the differing conditions of several persons as to himself none can judge save himself and consequently neither can they judge of his guilt of Heresie Ib. The V. CONFERENCE His Plea for his not being guilty of Schism § 28. 1. THat the Socinian Churches have not forsaken the whole Church Catholick or the external Communion of it but only left one part of it that was corrupted and reformed another part i. e. themselves Or that he and the Socinian Churches being a part of the Catholick they have not separated from the whole because not from themselves § 28. 2. That their separation being for an error unjustly imposed upon them as a condition of Communion the Schism is not theirs who made the separation but theirs who caused it § 29. Besides that what ever the truth of things be yet so long as they are required by any Church to profess they believe what they do not their separation cannot be said causless and so Schism § 32. 3. That though he and his party had forsaken the external Communion of all other Churches yet not the internal in which they remain still united to them both in that internal Communion of charity in not condemning all other Churches as non-Catholick and in that of Faith in all Essentials and Fundamentals and in all such points wherein the unity of the Church Catholick consists § 30. 4. That the doctrine of Consubstantiality for which they departed is denyed by them to be any Fundamental nor can the Churches from which they depart for it be a competent judge against them that it is so § 34. 5. That though they are separaters from the Roman yet not from the Reformed Churches which Churches leave men to the liberty of their own judgment nor require any internal assent to their doctrines in which thing these blame the tyranny of the Roman Church save only conditional if any be convinced of the truth thereof or not convinced of the contrary § 35. 6. In fine that for enjoying and continuing in the Protestant Communion he maketh as full a profession of conformity to her doctrines as Mr. Chillingworth hath done in several places of his book which yet was accepted as sufficient 〈◊〉 41. The Fourth DISCOURSE CONFERENCE I. The Socinian's Protestant Plea for his not holding any thing contrary to the holy Scriptures § 1 THat those things which have been delivered in the three former discourses concerning the invalidity of the Protestants Guide for preserving the true faith and suppressing Heresies may be clearlier seen and more seriously considered I have thought fit in this for an Example to shew what Apology a Socinian upon the forementioned Protestant-positions may return for himself to a Protestant indeavouring to reduce him to the true faith and using any of these five motives thereto the testimony 1. of Scriptures 2. Of Catholick Church 3. Of her Councils 4. The danger of Heresie 5. The danger of Schism In which would not be thought to go about to equal all other Protestant-opinions to the malignity of the Socinian errors but only to shew that several defences which in respect of the former motives Protestants use for retaining theirs if these are thought just and reasonable the Socinians may use the same for much grosser Tenents For suppose a Protestant first concerning the Scriptures question a Socinian in this manner Prot. Why do you to the great danger of your soul and salvation not believe God the Son to be of one and the same essence and substance with God the Father it being so principal an Article of the Christian faith delivered in the Holy Scriptures Soc. To give you a satisfactory account of this matter I do believe with other Christians that the Scriptures are the Word of God and with other Protestants that they are a perfect Rule of
former Councils such as the Church of preceding Ages hath received as General or obliging as well those Councils since as those before the Sixth or Seventh Century which later the other Party rejects § 37. Chap. 5. The pretended Security of those Protestants who deny any certain living or Personal Guide infallible in Necessaries affirming 1. That all necessary Matters of Faith are even to the unlearned clear in the Scriptures and the Controversies in non-necessaries needless to be decided § 38. 2. That all Necessaries are clear in Scripture because God hath left no other certain Means Rule or Guide for the knowledge of them save the Scriptures § 39. n. 1. Not any certain living Guide 1. Which is infallible as their Guide the Scriptures are § 39. n. 2. 2. Which the unlearned in any Division can discern from the false Guides or know their Decrees better than the Scriptures 3. From whom the Scriptures direct them to learn Necessaries or tell them what Church or Party they are to adhere to in any Schism made In which infallible Guide if there were any such as being a thing of the greatest concernment the Scriptures would not have been silent Ibid. Reply 1. That Evidence of the Scriptures hath been the usual Plea of former Hereticks in their dissenting from the Church § 40. n. 1. 2. That as to the main and principal Articles of the Christian Faith the sufficiency of the Rule of Scripture is not denied by Roman Catholicks but only the clearness thereof as to all mens capacities questioned And another Guid held necessary § 40. n. 2. It is replyed then 1. Concerning the clearness of Scripture 1 That some Controversies in Religion since the writing of the Scriptures have been concerning points necessary As those Controversies concerning the Trinity the Deity and Humanity of our Lord the necessity of God's Grace c. § 41. 2. That the more clear all necessaries are in Scripture still with the more security may Christians rely for them on the Church's judgment from which also they receive these Scriptures § 42. 3. That there is no necessity that all Necessaries should be revealed in Scriptures as to all men clearly 1. Because it is sufficient if God hath left this one Point clear in Scriptures that we should in all difficulties and Obscurities of them follow the Directions and adhere to the Expositions and Doctrins of these Guides § 43. 2. Sufficient if God hath by other Apostolical Tradition at least clearly revealed to these Church-Guides all such necessary Truths to be successively communicated by them to his people § 44. 3. Sufficient if God hath by Tradition at least clearly revealed to these Church-Guides the sence of such Scriptures as are in points necessary any way obscure Ibid. 4. Sufficient if God in the Scripture hath clearly enough revealed all necessary Truths to the capacity of these Church-Guides using due means though he hath not to the capacity of the unlearned for from those these may learn them § 45. II. Concerning a living Guide 1. That where the Scripture especially several Texts compared is ambiguous and in Controversie the Christians Guide to know the true sence cannot be the Scripture but either the Church's or their own judgment § 46. n. 1. 2. That it is not necessary that God in the Scriptures should direct Christians to what Guide they are to repair § 46. n. 2. Or to what Church Prelates or Party in any Schism Christians for ever ought to adhere § 47. n. 2. 3. Yet that God hath given Christians a sufficient direction herein in his leaving a due subordination among these Governours whereby the Inferiors are subjected to the Superior and a par◠unto the whole § 47. n. 3. And that Christians may more clearly know the sence of their Definitions in matters controverted than the sence of the Scriptures § 48. THE THIRD DISCOURSE Examining What measure of obedience is due to these Guides and to the Supreme Ecclesiastical Judge of Controversies The CONTENTS Chap. 1. ROman Catholicks and Protestants do agree 1. That the Scriptures speaking of those books by the Protestants stiled Canonical are the Word of God § 1. 2. That in these Scriptures agreed on it is clearly declared that the Church Catholick of no age shall err in Necessaries § 2. 3. That the Church Catholick is contradistinct to Heretical and Schismatical Churches § 4. 4. That Christ hath left in his Church Pastors and Teachers to keep it from being tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of Doctrine § 5. Chap. 2. Catholicks go on and affirm 5. That the Church Guides at least assembled in Lawful General Councils shall never err in their determining things of necessary Faith § 6. 6. Shall never err in necessaries not taken for those that are absolutely required but for all that are very beneficial to Salvation § 9. 7. Shall never err in them not as infalliblly inspired to teach any new but as divinely assisted in delivering of the former revelations and Traditions wherein they affirm that the Church of all ages since the Apostles is for ever preserved equally infallible § 10. 8. That for knowing what or how many of former Councils have been lawfully General and obliging a Christian may safely rely on the General judgment of the Church since the sitting of such Councils § 11. 9. That in the absence of a considerable part of the Church-Governors from some Councils yet their acceptance of its decrees or concurrence with its doctrines renders it equivalent to a Council General § 13. 10. That particular persons or Churches parts of the whole are obliged to submit their judgment and yield their assent to the Definitions of the whole § 14. Chap. 3 11. That whatever particular person or Church holds the contrary to any known definition passed in a matter of Faith of any lawful General Council is Heretical § 16. 12. That any particular person or Church which for any cause whatever doth actually relinquish and separate from the external communion of the present Church Catholick is Schismatical § 20. 13. But yet That several persons or Churches coordinate may without Schism differ in any thing opinion or practise wherein they are not obliged to accord by their Common Superiors or by the whole § 23. Chap. 4. But Protestants after the four first propositions conceded in some sence do thus indeavour to qualify and restrain them 5. In granting the Catholick Church in all ages unerrable in necessaries they understand only such few Necessaries without the explicit belief of which Salvation cannot be attained § 24. 6. Therefore also they affirm that though the Church Catholick cannot err in such points absolutely necessary to Salvation yet it or all particular Churches in som one age or ages may in others the errors wherein are dangerous to salvation gross damnable c. § 25. Because it appears that many of the chief points from which Protestants dissent were General Tenents and practices
Laity which is the only Church Catholick the Pillar and Ground of Truth and the visible external Communion thereof to be continued in See his Instit 4 l. 1. c. 2. § upon the Article Credo sanctam Catholicam Ecclesiam ' Ecclesia saith he ideò Catholica dicitur seu universalis quia non duas aut tres invenire liceat quin discerpatur Christus quod fieri non potest 4 § In Symbolo ubi profitemur nos credere Ecclesiam id non solùm ad visibilem de quâ nunc agimus refertur sed ad omnes quoque electos Dei therefore this Article relateth to a Church visible and visible in all Ages Quia nunc de visibili Ecclesiâ disserere propositum est discamus vel uno Matris that it is termed a Mother Elogio quam utilis sit nobis ejus cognitio immo necessaria quando non alius est in vitam ingressus nisi nos ipsa concipiat in utero nisi pariat c. Adde quod extra ejus gremium nulla speranda est peccatorum remissio c. such a visible Mother-Church then it seems there is in all Ages some where or other as that none can enter into life that are not numbred among her children and inclosed within her bosom 7. § Quemadmodum ergo nobis invisibilem solius Dei oculis conspicuam Ecclesiam credere necesse est ita hanc quae respectu hominum Ecclesia dicitur observare ejusque communionem colere jubemur i.e. Communionem externam visibilem Ecclesiae visibilis 10. § Cujus authoritatem spernere vel castigationes ludere nemini impunè licet multo minus ejus abrumpere unitatem authoritatem castigationes he must mean of the Clergy and the spiritual Governours thereof Sic enim Dominus ejus authoritatem commendat ut dum illa violatur suam ipsius imminutam censeat Neque enim parvi momenti est quod vocatur columna firmamentum veritatis domus Dei. Quibus verbis significat Paulus ne intercidat Veritas Dei in mundo Ecclesiam visibilem esse fidam ejus custodem and that in all Ages else intercideret veritas quia ejus ministerio operâ voluit Deus puram verbi sui praedicationem conservari Vnde sequitur discessionem ab Ecclesia Dei Christi abnegationem esse 8. § Proinde quatenus eam agnoscere nostrâ intererat Dominus certis notis quasi Symbolis nobis designavit 10. § Symbola Ecclesiae dignoscendae verbi praedicationem sinceram Sacramentorumque observationem ex Christi Instituto See § 9. posuimus 11. § Ne sub Ecclesiae titulo impostura nobis fiat ad illam probationem seu ad Lydium lapidem exigenda est omnis Congregatio quae Ecclesiae nomen obtendit 2. l. 4. § Minimè permovere nos debet inanis hic fulgor Romanensium ut Ecclesiam esse recipiamus ubi verbum Dei non apparet 7. § Quis ausit eum coetum nullâ cum exceptione Ecclesiam appellare ubi verbum Domini palà m impunè conculcatur c. Thus Calvin in this place but how constant elsewhere to this doctrine I say not of the authority of and the obedience due to a permanent visible Church which is Columna Firmamentum veritatis and which is Governed by Christs Orthodox Ministers of the Word and Sacraments which Church he affirmeth to be the Reformed and not the Roman Concerning the Church then Which is It he and the Roman Catholicks differ but not in the Obedience due to the Church if he may name it Lastly were Protestants in this matter altogether silent yet those essential Notes or Marks they give of the true Church The true preaching of Gods Word and right Administration of the Sacraments always to be found in the Church do infer a Clergy to whom only both these Offices do belong as well as a people always Orthodox § 30 But here again so long as these Divines do still together with the former deny the promise of such a perpetual divine assistance to Superiour persons Reply Where That the subordinate Clergy can be no Guide to Christians when opposing the Superiour nor a few opposing a much major part or Synods of the Clergy in respect of Inferiors or to a major part of a Synod in respect of a lesser that holdeth or teacheth contrary which Superiours and major part only in such cases must be the Christians Guide a thing warranted by as universal a Tradition and Practice as any Fundamental whatever of Church-Government and whilst they do affirm this assistance continued only to some Clergy or other always but how inconsiderable a party for number or dignity in respect of the rest they know nor matter not In saying this they in effect say no more than the former This Clergy which they affirm unfailing in necessaries being in such a case only private persons not Guides to others no not to their own Flocks who according to the Traditive Constitution of Church-Government are not to hear their own private Pastors teaching contrary to the definitions of Superiour Prelats or Councils or in a Council a lesser part voting contrary to a major not to hear an Arrian Bishop teaching contrary to the Council of Nice nor the Patriarch Nestorius and Dioscorus and their Adherents voting contrary to the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon of this see what is said more at large in the second Discourse § 23. c. And therefore if the Promises are interpreted in this their manner the people in following the Superiour the major part the Traditive Rule of Obedience always observed in the Church somtimes will be tied to obey only those of the Clergy to whom Christ denies such assistance and to disobey those who have it § 31 Neither matters it much as to constitute them a Guide any more for this though this supposed Orthodox Clergy in whom our Saviours promise is said to be preserved be all too of one distinct Communion and one particular Church or Nation and these too the whole Clergy of that Church Because the whole Church through the whole world is but one body governed by one Law of Christ neither hath any against the whole more reason to adhere to his own particular Church when separating as to a Guide because his own than to any other unless he hath some greater assurance of its non-erring than of any others and besides what reason in this kind he hath to take that particular Church wherein he lives for his Guide the same have all other Christians living elsewhere to refuse it for theirs and do adhere to their own particular Church and thus if he by such obedience light on truth they by the same obedience will be necessitated to Errour Again if suppose twenty six Bishops of several Nations opposing an Oecumenical Council cannot be a Guide to all Christians much less can they if all these of one Church or Nation because here is more dependence one on
being just that either of these should be the Judge therefore that the Divines on one part and on the other arguing for their own Tenents there might be Judges i. e. Laicks indifferently chosen on both sides that is in an equal number to take knowledge of the Controversies And see Mr. Stillingfleet motioning some such thing p. 479. And this indeed was the only way they had in referring themselves to judgment not to be cast if the Judges of their own side at least would be true to them But to let these things pass As to a due proportion of National Votes this Council of Trent is not to be thought deficient therein whilst those Nations who by their own if by any ones fault had fewer Votes in the Council in passing the Decrees yet were as plenary and numerous as the rest in the acceptation of them after it And were now anew these things put to an equal Vote of the Western Nations I see not from what the Protestants may reasonably expect supposing the greatest liberty in these Votes that is possible an issue diverse from the former For have they any new thing to propose in their Orations and Speeches before such a Meeting that they have not already said in their Writings And notwithstanding are not the major part of the Occidental Clergy and the Learned that peruse them of a different judgment And why should not the others have as great presumptions upon an equal hearing to pcevail for reducing some of the Protestant party by Scriptures explicated by Apostolical Tradition Councils and Fathers as the Protestants of gaining some of the others by Scriptures alone Or if any will say that ancient Tradition Councils or Fathers are on the Protestant side how comes this to be one of their Articles proposed to the Council that all Humane Authority being excluded the Holy Scriptures might be judge in the Council And the Trent safe-Conauct running thus Quod causae controversae secundum Sanctam Scripturam Apostolorum Traditiones probata Concilia Sanctorum Patrum Authoritates Catholicae Ecclesiae Consensum tractentur VVhy desired they a freer Safe conduct after the form of that of Basil to the Bohemians Which if it had been granted saith Soave ‖ p. 344. they had obtained one great point that is that the Controversies should be decided by the Holy Scripture This from § 36. n. 1. I have said occasionally to Bishop Bramhal's so frequent free offers of Submission to the judgment of the present Catholick Church or of free General or also Occidental Councils § 37 Next come we to Arch-Bishop Lawd He § 31. p. 318. affirms That Of Archbish Lawd the Visible Church hath in all Ages taught that unchanged Faith of Christ in all points Fundamental Doctor White saith he had reason to say this And § 21. p. 140. It is not possible the Catholick Church i. e. of any one Age should teach He speaks therefore of the Governors of it in such Age against the Word of God in things absolutely necessary to Salvation And § 25. n. 4. If we speak of plain and easie Scripture the whole Church cannot at any time be without the knowledge of it If A. C. means no more than that the whole universal Church of Christ cannot universally erre in any one point of Faith simply necessary to all mens Salvation he fights against no Adversary that I know but his own fiction For the most learned Protestants grant it VVhere he speaks of the Church as teaching such points as appeareth by the Context Ibid. p. 139. Because the whole Church cannot universally erre in absolutely fundamental Doctrines therefore 't is true also that there can be no just cause of making a Schism from the whole Church That she may err indeed in Superstructions and Deductions and other by-and unnecessary Truths from her Curiosity or other weakness But if she can err either by falling away from the foundation i. e. by Infidelity or by heretical Errour in it she can be no longer holy for no Assemblies of Hereticks can be holy and so that Article of the Creed I believe the Holy Catholick Church is gone Now this Holiness saith he Errors of a meaner allay take not away from the Church Likewise § 33. n. 4. p. 256. the same Archbishop saith yet more clearly That the whole Catholick Church Militant having an absolute Infallibility in the prime Foundations of Faith absolutely necessary to Salvation if any thing sway and wrench the General Council he must mean here in non-necessaries such Council as is not universally accepted for a General Council universally accepted by the Church Catholick is unerrable in necessaries because the Church Catholick he saith is so upon evidence found in express Scripture or demonstration of this miscarriage hath power to represent her self in another body or General Council and to take order for what is amiss either practised or concluded in the former and to define against it p. 257. And afterward p. 258. That thus though the Mother-Church Provincial or National may err yet if the Grandmother the whole Universal Church He means in a general Council universally accepted cannot err in these necessary things all remains safe and all occasions of disobedience taken from the possibility of the Church's erring are quite taken away Again § 38. n. 14. he saith That a General Council de post facto after it is ended and admitted by the whole Church is then infallible And for this admittance or confirmation of it by the Church he granteth ‖ §. 26. p. 165. That no confirmation is needful to a General Council lawfully called and so proceeding but only that after it is ended the whole Church admit it though never so tacitly The sum of all in brief is this 1st That a General Council or indeed any Council whatever less than General accepted or admitted by the whole Church is infallible in Necessaries the reason is plain because he holds the whole Church is so 2ly Consequently that Obedience and this of Assent is due to such Council or to the judgment of the Church Catholick that is delivered by this Council as to necessaries Of Assent I say to it because infallible 3ly That all are to acquiesce none presume to urge or credit any pretence of Scripture or Demonstration against such a judgment because infallible 4ly That it is Schism to depart from the judgment of such a Council because the Archbishop holds all departure of any Member from the whole Church Catholick to be so ‖ §. 21. p. 139. § 38 Now thus much being professed by the Archbishop if he will also allow the Church Reply Where or her Councils and not private men to judge what Definitions are made in matters necessary and 2ly will grant an acceptation of such Council by a much major part of the Church Catholick diffusive I mean Concerning what acceptation of Councils by the Church diffusive is only necessary of those
we hold it impossible the Church should ever by Apostacy Of Dr. Field and miss-belief wholly depart from God in proving whereof Bellarmine confesseth his Fellows have taken much needless pains seeing no man of our profession thinketh any such thing Bellarmin's words are Notandum multos ex nostris tempus terere dum probant absolutè Ecclesiam non posse deficere Nam Calvinus caeteri Haeretici id concedunt sed dicunt intelligi debere de Ecclesiâ invisibili So we hold that it never falleth into any Heresie So that he is as much to be blamed for idle and needless busying himself in proving that the visible Church never falleth into Heresie which we most willingly grant Bellarmin's words are Probare igitur volumus Ecclesiam visibilem non posse deficere nomine Ecclesiae non intelligimus unum aut alterum hominem Christianum sed multitudinem congregatam in quâ sunt Praelati Subditi urging also afterward out of Eph. 4.11 the Ministries of Pastors Doctors c. never to fail in the Church quae Ministeria saith he non possunt exerceri nisi se Pastores Oves agnoscant From all which I collect that of such a visible Church-Government consisting of Prelates and Subjects it must be that Dr. Field affirms Ibid. That in things necessary to be known and believed expresly and distinctly it can never be ignorant much less err nor never fall into any Heresie As also afterward c. 4. In all Ages he acknowledgeth a Church that not as a Chest preserves only the Truth as a hidden Treasure but as a Pillar by publick Profession notwithstanding all Forces endeavouring to shake it publisheth it to the world and stayeth the weakness of others c. CHAP. VI. IV. Learned Protestants conceding the former Church's Clergy preceding the Reformation never so to have erred in defining Necessaries as that the Church governed by them did not remain still True Holy and Catholick § 41. § 41 IV. SUitably to their Concessions set down in the last Chapter these Learned Protestants do not assume the confidence to pronounce IV. 4. Learned Protestants conceding the former Churches Clergy preceding the Reformation never to have so erred in defining Necessaries as that the Church governed by them did not still remain True Holy Catholick The joint Body of the Governors of any precedent Age of the Church how corrupt soever they have been in their Conciliary Definitions to have erred or to have misled the people in Necessaries Essentials or Fundamentals of Religion whether in respect of Faith or Holiness notwithstanding that they have placed in these very times the Reign of Antichrist Whence it may be presumed that the Church shall not see nor suffer hereafter worse times than those past And that all these Governors in any succeeding Age shall not miss-guide the people in Necessaries or Fundamentals whom in the times of Antichrist they have not misled so Therefore Bishop Bramhall ‖ Vindic. 2 c. p. 8. Reply to Chalcedon p. 345. holds the present Roman a true part of the present Church Catholick and frequently affirms the Reformed as to Essentitials in Faith not to have separated from it And Dr. Potter speaks thus of the present Roman Church ‖ §. 3. p. 63. The most necessary and Fundamental Truths which constitute a Church are on both sides unquestioned and for that reason learned Protestants yield them the Roman the Naeme and Substance of a true Church Dr. Field also ‖ Des 3. pt p. 880. thus apologizeth for this Tenent at least for the times before Luther Because some men perhaps will think that we yield more unto our Adversaries now than formerly we did in that we acknowledge the Latine or Western Churches subject to Romish Tyranny before God raised up Luther to have been the true Churches of God in which a saving Profession of the Truth of Christ was found I will 1st shew that all our best and most renowned Divines did ever acknowledge as much as I have written And so he proceeds to urge several Authorities to confirm it And thus Mr. Thorndike ‖ Epilog Conclusion p. 416. saith Though I sincerely blame the imposing new Articles upon the Faith of Christians and that of Positions § 42 which I maintain not to be true yet I must and do freely profess that I find no position necessary to salvation prohibited none destructive to salvation enjoined to be believed by it the Roman Church And therefore I must necessarily accept it for a true Church as in the Church of England I have always known it accepted seeing there can no question be made that it continueth the same visible Body by the succession of Pastors and Laws that first were founded by the Apostles the present Customes that are in force being visibly the corruptions of those Customs which the Church had from the beginning I suppose he means being the same Customs which the Church had from the beginning though in some manner corrupted For the Idolatries which I grant to be possible though not necessary to be found in it by the Ignorance and carnal Affections of Particulars not by command of the Church or the Laws of it I do not admit to destroy the salvation of those who living in the Communion of this Church are not guilty of the like There remaines therefore in the present Church of Rome the Profession of all the Truth which it is necessary to the Salvation of all Christians to believe either in point of Faith or Manners So he saith concerning Prayer to Saints That those who admit the Church of Rome to commit Idolatry therein can by no means grant it to be a Church the very being whereof supposeth the Worship of one God exclusive to any thing else And l. 3. c. 23 Concerning Communion in one kind he saith That they in the Church of Rome who thirst after the Eucharist in both kinds do receive the whole Grace of this Sacrament in the one kind is necessary to be believed by all who believe that the Church of Rome remains a Church though corrupt and that Salvation is to be had in it and by it 2. Again For the Essentials or Necessary Doctrines in order to Holiness these learned Protestants grant § 43 that Holy is an Attribute unseparable from Catholick Credo Sanctam Catholicam Ecclesiam And that the Church cannot be the one unless it be the other and as in the whole so in the parts that no particular Church is a part of the Catholick that hath not the Holiness of the Catholick Of which thus the Archbishop ‖ p. 14◠If we will keep our Faith the whole Militant Church must be still Holy For if it be not so still then there may be a time that a falshood may be the Subject of the Catholick Faith which were no less than Blasphemy to affirm For we must still believe the Holy Catholick Church And if she be not still Holy
himself in saying ‖ Apol. 3 par p. 880. Append 3 l. p. 187 224. That this Roman Church is not the same now as it was when Luther began Nor the external face of Religion then the now professed Roman Religion And further ‖ p. 880. That the errors of the present Roman Church are Fundamental Where it is observable 1st That the discession of Protestants in Luthers time or of Luther himself from that Church which was not the same as he saith then as now nor the Errors which Protestants now condemn then the doctrines of it but of a faction in it remains by this still culpable For none may desert the Communion of a Church because of the corrupt doctrines or practices of a faction in it But if he make the Clergy and Ecclesiastical Governours of such Church imposing such doctrines and requiring unjust conditions of their Communion to be that Faction then the Doctrins and the Faction to be charged on the very Church it self and not on a party in it as a Church all the ruling Clergy of which holds and imposeth Arrianism is rightly stiled an Arrian Church if any can be so But this expression Dr. Field saw he had reason to forbear §. 47. n. 2. And therefore Bishop Bramhall ‖ Reply to Chalced. p. 263. thought fit to take another course and for the defence of the lawfulness of this first discession of Protestants which discession the Bishop of Chalcedon urged to have preceded those grievances and impediments of Communion that Protestants of later times chiefly complain of namely the many new Definitions and Anathema's of the Council of Trent and new Articles and Creeds of Pius the fourth seems to make a contrary plea to Dr. Field For those very points saith he which Pius the fourth comprehended in a new Symbol or Creed were obtruded upon us before by his Predecessors and therefore before the ratification or obliging authority of the Council of Trent as necessary Articles of the Roman Faith and required as necessary Articles of their Communion so as we must either receive these or utterly lose them This is the only difference that Pius the fourth dealt in gross his Predecessors by retail They fashioned the several rods and he bound them up into a bundle But if the Bishop understands this of the Council of Trent that sate under the Predecessors of Pius the Query still remains concerning the lawful Grounds of the first Protestant discession from the former Church which discession precedes the beginning of that Council above twenty years §. 47. n. 3. 2 ly It is observable that the discession made since from the former publick service of the Church and the Canon of the Masse affirmed by Dr. Field to contain in it no Romish Errors must be also culpable in which nothing since Luthers time hath been altered 3ly That the present Church of Rome in being said by him since that time to err in Fundamentals is hereby ceased to be any part of the Church Catholick and further no salvation to be had in her at all even to the invincibly ignorant if Dr. Field holds no truth to be fundamental to salvation but such without which salvation cannot possibly be had Concerning which see what he saith 3 l. 4 c. p. 79. CHAP. VII V. That according to the former Concession made in the precedent Chapter § 41. there seems to be * a great security to those continuing in the ancient Communion § 48. As to avoiding Heresie or Schism Ib. As to other grosser Errors § 51. And * danger to those deserting it § 54. Where is drawn up in brief the Protestant's Defence for such Discession § 55. n. 1. And the Catholick's Remonstrance § 55. n. 9. § 48 Now to reflect on the former Discourse as to the two Principal Concessions made by Protestants therein The 1st Their conceding the Catholickness The security that hence seems to be to those continuing in the ancient Communion and Indeficiency of the former Western Church as to all Necessaries before and at the coming of Luther ‖ §. 41 c. The 2d. Their conceding the general Councils of the Church in any age to be unerrable in Necessaries when they are universally accepted by the Church Catholick diffusive ‖ §. 32 c. From the first of these the Catholickness of the Roman Church before Luther in Necessaries As to Heresie or Schism being granted methinks appears a great secnrity for their salvation as to their Faith who are not deficient in a holy life to all those who persevere to live and die in the external Communion of the present Roman and other Western Churches unreformed and then the like hazard to those who relinquish that Communion For 1st I think it is clear that none who lived and died in the Faith I mean that declared in her Councils and in the Communion of the Western or Roman Church that was before Luther's Appearance could endanger his Salvation upon the account of his incurring either Heresie or Schism because then the Western or Roman Church before Luther must be held Heretical or Schismatical and so non-Catholick for these two Heretical and Catholick are contra-distinct See the Archbishop § 21. n. 5. p. 141. and what is said before § 44. And then seeing there was an Holy Catholick Church some where or other in that immediately before Luther as in every Age which and where was it The Eastern Churches using much-what the same publick Liturgy and being guilty of as gross Errors and Practises and also they excluding Non-Conformists from their Communion § 49 Add to this Mr. Stillingfleet's Position ‖ Rat. account p. 58. That if we enquire what was positively believed as necessary to Salvation by the Catholick Church we shall hardly find any better way than by the Articles of the ancient Creeds and the universal opposition of any new Doctrine on its first appearing and the condemning the Broachers of it for Heresie in Oecumenical Councils with the continual disapprobation of those Doctrines by the Christian Churches of all Ages As is clear in the Cases of Arrius and Pelagius For it seems very reasonable saith he to judge that since the necessary Articles of Faith were all delivered by the Apostles to the Catholick Church since the foundation of that Church lies in the belief of those things which are necessary that nothing should be delivered contrary to any necessary Article of Faith but the Church by some evident Act must declare its dislike of it and its resolution thereby to adhere to that necessary Doctrine which was once delivered to the Saints Thus he From which thought so reasonable is gathered the security in adhering to those Tenents received in the Church before Luther which Protestants now oppose as being not contrary to any necessary Article of Faith delivered by the Apostles to the Catholick Church because Protestants cannot shew to repeat here the former words the
Broachers of these Tenents suppose of a Substantial Conversion in the Eucharist Saint-Invocation Veneration of Images a Purgatory of Souls after this life Monastick Vows Sacrifice of the Mass c. condemned for Heresie in Oecumenical Councils or a continual disapprobation of those Doctrines by the Christian Churches of all ages as is clear in the cases of Arrius and Pelagius or the Church by any evident Act declaring her dislike of them as may on the other side be shewed many evident Acts of her Approbation of them And 2ly If no danger of perishing for Heresie or Schisme to those living and dying in this Communion before §. 50. n. 1. then neither to any since Luther's times For if since these times this Communion be become Heretical or Schismatical I demand in respect of what Council or what Definitions made since Luther's days which it opposeth is it becom Heretical or in respect of what Church in deserting or departing from its Communion Schismatical Or in the Protestant's Notions of Heresie and Schism in respect of what new Tenent or Practise against some Fundamental point of Faith since Luther's time is it become Heretical when guilty of none such before And in its requiring of Conformity to what new points of Faith since Luther's time is it become Schismatical so that one that could lawfully yield obedience to all those required before Luther's appearance yet cannot to all the present or so that the Church before Luther might lawfully require without hazard of Schism Conformity to its whole Faith then and not so the present Church to the whole present Faith For I hope none here will have the face to deny Conformity required by the Western Churches before Luther's coming to many of the chiefest of those points wherein Protestants now refuse it See those mentioned Disc 3. § 26. And you may observe §. 50. n. 2. that the most or chiefest of the Protestant Controversies defined or made de fide in the Council of Trent were made so By former Councils of equal obligation or also were contained in the publick Liturgies of the Church Catholick As The Lawfulness of Communion in one kind declared in the Council of Constance Canon of Scripture Purgatory seven Sacraments the Pope's Supremacy in the Council of Florence Auricular Confession Transubstantiation in the Council of Florence the Lateran and five others before it wherein Berengarius his Doctrines were condemned Veneration of Images in the 2d Nicene Council Monastick Vows and Celibacy of the Clergy sufficiently authorized in the four first General Councils And to these I may add the Council of Frankfort if the Capitulare Caroli which indeed was written before may be taken to deliver the sence of the Council * For Adoration of Christ's Body and Bloud in the Eucharist the Council applying the Psalmist's Adorate Scabellum thereto as it is expounded by S. Ambrose * Ibid. 4.15 l. 3. c. 24 and S. Austin ‖ De Spiritu Sancto l. 3. c. 12. And for Veneration of the Cross ‖ Capitulare l. 2. c. 5. c. 27. l. 4. c. 17 and of Relicks ‖ Only the Adoration of Images allowed by the second Nicene Council indeed is condemned but this upon a Mistake of the Doctrine of that Council as is confessed by Dr. Hammond Treatise of Idolatry § 57. And by Mr Thorndâ—ke Epil l. 3. p. 363. And as any one may easily discern if he will view in the Preface of this Capitulare what opinion was imputed by the Fathers of Franckfort to those of Nice Besides these Councils Invocation of Saints Prayers for the Dead Sacrifice of the Masse and several other are apparent in the Publick Liturgies of the Church â—naltered Protestants being Judges for many ages preceding the Council of Trent Now the Church obligeth her Subjects to believe all those things lawful which in her Liturgies she obligeth them to practice And why was there made a departure from the Church for these points before the Council of Trent if the Church before had not made them de fide or required Obedience and Conformity to them or if the Council of Trent or Pius the Fourth were first faulty herein ‖ See Bishop Bramhal's Concession before §. 47. Suppose then a belief of some more Points is since added yet I ask will the decreeing or imposing of these infer upon the present Church the guilt of Schism and not the like decreeing or imposing the former infer the same guilt upon the former Church that preceding Luther Now from this Identity in Faith and practice in the present Church with that preceding Luther excepting if our Gratitude may be allowed to speak the truth that the Council held since Luther's time hath reformed several practises in some persons of it which were before justly blamed it seems clear that whoso is a member of the present Western or Roman Church is secure that he is a Member of the Church Catholick For it is impossible that the Church which is the same with what was the Church Catholick 150 years ago should meerly by the difference and decurrence of time become non-Catholick Now if this be denied that the present Roman Church is the fame for it's Doctrines and Practices with that Church which was at Luther's appearing let the issue of the Contention be placed here and let search only be made concerning this Not to ask mean-while why Luther reformed then why exclaimed so vehemently on the Babylonish Captivity and sounded an Exite de illâ Populus meus if the Deformation of this Church it 's non-holinesse it 's non-Catholicknesse is since the Council of Trent and so not till after his time 3ly As I think here is shewed no danger of perishing in the present external Communion of these Churches upon the account of Heresie or Schism ‖ §. 51. so neither is there As to other gross Errors on the account of any grosse or grievous Errors For 1st How are they grievous Errors that are not against any necassary Point of Faith But if they be such with Protestants are Heresies For Example to name some chief ones How are Adoration of the Eucharist or Invocation of Saints grievous Errors if also they be not against any necessary point of Faith viz. this That Divine Worship and Divine Supplication which they say is presented to Saints may be given only to God But them they are Heresies Or what so grievous Error in the present Communion that was not it or as bad in the same Communion before Luther's time When yet Christians in this Communion were secure because it was then the Catholick and the Catholick being always Holy may err indeed in superstructions and deductions and other by and unnecessary Truths from curiosity c. but cannot err from the Foundation saith the Archbishop I add ‖ §. 21. p. 141. as of Faith so also of Good Manners These Errors then which are now charged to render the Church of Rome guilty of
a manifold Idolatry in her worshipping the Eucharistical Bread the Relicks and Images of Saints and making Prayers to them were they not the same in the Church before Luther and the same their effect Or if the same Errors then light are now become grievous Upon what account Is it upon a more evident Conviction Christians may have now than heretofore that such are Errors But what ground can we have to say that they now culpably and convincibly err in these who no more than those before Luther can be accused for holding any Errors save such as are the Publick Faith of the Church now authorized as much as that before Luther and who to preserve themselves from erring make use of the securest way that Reason can imagine or that Christians are prescribed whilst for the sence of the Scriptures controverted in such Points they chuse not to rely on their own judgment but on that of the supremest Guides of the Church and Judges of divine Truth that are afforded them here on earth and so if they err yet take the wisest course to miss erring that Religion or Reason can dictate To which Guides also all the Subjects of this former Communion believe submission of their private judgment to be due and to be commanded which is a very plausible one if an Error From whence also it follows that till they are convinced of Error in this one Point of Submission not to be due they are not capable of being convinced in any other where it is required Nay yet further to the Obedience of which Guides at least for silence and non-contradiction they are obliged even by the Doctrine of Learned Protestants ‖ See Disc 3. § 44. where-ever they cannot demonstrate the contrary which demonstration is a degree of Conviction surely very few can pretend to § 52 1. It is said indeed by Protestants ‖ Stillingf P. 330. Archbishop Lawd § 21. n. 5. That all Particular Churches or the whole Catholick Church in some age or ages may universally hold some Tenent that is an Error but then granted by them That any such universally held Error can never destroy the Essence or Being of the Church Catholick or render it non Catholick because thus in such age the Church Catholick would fail Now from this I collect my security ni holding any Tenents though they should happen to be Errors which were universally held in the Church before Luther that as they destroy not the Church it's being still Catholick so neither do they expell me from still continuing in the bosom of the Church Catholick And hence for example I am secured that I am no Idolater if not swerving from the Church's Doctrines because the Church whilst Catholick as she is affirmed to be is not such But in joining with a Church that pretending to reform holds the contradictories of these former universal Tenents I am not here secure but that some of these Tenents may be such Errors as exclude this new Church from being a part of the Catholick and me if adhering to it from being a Member thereof as the maintaining by the Arrians and others of some Tenents contrary to the universal Doctrines of the former Church hath separated them from the Church Catholick I say for any Tenent I can shew to have been spread over the whole Catholick Church at Luther's appearance I am secured by Protestants that in holding this I am free from Heresie or being rendred thereby extra-Catholick But then I am not so in my entring into a new Society that contradicts this Church and such Tenents except in such Points of the truth of which I am infallibly certain 2. Again it is affirmed by Protestants ‖ That a Separation may be made without Schism § 52 from the external communion of all particular Churches some of which or all which I say See Stillingf p. 331. Chillingw c. 5. §. 52 55 56 59. must be the Catholick of some age for some Points if held and imposed by them viz. Those Points wherein the Essence and Union of the Church Catholick consisteth not because in such the Church Catholick may err but cannot without Schism for other Points viz. such as constitute the necessary Faith of the Church Catholick wherein she erreth not for so she would cease to be Catholick Now from hence also I gather that I continuing in the external communion of all those particular Churches can never be non-Catholick or guilty in concurring in any Schism for my holding and conforming to any of the Church's universal Tenents because none such can destroy the Church from being Catholick still ‖ But in my separation from all these Churches imposing such Tenents I am not secure because some of these Tenents as Protestants grant may possibly be such as are some part of the necessary Catholick Faith and so my separation if made on such account is Schism § 54 This security then they seem to enjoy who live and die in the Communion of the unreformed And danger to those deserting it Western or Roman Church before or since Luthers times they being acquitted thereby from Heresie and Schism or any other error damnative to them who therein follow their spiritual Guides not against Conscience But the like I see not how any may promise to himself in living and dying in a new-raised Communion and in deserting the former especially if deserting it for any former general doctrines and practises thereof which if not enjoin'd he here left to his free liberty hath no reason for these to withdraw himself from the Communion of the whole but if enjoyned ought in these to submit to the judgment of the whole especially so many as cannot demonstrate against it ‖ See 2 Disc §. 20. to submit at least so far as if not to assent yet not to contradict All which are transgressed in following the Reformation where such a person for the sence of the Scriptures controverted and for his denying conformity to the doctrines delivered by the Church as matter of Faith either relies on his own judgment or in submitting to a Guide follows inferior against Superior Governors or Synods or a Minor against a much major part Lastly follows those who have refused conformity to the external Communion even to the Liturgies and publick service of the whole former Catholick Church whether Eastern or Western and have set up a new one against them of their own which are all manifest breaches of the unity of the whole I say I see no security any can have in such a new Communion excepting that which invincible ignorance affords which in such an apparent decession from former Churches and Councils God knows how few especially of the Learned that peruse the Writings of former times it may shelter The most moderate §. 55. n. 1. and plausible defence which Protestants or to speak more particularly which the Church of England makes for her discession Where A brief Relation of the
acknowledge as much as C. G. or any man the authority of a General Council against the dissent of a Nation much more of a particular Bishop And The Belief and Practises we forsook were not Doctrines defined by the Church saith Dr. Ferne ‖ Divis Eng. and Rom. Ch. p. 59. Upon such Concession concerning Councils universally accepted and upon these appeals made to them here are referred to the examination of all disinteressed §. 56. n. 3. and conscientious Christians these Considerables following the design of this discourse 1. The first Considerable is Whether the necessary points wherein our Lord is supposed perpetually so to assist his Church or her general Councils universally accepted as that she is infallible and doth not err in the decision of them and consequently whereto all her subjects are obliged to yield their assent ought not to be extended so far as to comprehend some at least of those points I mean either the Negative or Affirmative of them the disputes about which as things of the highest moment have so miserably afflicted the western Churches now for so long a time The necessary consequence of the doctrine of Transubstantiation as many Protestants maintain is the committing of Idolatry in worshipping a piece of bread for our Lord Christ Is not this point then necessary and Fundamental to Christian Religion that in a Council meeting to decide it the contrary to Transubstantiation should be therein determined For the Affirmative can never be determined in such a Council where the Negative is necessary to be believed If the belief of Gods essential Attributes is a necessary and fundamental point of faith is not the defining the contrary and giving some of them to a creature in allowing Saint-Invocation a thing with which Protestants charge the Roman Church erring in a Fundamental and if it be then cannot a General Council universally accepted so define The same may perhaps be said of many other points Merit of works VVorship of Images Communion in one kind according to what esteem many Protestants have of these errors aggravated also by their fancy that the Pope is Antichrist But suppose none of them to be in necessaries yet they being affirmed by the more moderate Reformed to be-errors very grievous damnable c. then may not a right belief of them be thought necessary so far as that the Catholick Church and such a Council may be presumed to receive from our Lord a continual preservation in a right Faith of them if the Error in them be pretended so grievous And I desire that for this Dr. Hammond's words quoted below § 59. may be well weighed As likewise this to be considered ‖ Of Heresie §. 13. whether it is not all reason that the Church or these Councils not private men or Inferiors should judge of this Necessity 2ly If this may not be granted §. 56. n. 4. that any of these modern Controversies are about Necessaries or the points such that the Church Catholick or her General Councils universally accepted in their Definitions cannot err in them and so an assent to such Definitions be due from her Subjects The Second Considerable is VVhether at least when such Councils define them all particular Persons and Churches ought not to yield the external Obedience to them of Silence and not any further opposing or contradiction without these private men's or also Church's reserving still to themselves lest some Truth should be thus oppressed new Remonstrances and Demonstrations and a Liberty if upon these Remonstrances the Church Catholick neglect to assemble another Council or it called err again in the result a Liberty I say especially if it be a Church National to reform for themselves such Errors of Councils For with such Reservations what signifie their former appeals to or to what purpose any Meeting of such Councils when as 1st The present Controversies are not allowed to be in Necessaries in all which the Roman Church and Reformed are said by them to be already fully agreed 2 And then they will yield neither any internal nor external Obedience to any such Conciliary Decrees in the stating of non-necessaries But if such an external submission of non-contradiction be thought fit to be allowed though that internal of assent cannot be obtained yet this seems to secure the Church's peace for thus a Controversie once defined cannot be revived to the disturbance thereof and if they say some Truth somtime may happen thus to suffer yet being in a non-necessary as they say it is it may be spared Neither had this Duty been duly performed by our Ancestors do I see how the past Reformation as to many points could have found any entrance And therefore though some of the formerly recited appeals of Protestants promise fairly for such an absolute submission to Councils yet the Archbishop seems to allow no more than a conditional one and with an If or Vnless still annexed I pray you look in him § 32. p. 227. Far better saith he is that Inconvenience viz. of tolerating an Error till another General Council meet than this other that any authority less than a General Council should rescind the Decrees of it unless it err manifestly and intolerably And again Ibid. No way must lie open to private men to refuse Obedience till the Council be heard and weighed as well as that which they say against it yet with Bellarmine's Exception still here misse-applied ‖ De Concil l. 2. c 8. Bellarmine constantly denying that a General Council lawfully proceeding and confirmed by the Pope can err in any matter of Faith the Bishop here affirming it so the Error be not manifestly intollerable Nor is it fit for private men in such cases as this upon which the whole Peace of Christendom depends to argue thus The Error appears Therefore the Determination of the Council is ipso jure invalid But this is far the safer way I say still when the Error is neither-fundamental nor in it self manifest to argue thus The Determination is by equal authority and that secundum jus according to Law declared to be invalid Therefore the Error appears 3ly If this submission of non-gainsaying at least §. 56. n. 5. may be once granted the third thing recommended to a diligent Examination is Whether not only the Roman but all the Occidental Churches joined with the Western and Prime Patriarch the Exordium Vnitatis as S. Cyprian ‖ Cyprian de Vnit Ecclesiae with Bishop Bramhall's approbation stiles him ‖ Schism Guarded p. 4 25. and the Councils that have been heretofore assembled in the West be not for the Doctrines wherein we find the Greek Churches also consenting with them in such a sence the whole as that any Christian especially a Member of the VVestern Church ought to take these for their supream Guide in defect of any greater Meeting and ought to yield obedience of Assent to them in defining Necessaries or in not Necessaries of non-contradiction
accordingly both in Councils their defining Matters of Religion and in the Church's acceptation of their Decrees the much Major part must conclude the whole and the opposing of their Definitions also be Heresie and separation from their Communion Schism if an Opposition to or separation from the whole be so § 27. n. 4 14. As for the Protestant Marks whereby in any Division to know these true Guides viz. A right teaching of God's Word and a right Administration of the Sacraments that these are things to be learned from these true Guides first known § 28 Chap. 4. An Application of the former Propositions in a search which of the opposite present Churches or of the dissenting Ecclesiastical Governors thereof is our true Guide § 30. Motives perswading that the Roman and the other Western Churches united with it and with the Head thereof S. Peter's Successor are this true Guide 1st Their being the very same Body with that which Protestants grant was 150 years ago the Christian 's true Guide and the other Body confessing themselves in external Communion departed from it § 33. 2ly Their being that Body to which if we follow the former Rule recited Prop. 12. we ought to submit § 35. 3ly Their being that Body that owns and adheres to the Definitions and Decrees of all the former Councils such as the Church of preceding Ages hath received as General or obliging as well those Councils since as those before the Sixth or Seventh Century which later the other Party rejects § 37. Chap. 5. The pretended Security of those Protestants who deny any certain living or Personal Guide infallible in Necessaries affirming 1. That all necessary Matters of Faith are even to the unlearned clear in the Scriptures and the Controversies in non-necessaries needlesse to be decided § 38. 2. That all Necessaries are clear in Scripture because God hath left no other certain Means Rule or Guide of the knowledge of them save the Scriptures § 39. n 1. Not any certain living Guide 1st Which is infallible as their Guide the Scriptures are § 39. n. 2. 2ly Which the unlearned in any Division can discern from the false Guides or know their Deerees better than the Scriptures 3ly From whom the Scriptures direct them to learn Necessaries or tell them what Church or Party they are to adhere to in any Schisme made In which infallible Guide if there were any such as being a thing of the greatest concernment the Scriptures would not have been silent Ibid. Reply 1. That Evidence of the Scriptures hath been the usual Plea of former Hereticks in their dissenting from the Church 2. That as to the main and principal Articles of the Christian Faith the sufficiency of the Rule of Scripture is not denied by Roman Catholicks but only the clearness thereof as to all mens capacities questioned And another Guide held necessary It is replied then I. Concerning the Clearnesse of Scripture 1. That some Controversies in Religion since the writing of the Scriptures have been concerning points necessary As those Controversies concerning the Trinity the Deity and Humanity of our Lord the necessity of God's Grace c. § 43. 2. That the more clear all Necessaries are in Scripture still with the more securitie may Christians relie for them on the Church's judgment from which also they receive these Scriptures § 41. 3. That there is no necessity that all Necessaries should be revealed in Scriptures as to all men clearly § 41. 1. Because it is sufficient if God hath left this one Point clear in Scriptures that we should in all difficulties and Obscurities of them follow the Directions and adhere to the Expositions and Doctrines of these Guides § 41. 2. Sufficient if God hath by other Apostolical Tradition at least clearly revealed to these Church-Guides all such necessary Truths to be successively communicated by them to his people § 44. 3. Sufficient if God hath by Tradition at least clearly revealed to these Church-Guides the sence of such Scriptures as are in points necessary any way obscure Ibid. 4. Sufficient if God in the Scripture hath clearly enough revealed all necessary Truths to the capacity of these Church Guides using due means though he hath not to the capacity of the unlearned for from those these may learn them § 45. II. Concerning a living Guide 1. That where the Scripture especially several Texts compared is ambiguous and in Controversy the Christians Guide to know the true sence cannot be the Scripture but either the Church's or their own judgment § 46. n. 1. 2. That it is not necessary that God in the Scriptures should direct Christians to what Guide they are to repair § 46. n. 2. Or to what Church-Prelates or Party in any Schism Christians for ever ought to adhere § 47. n. 2. 3. Yet that God hath given Christians a sufficient direction herein in his leaving a due subordination among these Governors whereby the Inferiors are subjected to the Superior and a part unto the whole § 47. n. 3. And that Christians may more clearly know the sence of their Definitions in matters controverted than the sence of the Scriptures § 48. THE SECOND DISCOURSE CHAP. I. Protestants assenting 1. That there is at this present an One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church § 1. 2. That the present Pastors and Governours thereof have Authority to decide Controversies § 2. 3. And that their Governors shall never err or mis-guide Christians at least in absolute Necessaries § 3. 4. And that they with the Church governed by them do stand always distinct from Heretical and Schismatical Congregations § 5. § 1 1st THat there is an One Holy Catholick Apostolick Church in this Age and at this present time All Proposition 1 I suppose grant § 2 2ly That this present Church that is in its Pastors Prop. 2. and Governors is appointed for a Guide to Christians and hath Authority to decide Controversies is unquestioned also among several learned Protestants ‖ See Disc 1. §. 3◠c. And I think is a part of the 20 th Article of the Church of England which Article saith The Church hath Authority in Controversies of Faith And what can it mean but for deciding them or who decide them but the Ecclesiastical Governors § 3 3ly That these present Governors in this present Age either * collectively taken as they are assembled in a Council Prop. 3. the Decrees whereof are universally accepted by those Governors of the Church diffusive that are absent from it or * disjunctively taken for some visible Society or other of them at least somtimes lesser somtimes greater shall never misguide Christians at least in absolute Necessaries to salvation is also acknowledged by learned Protestants ‖ See Disc 1. §. 25. c. And seems to be the clear sence of the 19 th Article of the Church of England which affirms ' The visible Church of Christ to be a Congregation of faithful men ‖ See Art
23. in the which the pure Word of God is preached preached I suppose by its Ministers in all those things that of Necessity are requisite to the same Church or Congregation of the faithful And indeed otherwise either the first Proposition a part of our Creed would be false because since the people are obliged to the faith of these their Governors Heb. 13.7 Eph. 4.11 compared 14. the whole Church would thus err in Necessaries and so would cease to be Catholick Or at least the Catholick Church in such deficiency of the Clergy would be constituted wholly of Laicks and of Christs Sheep without Pastors save those whose Sacraments and Communion as falling away from the Catholick Church in Fundamentals are unlawful which seems very absurd and contrary to the Promises of our Lord. Concerning this visible Church or Society of Orthodox-Guides thereof never deficient See the Concessions of Dr. Field ‖ See 1 Disc §. 3. Dr. Ferne Mr. Hooker and other learned Protestants in 1. Disc § 25 c. And Mr. Chillingworth though by reason of the plainnesse of Scripture in all Necessaries he acknowledgeth no need of any such Guide and therefore denies it ‖ p. 59. yet thus he freely speaks of the necessity of the Infallibility of such Guide supposed ' In Civil Controversies saith he we are obliged only to external passive obedience and not to an internal and active We are bound to obey the sentence of the Judge or not to resist it but not always to believe it just But in matters of Religion such a Judge is required whom we should be obliged to believe to have judged right So that in Civil Controversies every honest understanding man is fit to be a Judge But in Religion none but he that is infallible Thus he And the reason seems plain because these are Guides of our souls and consciences in matters of belief for attaining our salvation but not so the secular whether our natural or civil Governors so that the usual arguing of some Protestants from the fallible authority of the one its being sufficient to that of the other seems very faulty since we have to these no obligation as concerning divine matters either to assent to what they propose or to practise what they command further than we believe the thing true they propose and lawful they command but are in case of any doubt in these matters to repair to these our spiritual Guides to be directed what is truth and error lawful and unlawful The judgment and decision of which things so often as the true meaning and sense of the divine law falls into controversie those who do not give to these Church-Guides do much more dangerously both for their own souls and the state they live in take to themselves for neither do these give the decision of such things to the Civil Magistrates § 5 4. Again It follows likewise from the present being of the Catholick Church of every age Prop. 4. supposed to consist as well of Clergy as People That the present Governors or Guides thereof who or where-ever they be cannot in any age be Heretical or Schismatical for all Heretical or Schismatical Congregations are contra-distinct both to Holy Church and Catholick Charch mentioned in our Creed This is a thing conceded by Archbishop Lawd Dr Field Bishop Bramhall and others See Disc 1. § 37 44. CHAP. II. 4. Catholicks further affirming 5. That these Pastors being infallible in Necessaries the people are to learn from them what is necessary § 6. 6. That this their Infallibility in Necessaries must extend not only to some few points absolutely necessary but all others very beneficial to Salvation § 9. 7. That it is no way requisite That these Church-Guides should exactly distinguish all such Necessaries from other points not so § 12. Which they may infallibly guide in though not infallibly separate § 14. And no distinct on being made ought to be believed in all they propose § 15. Yet thae they do both distinguish and propose as such all those more necessary points which it is requisite for all Christians more particularly and explicitly to believe § 17. 8. That Christians submitting to their Judgment in deciding Necessaries ought also to submit to the same in their declaring the sence of Fathers Definitions of Councils c. touching the same matters § 19. 9. That supposing these Guides tr err in some of their Decisions yet their Subjects by the Concession of Learned Protestants ought to yield Obedience either of Silence or also of Assent to them in all such points whereof they cannot demonstratively prove the contrary § 20. 10. Whence it follows That none may adhere to any new Guides save only those who can demonstrase the Errors of the former § 21. § 6 THese things agreed on 5 ly Catholicks proceed That if there shall be alwaies such ae Body of Church-Governors Prop. 5. as shall direct the people unerringly in Necessaries it is meet also that Christians learn from them what or how many points they be that are necessary if this thing be at all necessary to be known § 7 The Reason 1. Because if the Church-Guides be infallible in Necessaries and the distinct knowledge of Necessaries be held also a Point necessary then the Church-Guides must also be infallible in this point the discerning of Necessaries 2 ly Because though Divine assistance be set aside these Guides from their Learning are fitter Judges of Necessaries than the People 3 ly Because the People in their judging of Necessaries if they should ignorantly or passionately mistake somthing that is necessary not to be so and so withdraw their Obedience or assent may thus become deficient in necessary Faith and so miscarry in their Salvation Whereas on the other side in their reliance for these points on the judgment of their Guides that are infallible in necessaries in necessaries they cannot miscarry and in their believing somthing more as necessary which is not their miscarriage is no way dangerous For as Dr. Potter well observes ‖ p. 155. There is not so much danger in adding superfluities as in detracting Necessaries and though these Church-Guides should be supposed liable to miscarry somtimes in the first yet Christians are secured that they cannot in the second § 8 Of the Duty of the Christian's learning from their Guides supposed infallible in Necessaries what points are necessary thus Mr. Chillingworth ‖ p. 150. If the Church be an infallible director in Fundamentals then must we not only learn Fundamentals of her but also learn of her what is Fundamental i. e. if this be a thing necessary to be learn'd and take all for fundamental which she delivers to be such i. e. lest in doing otherwise we should mistake and miscarry in some Fundamental And p. 105. To say the Church is an infallible Guide en Fundamentals were to oblige our selves to find some certain Society of men of whom we might be certain
will premise some undeniable truths which speak the Authority of Church Governors the obedience due thereunto the condition of Schism and the danger and guilt of it The first is that the Church of Christ is a Society or Company under a Regiment discipline Government and the members constituting that Society are either persons taught guided governed or persons teaching guideing governing and this in order to preserve all in unity and to advance every member of this visible Society to an effectual and real participation of Grace and Vnion with Christ the Head and therefore and upon no less account is obedience due unto them Eph. 4.11 12 13 16 and Heb. 13.17 and he that will not hear the Church to be as a Heathen and Publican Mat. 16. c. Thus he And thus clear-sighted men are in the case where they are to require obedience but not so where to yield it This said of the Schism of Presbyters departing from their Bishops the same Dr. Hammond saith ‖ Of Schism c. 3. of the Schism of Bishops departing from their Metropolitans and of Metropolitans from their Primats or Patriarchs Now to go on If then for example the Presbyter is bound upon such a guilt to obey his Bishop then the subjects of both the Presbyter and the Bishop when these two dissent are tied to adhere to the Bishop not to the Presbyter i.e. to obey him whom the other if he continued in his duty ought also to obey and sic de caeteris These subordinations therefore known Christians also cannot but know in the division of Church-Governors distinct in dignity still those to whom their obedience is thus fastned 2. Next §. 25. n. 1. In a Body or Court consisting of many of an equal rank as Councils the supreme Ecclesiastical Judge do in which body in all or most causes or decisions may and usually do happen some dissenters that here it is necessary for rending the decrees of such complex bodies effectual that at least the much major part thereof joyned with the prime Apostolick See conclude the whole the traditionary practice of the most universally allowed Councils from the beginning of Christianity as likewise the same practice in all Civil Courts of the same composition doth sufficiently put this out of dispute if any thing can be so See what is said of this Disc 1. § 31 36 38. Where if it be further demanded for legitimating the Acts of such a Council or also for the sufficient acceptation by the Church Catholick of such act or definition what proportion this major part whether defining in Council or accepting out of it is to bear in respect of the minor or how much to exceed it I know not what better director herein we can have than the former custom of the Catholick Church and the example and pattern of the primitive times Nor what greater justification the proceedings of later Councils can receive herein than the same practice as theirs is appearing in those ancient Councils that are universally allowed If then we stay here a litle to review the proceedings §. 25. n. 2. of the first Councils and think the later times may safely steer according to their course Looking into the first Council of Nice we find in Hilarius ‖ De Syncdis no less then eighty Bishops before this Council was assembled mentioned to have disallowed the reception of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See also what Bishops Arius pretended to have sided with him in his Letter to Euseb Nicomed written some years before the Nicene Council ‖ Apud Epiph Haer. 69. Theodoret. l. 1. c. 5. and in the Council also ⋆ seventeen Bishops some of note at the first to have dissented from the rest and after the Council * Arianism in the Eastern parts to have grown in a small time to a much greater bulk supporting their cause with several unwary expressions of former Ecclesiastical Writers as Justin Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian Clemens Alexand. Origen ‖ See Pelavins in Epiph. Her 69. before a stricter discussion of this controversie Yet was this no diminution to the strength of the Nicene decree or to a valid acceptation thereof both being done by a much greater part of the Church Again in the third General Council of Ephesus §. 25. n. 3. we find John the Patriarch of Antioch with his Oriental Bishops above thirty favouring Nestorianism and opposing the decrees of the rest of that Council yet did not the other part of that Council forbear to define Anti-Nestorianism without and against them and also to excommunicate them for their non-conformity to the major part nor did the Christian world cease to account the acts of this Council valid without the acceptation thereof by this Patriarch and his party these acts being justified by the much greater part of the Church Catholick joyned with the Roman Patriarch Neither supposing that this Patriarch and his Bishops and their Successors had continued to this day as too many ever since in those parts do and as they did for some time to oppose this decree could it have rescued Nestorianism from being justly reputed an Heresie though this party was so considerable as that the Emperour retarded the Execution of the Councils censures upon them till that in the year next ensuing the Patriarch and most of the rest were regained to a peaceable submission to the Church Catholick and her doctrine Come we to the fourth General Council of Chalcedon §. 25. n. 4. Two years before it in a question concerning our Lord's consisting of and in two natures distinct not only before but after their union in one person the prevalent party in a Council of above 120 Bishops had defined the contrary tanquam de fide For which also they pretended the doctrine of the Fathers Athanasius Cyril Alexand. and Gregory Nazianz. Concerning which Fathers you may find Eutyches ‖ In Concil Constantinop apud Conc Chalc. act 1. pleading thus for himself Vae mihi si sanctos Patres anathematizavero And Dioscorus thus ‖ Conc. Chalc Actione prima Ego testimonium habeo sanctorum Patrum Athanasii Gregorii Cyrilli in multis locis quia non oportet dicere post adunationem duas naturas sed unam naturam Dei verbi incarnatam Ego cum Patribus ejicior Ego defendo Patrum dogmata non transgredior in aliquo horum testimonia non simpliciter neque transitoriè sed in libris habeo Thus Dioscorus in the Council of Chalcedon and we find the subscription of 96 Bishops either deluded or forced as they complained afterward ‖ V. Conc. Chalc. Act. 1 4. to Dioscorus his definition in that former Council But the great Council of Chalcedon notwithstanding such an opposition defined the contrary doctrine as of faith and deposed the chief Actors in this former Council amongst which were the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria And to the greater authority of this Council all the rest save
Jurisdiction neither can perform any Act thereof quae Jurisdictio descendit Ordinatis à Superiore as he notes in the Margin out of Bonavent And then we for the trial of the lawful Jurisdiction of such Pastors leaving these other Marks must return to the former Rule delivered § 23. CHAP. IV. An Application of the former Propositions in a search which of the opposite present Churches or Ecclesiastick Governors thereof is our true Guide § 30. Several Motives perswading that the Roman and other Western Churches united with It and the Head thereof S. Peter's Successor are It 1st Their being the very same Body with that which Protestants grant was 150 years ago this Guide § 33. 2ly That Body to which Christians ought to submit if the Rule delivered Prop. 12. ‖ §. 23. be observed § 35. 3ly That Body that owns and adheres to the Definitions and Decrees of all those former Councils which the Church of preceding Ages hath received as General or obliging as well those since as those before the sixth or seventh Century § 37. § 30 A Perpetual being of these Spiritual Guides infallibly directing in necessary Controversies and the due subjection Christians have to and dependance on them being thus asserted in the former Propositions The next Enquiry will be which or where now is this present visible Society and Church consisting of such a governing Clergy and right instructed People of which learned Protestants ‖ See before Prop. 3. §. 3. seem to accord with Catholicks that some where now it is that in no age nor at any time it ceaseth and that it always hath been hitherto and ever shall be infallible in necessaries Now General Council or Representative of the present Church Catholick united in one body we see there is none at this present but the same present Governors there are that do constitute and sit in these Councils when called only these now not united but dispersed through the several Nations of Christendom And these present Governors as to this Western part of Christendom which indeed is by much the more considerable the Eastern being so greatly debilitated and consumed by the heavy yoke of Mahometans are divided into two chief Bodies or Communions One body of them there is * which adhereth to the Prime Patriarch of the universal Church the Bishop of Rome and so hath done from their first Christianity acknowledging a due subordination unto him and * which also generally admits for its present Tenents and Belief the Doctrines of the Councils which have been celebrated in the Church in former ages not only those of a few of the first Councils which stated matters of ancient Controversie concerning the Trinity the Natures and Person of our Lord c. now fixed in the common Creeds but those of all the rest since which have stated Matters of later Debate and many also of those Points which are at the present disputed by Protestants ‖ Disc 1. §. 50. n. 2. * which admits I say the Doctrines of all these Councils even to the present times some few only excepted either which the Roman Patriarch with the greatest part of the West never approved or which greater Councils coming after them have annulled and in particular of the last Council that hath been held in the Church that of Trent which was purposely assembled about and hath decided most of the present Protestant Controversies To which great Body in the West I may join the Eastern Churches as agreeing with it and not remonstrating against its Conciliary Decrees in most of the Doctrines questioned by Protestants ‖ See Disc 3. §. 158. and in their present publick Service and Rites all as dissonant if not more from the Protestant's present Doctrines and Practices as the Roman is and I think all considered of the two the Union of the Reformed more difficult to the Oriental Churches § 32 Another Body of present Governors there is that is within the profession of Christianity but not allowed by the former to be within the bounds of the Church Catholick as the Church Catholick all grant is or may be much narrower than Christianity because all Hereticks or Schismaticks are Christians but not Catholicks Who having heretofore together with the rest in their Forefathers held a Communion with and acknowledged a subordination to the Western Patriarch and having also submitted to all those later Councils to which the rest till a litle before the last Council that of Trent yet have since now somwhat above a hundred years renounced external Communion with the said Patriarch and the Churches adhering to him i. e. to continue therein any longer upon those terms upon which their Fore-Fathers formerly enjoyed it and have withdrawn their Obedience from the former Councils preceding their Reformation that have bin held in the Church for almost this 1000 years I mean such as have been of Note and whose Decrees are extant and which have stated any matter of Controversie the entire Acts of none of which they can own and stand to Even those two Councils ‖ Conc. Constantinop sub Copronymo Francoford which they urge as favouring them in matter of Images being against them in some other points and the Doctrine also of those times wherein most of these Councils were held being as they say much corrupted Many of them chiefly supporting and justifying this their strange discession from their Mother the Church with a strong conceit that she had been for many former Ages turned a Whore ‖ Rev. c. 17 and out of a strange imagination they had of an Antichristian General defection happened not from the Church Catholick though that but too apparent in Mahometanisme but in it ever since the fifth or sixth Century or some also say higher according to the time wherein the Church's common Doctrines or Practices began first to displease them Yet this Fancy after that by divine permission it had had its full influence in incouraging so great an Innovation and change in Religion as would hardly have been so vigorously prosecuted upon any other Motive whatever Luther the first Reformer helping himself more with these words Antichrist and Babylon continually dropping from his Pen than by all his other Arguments This Fancy I say now of late begins to be by the more wise and learned amongst them laid aside After they had discovered the Mischief also it began to work in the shaking of Episcopacy and several other Necessary and Apostolical Constitutions in the Government of the Church which they more sober would have to be retained still in the new Model of Religion but the other more zealous to be ejected with the rest To satisfie your self in which matter you may view H. Grotius ‖ Notes on the Apocalyps and Mr. Thorndike's ‖ Right of Church in the review p. CLVI c. and Dr. Hammon'ds ‖ In his premonition concerning the Apocalyps new Schemes of Antichrist and his Kingdom
they removing it again with the Catholick Doctors quite out of the Pale of the Church and freeing the Reformed of their former Fears Which rectifying of so pernicious a Mistake of the first Reformers by a more sober posterity well considered may I hope in time much conduce to the Re-union of that Body which by this Great Engine of Satan chiefly hath been heretofore so unhappily divided § 33 In such a Division then to prosecute our Enquiry viz. who or where these Governors be that are our present Guide and that seem so much authorized by both sides in the former Propositions First If this Question had bin made by any 150 years ago there had bin no difficulty to resolve it For that Body here first named was then the whole or the only Catholick Church as to the VVest further than which he that would then have gone for choice of his Religion would have fared worse ‖ See Disc 3. §. 26. c That Body therefore then must have bin conformed to or the whole deserted as indeed it was ‖ See 1 Disc §. 55. n. 4. Now this Body is not changed in its Liturgies in its common Doctrines in its Rites since that time from what the whole was then VVitness the Reformation it self which was made against these very Doctrines and Practices that are now ‖ 1 Disc §. 47. 50. n. 2. 36 n. 5. as imposed on them before the being of the Council of Trent though some ‖ Stillingf p. 268 370 Field p. 880. 187 224. perhaps to lighten the charge of Schism would fain perswade the contrary and I wish the only contest between the two present Churches were put upon the trial of this § 34 It is here apparent then which of these two at that time when as yet one of them was not had bin our lawful Guide and Mother Church and easily cleared what then were its doctrines Of which Guide Protestants also testifie That then it erred not in Necessaries See before Prop. 3. § 3. c. Disc 1. § 41. And that also in all other points Christians were to believe it so many as could not demonstrate the contrary See Prop 9 10. § 20 21. We therefore may promise the same security to our selves in following this part of the Catholick Church as the Protestants call it though it calls it self the whole still now as our Forefathers had in following the whole then And this resting still in this Body remaining the same with what once was the whole seems security enough to all those who if this Body were now so entire and universal as it was then durst not now attempt a separation from the whole or to those who are not able to demonstrate the former separation that hath been made just and necessary the tie of Obedience to and acquiescence in the doctrines of these Guides Being dissolvable by none save demonstrators of their Errors ‖ See 3 Disc §. 44. which among the Church's Subjects can never be but a very small Number § 35 2ly But besides this main Motive of submission to the first Body as our right Judge and Guide because we find it the very same with the Church Catholick that was 150 years ago whereas the second Body confess themselves a Church that is since separated from the external Communion of that other and a body reformed from the pretended Errors and Corruptions found therein i. e. from the Errors which some of the Subjects and of the Flock for such I reckon a particular person or Church in respect of the whole found in their Guides and Judges when themselves also were inferior to them both in their paucity of number and quality of place I say besides this in the second place If we will follow the Principle laid down in the 12th Proposition ‖ §. 23. i. e. in any Contradiction happening to adhere to the Superior persons and Synods as our true Guide and amongst these to a major part as our Guide sooner than to a Minor By which Rule the Christian world hath been preserved hitherto from all those which both sides agree to have bin Heresies and which Rule unless we follow we dissolve all Government and all Vnity of this Body of Christ and introduce flat Anarchy and Confusion whilst for a Monarchical Government of the Church Protestants will not hear of it and in an Aristocratical or Government consisting of many it cannot be presumed but that there will be some Dissenters which if they may be followed against the others I ask by what Rule of Government was it that the Arrian Eutychian and Nestorian Bishops shops were forced to yield and were divested of their Pastoral authority or guiding any longer by the rest of the Bishops in the Council of Nice Ephesus and Chalcedon Lastly if we will be guided by the Church Catholick out of Council as we are in it Thus also we must needs acknowledg the first of these Bodies for our true and rightful Judge For it is apparent that this first is a much major part of the Church-Governors joyned also with the prime Patriarch of Christianity and so to be preferred by us before a minor separated If you would know then which of these two present Bodies of Ecclesiasticks you are to obey out of a Council First do you imagine them now met in a Council and next that in this Council every one delivers concerning things debated that which is his present judgment when called to the Council and this is but reasonable since there is no likelihood of new demonstrations to be made in the Council which already in so much writing on all sides these Bishops have not seen and since former tradition and not argument is the chief rule of their proceedings and no example is found in any Council past wherein its members have concluded any thing contrary to the preceding common faith of that Age wherein such Council was held Especially imagine what their sentence might be concerning this point whether the former Councils that have bin may have erred in their Definitions which one point stated negatively ruines Protestantism And then if your conscience weighing the present perswasions and practices of Christian Prelats doth convince you that the Votes of the one side would be very inconsiderable in it to the number of the other as likewise that S. Peters Chair concerning which Chair the Church's ancient Maxime hath bin Sine Pontifice Romano nihil finiendum ‖ See in Athan Apol. 2. Epist Julii Innocentii Ep. 91. apud August would join with this major part against the other what remains but that you here follow the same Body in the Interval of a Council which you must have followed in the time of a Council unless also you will reverse the common Laws of Councils § 36 Note that this is spoken of the Great Body of the Western Churches contained under the Roman Patriarch which do yet by Gods permission enjoy all
Promise that they shall not err or misguide the Churches subjects in Necessaries § 6 7 I mean Necessaries taken in the sence above explained 2 Disc § 9. And next because what or how much is to be accounted thus necessary the judgement of this belongs also to these Church-Governors not their subjects as is shewed before 2. Disc § 6 7. CHAP. III. R. Catholicks proceeding to affirm 11. That all persons dissenting from and opposing any known Definition of the Church in a matter of Faith are Hereticks § 16. 12. All persons separating on what pretence soever from the external Communion of the Church-Catholick Schismaticks § 20. But yet that difference of Opinions or Practices between co-ordinate Churches may be without Heresie or Schisme on any side where no obligation to these lying on both from their common Superiors or from the whole § 23. § 16 11ly TOuching the two great Crimes of Heresie and Schisme dividing such persons or Churches as are guilty thereof from the Catholick Church and Communion See before Prop. 3. § 4. 1st For Heresie the Catholicks affirm That any particular Person or Church that maintains or holds the contrary to any to him made-known Definition passed in a matter of faith of any lawful General Council i. e. of those Councils that are accepted by the Church-Catholick in the sence mentioned before ‖ See §. 12. as such is Heretical Not medling here whether some others also besides these for the opposing some Doctrines clearly contained in Scripture or generally received by the Church and such as are by all explicitly to be belived may be called so 2ly They affirm That those may become Hereticks in holding an error in the faith after the Churches Definition of such a Point who were not so before § 17 Where The Reason why the certain judgement of Heresie is made not from the testimony of Scripture but of the Church and why all holding of the contrary to such definition known is pronounced Heresie though sometimes the same error before it was not so is because no Error in Faith can be judged Heresie but where there appears some Obstinacy and Contumacy joyned thereto Neither can such Obstinacy and Contumacy appear especially as to some Points of Faith from the Scriptures because the sence of Scripture as to some matter of Faith may be as to some persons ambiguous and not clear But the sence of the Church or her General Councils which is appointed by God the Supreme Expositor and Interpreter of the sence of the Scriptures that are any way doubtful and disputed is so clear as that any rational or disinteressed person to whom it and the authority delivering it and the divine assistance of that authority are proposed according to the evidence producible for them can neither deny her just authority over him nor her veracity and her Exposition of Scripture clearly against him who yet cannot see or at least hath not the same cogent evidence to acknowledge the Scripture in such point to be so and so such person will thenceforth become in this sence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and self-convinced and if others happen by their contracted fault not to be so their guilt in general at least is not lessened but aggravated thereby Tit. 3.10 Therefore the Apostle writes to Bishop Titus that after a second Admonition he should reject a man Heretical or still adhering to his own Opinion knowing that such a one sinneth being self-condemned viz. that he disobeyeth the doctrine of the Church concerning which Church he either hath or might have sufficient evidence that he ought to believe Her And our Lord commands that he who in matters controverted refuseth to hear the Church should be withdrawn from by the Christian as a Heathen or Publican was by the Jew Thus it seems by these Texts is Heresie known and Hereticks to be rejected § 18 And the Fathers also are frequent in declaring those to be Hereticks who after the Church Definition continue to retain an opinion contrary thereto whereas themselves or others in holding the same Opinion before such Definition were not so Thus St. Austin ‖ De Civ Dei l. 18. c. 51. Qui in Ecclesiâ Christi morbidum aliquid pravumque sapiunt si correpti i by the Church ut sanum rectumque sapiant resistunt contumaciter suaque mortifera pestifera dogmata emendare nolunt sed defensare persistunt haeretici fiunt It seems one holding dogma pestiferum mortiferum before the Churches corrâ—ption may be no Heretick who yet is so after it And elsewhere of the Donatists he saith ‖ De Haeresibus Post causam cum eo Caeciliano dictam atque finitam falsitatis rei deprehensi pertinaci dissentione firmatâ in haeresim schisma verterunt tanquam Ecclesia Christi propter crimina Caeciliani detoto terrarum orbe perierit Audent etiam rebaptizare Catholicos ubi se amplius Haereticos esse firmarunt cum Ecclesiae Catholicae universae placuerit nec in ipsis haereticis baptisma commune rescindere Where observe that they are charged by this Father for Heresie which Hereticalness of theirs Protestants would fain divert to other matters in the point of rebaptization and that because this point now setled by the Church And so Vincent Lirinen ‖ c. 11. O rerum mira conversio Auctores ejusdem opinionis Catholici consectatores vero haeretici judicantur absolvuntur magistri condemnantur discipuli c. the wonder here is that in holding the self same opinion the one are not Hereticks the other are i. e. after a General Council had condemned the Tenent Again St. Austin ‖ D. Haeresibus gives Quod-vult-Deus for avoiding Heresies this General Rule Scire sufficit Ecclesiam contra aliquid sentire ut illud non recipiamus in fidem It seems this was a Principle with the Father Nihil recipiendum in fidem or credendam contra quod sentit Ecclesia And we know what follows Credendum quod sentit Where the contraries are immediate sublato uno ponitur alterum But this latter also is expresly said by him ‖ Epist 118. Si quid horum per orbem frequentat Ecclesia hoc quin ita faciendum sit disputare insolentissimae insaniae est This concerning doing and then it holds also for believing the Church's Faith being if either more sure than her practise But for believing too he saith ‖ De Bapt. l. 1. c. 18. Restat ut hoc credamus quod universa Ecclesia a Sacrilegio schismatis remota custodit And Quod in hac re sentiendum est plenioris Concilii sententiâ totius Ecclesiae consensio confirmat Therefore after the Churches definition he saith One in holding the contrary then first becomes an Heretick when he knows or by his fault is ignorant that the Church hath defined it See de Baptism contra Donat. l. 4. c. 16. Constituamus ergo saith he duos aliquos isto modo unum eorum
verbi gratiâ id sentire de Christo quod Photinus opinatus est i. e. in modern language to be a Socinian no small errour in ejus haeresi baptizari extra Ecclesiae Catholicae Communionem alium vero hoc idem sentire sed in Catholicâ baptizari existimantem ipsam esse Catholicam fidem Illum nondum Haereticum dico nisi manifestatâ sibi doctrinâ Catholicae fidei resistere maluerit illud quod tenebat elegerit c. § 19 And this is Dr. Hammonds Comment on the fore-quoted place of Titus how consonant to his own or other Protestants doctrines I know not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ‖ P. 761. self-condemned signifies not a man's publick accusing or condemning his own doctrines or practices for that self-condemnation being an effect and part of repentance would rather be a motive to free any from the censures of the Church who were already under them then aggravate their crime or bring that punishment upon them Nor yet 2ly can it denote him that offends and yet still continues to offend against conscience and though he be in the wrong yet holds out in opposition to the Church For besides that there are very few that do so and these known to none but God and if that were the Character of an Heretick then none but Hypocrites would be Hereticks and he that through pride and opinion of his own judgement stood out against the doctrine of Christ and his Church in the purest times should not be an Heretick this inconvenience would further be incurred that no Heretick could possibly be admonished or censured by the Church for no man would acknowledge of himself that what he did was by him done against his own conscience nor could any testimony be produced against him before any humane Tribunal no man being able to search the heart It is rather an expression of his separation from and disobedience to the Church and so an evidence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being perverted and sinning wilfully and without excuse For he that thus disobeys and breaks off from the unity of the Church doth in effect inflict that punishment on himself which the Church useth to Malefactors that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 13.10 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cutting off from the Church which when he being an Heretick and therein a Schismatick also doth voluntarily without the Judges sentence his very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a spontaneous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or excision And that this Doctor may not go alone see Dr. Fernes Comment on the same place ‖ The Case between the Ch. of Engl. and Rome p. 53. when he writ against Presbyterians accusing them of Schism from the Church of England The word Heretick saith he according to the use of it then implied one that obstinately stood out against the Church or that led any Sect After the strictest Sect or Heresie of the Pharisees Acts 26.5 After that which they call Heresie Acts 24.14 a factious Company divided from the Church so they called or accounted of Christians and Gal. 5.20 we have it reckoned among the works of the flesh Debates Contentions Heresie So here Heretick that leads a faction a sect or that wilfully follows or abets it A man therefore that is a Heretick contentious disobedient to the Order and authority of the Church reject for he is self condemned having both past the sentence upon himself by professing against or dividing from the Church and also done execution like that of the Church's censure and excommunication upon himself by actual separation or going out of the Church A fearful condition Thus he And something to the same purpose saith Dr. Hammond ‖ Of Fundamentals c. 9. §. 4. concerning the guilt of those who afterward deny or oppose the things defined and added to the Apostles Creed by the first Councils Though the Creed saith he in the ancient Apostolick form were sufficient for any man to believe and profess yet when the Church hath thought meet to erect that additional Bulwark against Hereticks the rejecting or denying the truth of those their additions may justly be deemed an interpretative siding with those ancient or a desire to introduce some new Heresies And the pride or singularity or heretical design of opposing or questioning them now they are framed being irreconcileable with Christian charity and humility is justly deemed criminous and liable to censures Again § 6. Though those who believed c. the matter of the Apostles Creed had all those Branches of Christian Faith which were required to qualifie mankind to submit to Christs Reformation yet he grants the wilful opposing these more explicit Articles added by Councils and the resisting of them when they are competently proposed from the Definition of the Church will bring danger of ruine on such persons Again § 8. This i of one Baptism and all the former additions in the Nicene Creed being thus setled by the universal Church were and still are in all reason without disputing to be received and embraced by the present Church and every meek member thereof Here then it seems that Heresie it is or something criminous equivalent thereto to oppose the Church's definitions and additions though the former Creed was sufficient to have been believed and professed in all times before them Lastly King James in his Answer to Card. Perron penned by Casaubon seems to have the same Notion of Heresie as also of Schism with the Roman Church and the Fathers making Heresie any departing from the Faith Schism from the Communion of the Church Catholick Credit vero Rex saith Casaubon ‖ Letter to Perron simpliciter sine fuco fallaciis unicam esse Ecclesiam Dei re nomine Catholicam sive Vniversalem toto diffusam mundo extra quam ipse quoque nullam Salutem debere sperari affirmat damnat detestatur eos qui vel jam olim vel postea aut a fide recesserunt Ecclesiae Catholicae facti sunt Haeretici aut à Communione facti sunt Schismatici Difference here about the Extent of the Catholick Church there is some but none that all opposition of its Faith is Heresie Again Nullam spem Salutis superesse iis qui à fide Ecclesiae Catholicae aut ab ejusdem Communione discesserint Rex ultro concedit I suppose here is meant the present Catholick Church and in any difference the main Body thereof its whole and integral Faith or any part thereof and its external Communion Otherwise if this meant of the Catholick Church collectively of all ages when in some ages several points of Faith were not yet defined and of every member thereof in those ages when in most points may be found some dissenters and of Points of Faith necessary inferiors being Judges a term applyed as any one pleaseth to more points or fewer Lastly of Communion internal which may be said now to be deserted now retained as any
diversly fancieth the true causes thereof then in all this said nothing at all is said § 20 12. 2 Again for Schism Catholicks affirm That any particular Person or Church which for what cause soever and particularly for this the Church's requiring his assent and conformity to the Definitions of such her Councils doth actually relinquish and separate from the external Communion of the present Church-Catholick is Schismatical Meaning here * by Catholick Church the present true Superior Ecclesiastical Guides and the Christian Congregations joyned with them in the sence explained before Disc 2. Prop. 12. § 23. And * by External Communion the Church's Publick Prayers and Worship of God and the participation of her Sacraments And * by actual relinquishing and separating either 1 the setting up or joyning with an Anti-communion or 2 a Voluntary absenting ones self from the Church's Communion or at least 3 the incurring of an Excommunication or Separation inflicted by the Church for a non-conformity to her Decrees of which see Dr. Hammond's Concession below § 22. n. 2. § 21 The Reason Because 1 all separation from the external Communion of this Church that is made out of a Non-conformity to any thing defined by these Superiors is judged causeless upon the former account given § 6. and § 14. Since they can require no unjust condition of their Communion as the assent or subscription to an Error that any Inferior can justly judge or certainly know to be so And this because in Necessaries these Church-Governors cannot misse-guide § 6 9. And of what or how much is to be accounted necessary the judgement also belongs to these Guides not their Subjects see Disc 2. Prop. 6. Of whom also divinely assisted it is rationally presumed that to things judged no way necessary they will never enjoyn Assent upon the Church's Censures But lastly supposing not granting that they should err in some non-necessary to which notwithstanding they require Assent yet cannot particular men have in such matters any sufficient ground of an infallible assurance of the contrary which the Church cannot discover ‖ See Disc 2. §. 15. 42. and therefore cannot justly on any such account withdraw their submission And for this reason also these Superiors in whatever decrees they make or impose do never fall actually or causally into Heresie or Schisme as who are not from others but all others from them directed to learn in spiritual matters what is true and lawful and to what they are or are not to conform But 2 Next If any separation from this Church should be made for any Doctrine or Practice in it to which an assent or a conformity is no way required by it This will still be an higher Schisme because more void of any just Pretence Of this matter thus S. Austin ‖ Epist 48. speaking not of the internal but the external Communion of the Catholick Church which defining against Rebaptization was upon this forsaken by the Donatists Fieri non potest ut aliquis habeat justam causam quâ communionem suam separaret à communione orbis terrarum c. And de unitate Ecclesiae c. 3. Quicunque à Chriâ—ti corpore quod est Ecclesia ita dissentiunt ut eorum Communio non sit cum toto quacunque diffunditur sed in aliquâ parte separatâ inâ—eniatur manifestum est cos non esse in Catholicâ Ecclesia Cum toto i. e. * with the Communion of that Body which was totum integrum before some separated from it or after the separation when now the former totum is divided * with that part of the totum from which the other part separates which Body that is parted from is still the total Catholick Church of which total only S. Austin speaks though the divided part or parts for the amplitude of this totum is a casual thing nor always the same should in time swell to a greater magnitude than it Concerning this matter also thus Dr. Hammond ‖ of Schism p. 10. in his Book of Schisme c. 1. For the universal or truly Catholick Church of Christ it is not in St. Austin's Opinion possible that there should be any just cause for any to separate from it nor consequently Apology to be made for those that on any whether true or pretended cause whatsoever have really incurred this guilt and that it is not the Examination of the Occasion or Cause or Motive of any man's Schisme that is worth the producing or heeding in this matter The one thing that is of force and moment and by consequence pertinent to be enquired into is the truth of the matter of fact whether this charge be sufficiently proved or confessed i. e. whether he that is thus accused stands really guilty of Separation from the Church of Christ Thus Dr. Hammond Where it would be ridiculous for any to say that by separation from the Church-Catholick he means voluntary separation and then that by voluntary separation he means a separation without any just cause moving him to it for this is only saying there can never be just cause of a voluntary separation from the Church-Catholick without any just cause Neither can the Doctor 's meaning here be that one indeed may not separate but yet may by Excommunication be separated for his non-conforming in something to the Church-Catholick without Schism For elsewhere ‖ Answ to Cath. Gentlm p 9. he declareth Continuance in I add or incurrin Excommunication to be actual Schism supposing that if one will submit to that which is lawful not that which he thinks lawful for him to submit to he may be absolved and freed from it Now the Church-Catholick he holds here can never require unjust conditions of her Communion because upon such terms he alloweth a departure may be without Schism Here then taking his words in their plain sence since the Church-Catholick cannot be denyed to be such a Church as gives Laws and requires certain Conditions of her external Communion and since the Doctor affirms ‖ Of Schisme c 2. n. 3.5 12. that where a Church requires unjust Conditions of her Communion one may depart from or continue out of it without Schism it seems to follow that the Doctor holds here that the Church-Catholick can never require such unjust conditions which how it consists with what is quoted out of him Disc 1. § 5. I know not and hence that she did not require such at Luther's appearance Yet it is clear that there was no Church then extant one or more of which must be the Catholick to the conditions of whose external Communion Protestants would submit and from whose external Communion they departed not See Disc 1. § 55. n. 4. And then we see what followers upon these Principles of Dr. Hammond's § 23 Mean while the Catholicks grant 1 st That the several parts of this body may without Schism separate or differ from one another in any doctrine or practice wherein they are obliged to
firmly believe that Doctrine infallible which Christ delivered but yet judge themselves all fallible and dare not usurp that royal prerogative of Heaven in prescribing infallibly in matters questioned but leave all men to judge according to the Pandects of the divine Laws because each member of this Society is bound to take care of his soul and of all things that tend thereto Thus he And generally Protestants hold that the Church-Catholick diffusive of all ages and therefore the Catholick Church of the four first and therefore also the General Councils of the four first ages though universally accepted may err in non necessaries which is as much as to say may give a wrong sence of Scripture in them notwithstanding that the Church of England obligeth Her self to the sence of this ancient Church and this also whilst she doth not know the necessaries from the other points that are not so and so neither knoweth in what this ancient Church is not liable to errour § 42 From these Quotations I think it appears that whatever fair professions are made yet no Assent is given by them to the first four Councils on this account that they could not err in their Definitions Nor yet because they are their Soveraign Judge from whose sentence they may not dissent if they be perswaded that it is repugnant to the Scriptures And yet of this repugnancy how they should come to any certain knowledge I see no means Certain I grant they may be that the Scriptures are the Word of God and again certain of that which the Scripture delivers where the sence thereof is by all pronounced clear and not ambiguous But then In a matter where Scripture by several and these in great numbers and on both sides learned is taken in a several sence and the true sence thereof is the thing in question as it is granted by Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ P. 58. to have been even in some of the greatest Articles of the Christian Faith and yet further ‖ See Stillingf p. 59. where it seems the Scripture may be so doubtful that the sence of the Catholick Church or its lawful General Councils they say ‖ Ib. can be to them no certain or infallible Interpreter of it and lastly where the judgment or common Reason of a lawful General Council thinks it self so certain of the contrary as to anathematize dissenters On what grounds here any particular Person or Church can assure themselves of their own sence of Scripture to be the true they having left that of the Church's Councils and of a major part of Christianity who also judge their sence false I understand not Surely they will not say they have this certainty from the Scripture because the true sence thereof is the thing so mainly questioned the certainty or infallibility of the traditive sence of the Church they renounce and then which only is left their own judgement or their own which I see not how they rightly call common Reason when that of a General Council or major part of Christianity differs from it one would think should be a more fallible ground to them than the judgment or common Reason of the Church This of the Obedience of Assent denied and that of silence or non-contradiction only allowed by them to the Definitions of Councils § 43 But 11ly This obedience also of silence and non contradiction they allow not 1 as due to be yeilded absolutely to all Decrees of such Councils For if they would but stand to this the Church's peace were kept safe enough for so there could never be any reformation or publick teaching of the contrary of such Decrees as are once concluded by a General Council but by a following General Council 2 Nor yet as due to be yeilded to all Decrees of such Councils that do not err manifestly against some Fundamental verity The Arch-bishop ‖ P. 226. said this once repeated by Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ P. 534. in these words When private men know it if the errour of a lawful General Council be not manifestly against Fundamental verity in which case a General Council cannot easily err I would have A.C. and all wise men consider whether external obedience be not then to be yeilded For if Controversies arise in the Church some end they must have or they will tear all asunder This he said once but did not hold constant to it for after in the same Section ‖ P. 227. he saith Vnless it err manifestly and intollerably and if the errour be neither Fundamental then he adds nor in it self manifest it is safer to agree c. For were non-contradiction thus far yeilded seeing that neither the Catholick Church before Luther nor her Councils have been held to have erred manifestly against any Fundamental verity for so it would have lost the very essence of a Church therefore all her subjects whatever would have stood obliged to her and to her Councils in the external obedience of silence at least and thus her peace been always secure and undisturbed But only this silence to be yeilded to such Decrees wherein the errour of the Council is not manifest or intolerable Or as Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ Still p. 560. expresseth it where the errour is not such as overweighs the peace of the Church Now they affirm that many errours that are not in Fundamentals or necessaries strictly taken may be such For the Catholick or if you will the Roman Church that was immediately before Luther they hold erred not in Fundamentals and yet they made a Reformation from it as mean while erring many errors manifest and intolerable and they see it necessary to add these manifest errors to the other Fundamental errors so to justifie the Protestant's former proceeding § 44 But here again if a contradiction and breach of external obedience or of silence in respect of such imagined manifest and intolerable errors were only allowed so far as to the making a peaceable complaint and representation thereof to their Ecclesiastical Superiors in present Being for the assembling of another Council of equal authority to reverse it which is also mentioned by the Archbishop ‖ P. 227. and Mr. Stillingfleet †537. and then that if these Superiors see no force in their Reasons these Plaintiffs should here acquiesce and return to their obedience of silence thus also the peace of the Church would be still continued And this seems still the more equitable because the Protestant Writers ‖ A p. Lawd p. 245. Hooker prefat p. 29. For preventing the exorbitances as they say and capricious humours of fantastical Spirits †Still p. 540. and for the shutting out the whirl-winds of private Spirits from ruffling the Church ‖ A p Lawd p. 245. do oblige those who thus break silence to bring demonstration against such errours and then for the shutting out pretended demonstrations also of which the world is full define this demonstration to
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
time and 3 persons Yet 1 doth he so expound this universal Testimony ‖ See ib. n. 2.8.10 as to signifie only the consent of the most in most places in all or most times For else saith he †§. 5. n. 2. there would be no Hereticks at any time in the World Viz. If those only should be held such necessary Articles of our saith which all none excepted in all times do hold And again 2 he makes use of the Churches Councils for convincing Heresies against this faith Viz. of the four 1st General Councils saying That all the parts of this faith are compleatly comprehended in the Scriptures as explained by the Writers of the three first ages and definitions of the â—our first Councils so that in sum he who imbraceth all the Traditional Doctrines proposed by them embraceth all the necessary faith thus universally delivered which cannot come to the fifth age c. but through the fourth and third and so can be no Heretick See 7. § 6 7 8. n. His words there n. 7. are Of the Scriptures of the Creed and of those four Councils as the Repositories of all true Apostolical Tradition I suppose it very regular to affirm that the intire Body of the Catholick Faith is to be established and all Heresies convinced or else that there is no just reason that any Doctrine should be condemned as such And see what is cited out of him concerning these Councils before § 19. and of Heresie § 14. n. 10. But here since he admits Councils for convincing Heresie why rests he in the four first and why admits he not all Councils in whatever age that are of equal authority for the same discovery since many new errors against tradicive Faith may arise after the four first and the Church's later Councils accordingly may testifie and declare the same Faith as occasions are administred against them If it be said that what is traditive in any latter age wherein some later Council is held was so in the third or fourth and so all Heresie is sufficiently convinced by those ages then so were the Definitions of the four first Councils traditive in the first second or third age And therefore what need hath Dr. Hammond to add for conviction of Heresie these four first Councils which were held after the three first Centuries The sum is For convincing Heresie either the testification of all lawful General Councils is authentical or not that of the four first But if the Doctor allow all lawful General Councils to be so as something seems said by him to this purpose Here 's § 14. n. 1.2 Catholicks are at accord with him herein concerning the Nature and Trial of Heresie and the dispute only remains whether any of those Councils that have heretofore defined or testified any such Point of Faith traditive which is opposed by Protestants be such a lawful General Council Concerning which see in 1 Disc § 36. n. 3. c. § 50. n. 2. § 57. c. Thus Dr. Hammond restraining conviction of all Heresie within the time of the first Councils But Bishop Branhall ‖ In Reply to Bp. Chalced. c. 2. p. 102. seems to be yet more free I acknowledge saith he that a General Council may make that revealed Truth necessary to be believed by a Christian as a point of Faith which formerly was not necessary to be believed that is whensoever the Reasons and grounds produced by the Council or the authority of the Council which is and always ought to be very great with all sober discreet Christians do convince a man in his conscience of the truth of the Council's definition And in vindication of the Church of England p. 26. When inferiour Questions not Fundamental are once defined by a lawful General Council all Christians though they cannot assent in their judgements are obliged to passive obedience to possess their souls in Patience And they who shall oppose the authority and disturbe the peace of the Church deserve to be punished as Hereticks Here though the Bishop makes not the opposers of the Councills definition for the reason of opposing it Hereticks because he holds that no error but that which some way overthrowes a fundamental Truth can be Heretical and though in his holding that Councils may not prescribe what things are fundamental nor oblige any to assent to their judgment in what they do define further than their reasons convince them He as the rest leaves Hereticks undiscoverable yet he grants that all are to submit for non-contradiction to the determinations of L. G. Councils even in all inferiour points not fundamental and that the opposers deserve to be punished as Hereticks which if observed by Protestants would sufficiently keep the Churches peace and then concerning the past definitions of such Councils see what is argued with him in 1 Disc § 36. n. 3. c. This for Heresie § 55 12ly For Schism Neither do they enlarge it so far as Catholicks That any separation upon what cause soever from the external Communion of all particular former Churches or of our lawful Ecclesiastical Superiors or of the whole Church Catholick is schism but restrain it to a separation culpable or causless ‖ Chillingw p. 271. holding that some separation from them may not be so § 56 But they leave us here again in uncertainty between these Superiors and Inferiors which of them shall judge when such separation is causeless when otherwise and so uncertain of Schism or also they affirm that the Inferiors are to judge when their Superiors require unjust things as conditions of their Communion and so when a separation from them is lawful or culpable Of which thus Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ p. 292. Nothing can be more unreasonable than that the society imposing certain conditions of Communion should be judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no And the same thing may thus be produced from other Protestant-Tenents For they hold that the whole Church is infallible only in absolute Necessaries or Fundamentals errable in other matters of faith that its Governors collected in their supâ—emest Councils may also enjoyne such errors as conditions of their Communion that these errors at least some of them may be certainly and demonstratively discernable by Inferiors and these complained of and not amended by Superiors that they may lawfully separate in the sence explained before § 20. from such Communion wherein these are imposed Here therefore inferiors judge when the separation is just when causless and upon this account surely no separation will ever be I do not say Schism but discovered to be Schism if the separatist is to Judge when it is so But if the Superiors are to Judge when a separation from them and from their definitions imposed is culpable or causeless it will either be always judged such which is the Catholicks Doctrine or such a granted-just cause will be removed by these Superiours and so there will be no
separation at all This concerning some Protestants restraining Schism to culpable or causeless separation § 57 Again some of them there are who straiten Schism yet farther ‖ See Stillingf p. 331.357.359 251 290. compar p. 54.56 Whitby p. 424. and making it a separation only from other Christians or Churches in such things wherein it is absolutely necessary to be united with them which is thus far true then state this necâ—ssary union to consist only in the belief of those Fundamental Articles of Faith or Doctrine which are absolutely necessary to Salvation or essential to the being of a Church § 58 Where they hold it not Schism to separate from all particular Churches of the present age for a Doctrine universally held and imposed as a condition of their Communion because they say an error may be so imposed But only Schism to separate from the Primitive and Vniversal Church for Doctrine 1 st That can be made appear to have been Catholick and universally received in the manner expressed before § 52. by the Church of all ages successively from the Apostles to the time of such separation And 2 ly That can also be proved a Doctrine necessary to Salvation and essential to the being of a Church * For the first of these Mr. Stillingfleets words ‖ P. 371. to this purpose in answer to the unlawfulness of reforming former Catholick Doctrines are It is not enough saith he to prove any Doctrine to be Catholick that it was generally received by Christian Churches in any one age but it must be made appear to have been so received from the Apostles time not to say that A. D. 1517. such and such Doctrines were looked on as Catholick and therefore they were so But that for 1517. years successively from the Apostles to that time they were judged to be so and then saith he we shall more easily believe you And p. 357. he saith That we are not to measure the Communion of the Catholick Church by the judgement of all or most of the particular Churches of such an age And * for the 2 d. In the 2 d. Part c. 2. proving Protestants not guilty of Schism p. 331. he saith Whoso separates from any particular Church much more from all for such things without which that can be no Church separates from the Communion of the Catholick Church but he that separates only from particular Churches any or all as to such things which concern not their being is only separated from the Communion of those Churches not the Catholick And therefore saith he supposing that all particular Churches have some errors and corruptions in them though I should separate from them all for such errors but what if for some truth though this not Fundamental I do not separate from the Communion of the whole Church unless it be for something without which those could be no Churches And p. 358. No Church can be charged with a separation from the true Catholick Church but what may be proved to separate it self in something necessary to the being of the Catholick Church and so long as it doth not separate as to these essentials it cannot cease to be a true Member of the Catholick Church This is freely granted But what are these Essentials to the being of the Church-Catholick p. 357. he saith That the Communion of the Church-Catholick lies open to all such who own the Fundamentals of the Christian Faith And p. 251. he saith All that is meant by saying that the present Church he means Catholick is infallible in Fundamentals is that there shall always be a Church for that which makes them a Church is the belief of Fundamentals and if they believe not them they cease to be so That therefore which being supposed a Church is and being destroyed it ceaseth to be is the formal constitution of it but thus it is as to the Church the belief of Fundamentals makes it a Church and the not belief of them makes them cease to be a Christian Church Well But what are these necessaries or Fundamentals of the Christian Faith that we may know how long a person or Church retaineth the Communion of the Catholick See then concerning this p. 53. 54 55. These are such points saith he as are required by God as necessary to be explicitly believed by all in order to attain salvation And which are they p. 56. Nothing ought to be required as a necessary Article of Faith but what hath been believed and received for such by the Catholick Church of all ages And afterward What hath been admitted into the ancient Creeds Here then I take his Tenent to be That no more is necessary to render any person or Church free from Schism and a true Member of the Catholick Church and continuing in its Communion than the true belief of all Fundamentals or points absolutely necessary to be believed for attaining Salvation § 59 But here also 1 st These leave us uncertain how particularly to know and distinguish these Fundamentals and Essentials wherein only is Schism from other points that are not so or they do infold them all within the compass of the Creeds where also they contend that they must not be extended to all the Articles thereof whence it will follow that one departing from the Churches Communion for requiring his assent as a condition thereof in respect of some of these Articles yet will be no Schismatick as they state Schism Nor none a Schismatick that is not even in a Fundamental an Heretick Again since several Doctrines there are that are delivered by all former ages which yet are not Fundamental or Essential to Salvation or to the being of a Church thus the separating from all particular Churches or from our spiritual Superiours for any doctrine taken for such will not be Schism So one that separates from the Communion of his Superiors for their requiring his assent and conformity to the Episcopal Government of the Church though he is a Schismatick in Dr. Hammonds account ‖ Schism p. 163. yet must be none in Mr. Stillingfleets unless he will make Espiscopacy essential to the being of a Church concerning which I refer you to his Irenicum and so pronounce the Presbyterian and Transmarine reformed Congregations no Churches of Christ The same may be said of any separating from the external Communion of his Superiors requiring of him consent and conformity to the Definitions of the first four allowed General Councils and the constitutions of the universal Church of the first and purest Ages whether in Government or other the like observances and practises which separation is by Dr. Hammond ‖ Schim p. 156. 160. declared Schism but cannot be so upon Mr. Stillingfleets theses unless all these will be maintained by him Fundamentals and Essentials to the being of the Catholick Church I mean as to faith necessary for her attaining Salvation Lastly Mr. Stillingfleet saith ‖ P. 356. a Church enjoyning some dangerons errors as
whilest only an unjust excommunication past there is no Schisme as yet This that the Church-Governours by an unjust excommunication do make no external division of themselves from the Church Catholick nor yet necessitate any active separation of others 4. Lastly Neither doth it hold §. 63. n 4. that those Governors do internally divide themselves from the Church Catholick by every such act whereby they do externally but not internally cut off another person innocent from it Supposing indeed that after all such Ecclesiastical excision whatever the two parties can no longer remain members of the same body this were most true that he as being innocent remaining still a member of Christs body they must cease to be so but so it is that the Excommunication of an innocent may happen by many accidents without any fault of the Excommunicators or if a fault no mortal one and such as internally separates from the Body of Christ Thus much be said of the Protestant Notion of Heresie and Schism CHAP. VI. A Reflection on-the former different Theses of the two Churches concerning Church-Authority and the Obedience due thereto § 64. And a Review which of them most resembles the ancient Catholick Church § 67. The face * of the ancient Catholick Church Ibid. * Of the present Roman Church § 72. * Of the present Protestant Churches § 76. § 64 THus much of the chief Differences of the two Churches concerning Church-authority Reflection and the obedience due thereto Where I think the disinterressed and considerative may clearly see 1 st That for that wherein the Arch-bishop and others have appeared to Catholicks not able to extricate themselves viz. in their maintaining a Church-authority for deciding all Controversies and suppressing all Sects and with it the liberty of Inferiour's publickly contradicting and reforming against this authority whenever in their judgment thought manifestly erring Mr. Stilling fleet 's new defence hath no way relieved them but left their difficulties in their former state § 65 2ly That the one the Catholick way here above mentioned maintaines obedience and constant submission of private judgments and so tends effectually to preserving Christian Religion and Faith still the same and united as it descendeth through several ages but the other maintains liberty of private judgements and so continually varies and divides it That the one builds and sets up Ecclesiastical authority and its supreme Tribunals the Councils The other by several ways goes about to weaken and frustrate it and them whilst it makes Councils Judges and deciders of Controversies and then private men Judges whether the Councils have judged right or erred in their decisions and whilst by asking many questions and moving many scruples some of which I have set down below ‖ §. 86. c. they * endeavour to make a General lawful obligatory Council in the former ages to be a thing very rare and difficult to be found or certainly known Have Pastors Doctors met in Oecumenical Councils in all ages I wish you could prove a truly Oecumenical Council in any age saith Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ P. 253. And It is evident we never had a general Council And A General Council is a thing impossible saith Mr. Whitby ‖ P. 433. And These and a hundred questions more saith he of the persons appointed to call them of the place and the like might be insisted on to shew that General Councils were never instituted by God for the rule of our Faith And when such Council found * give them as little comfort or confidence in it by their taking much pains and spending a great part of their Books to shew and prove the liability of these Councils to error even in Fundamentals All which is but the telling an intelligent disinterested person that neither such Councils as could heretofore be assembled have been their friends nor the future are hoped to be so § 66 Lastly they may see that if the former the Roman-Catholick way be taken all or most of those Controversies between Catholicks and Protestants have been decided by those Councils which before the times of Luther the whole Western Church in which the Controversies arose unanimously accepted and allowed an instance hath been made in the 1 st Disc § 57. touching Transubstantiation Or also several of them by the very publick service of the whole Catholick Church a Service as universally accepted as the Councils But if the later the Protestant way be taken these Controversies must still remain and the way is open for any particular person or Church according to their apprehension of the magnitude of the Churches errors and of their certainty of this to raise more till the end of the world There remain yet two things that seem necessary to be added before I conclude the discourse 1 The one a brief Survey of the different constitution and complexion of these two present Churches compared with the ancient and Primitive to see which of them more resembles her and which seems rather to be her true daughter to whom both pretend as their Mother that we may not demur to render our selves wholly to her conduct on whom we perceive to have descended the vigor spirit and authority of the ancient Church 1 The other a removal of and vindication of her from those many objections and Articles that are drawn up against her why she cannot afford to any that certain direction and salvifical security which they expect from her For the perfect discovery then of the former of these 1 st If we look back 1 To the Scriptures § 67 and 2 To the Primitive times to discern if we can from thence A Review of the two present opposite Churches which most resembles the ancient Catholick in this present division of Churches which of them rather have the true notes and marks of the Church-Catholick We find the Evangelical Church described in the one and acting in the other with very great Authority and most sacred Majesty Of his Evangelical Successors that He left behind him our Lord pronounceth He that heareth you 1. The face of the Ancient Catholick Church heareth me Luk. 10.16 and If any man heareth you not in matters of controversy brought before you let him be as a Heathen and a Publican Matt. 18.17 Of these he declares Quae ligaverities solveritis super terram erunt ligata c. in caelo Matt. 18.18 And Quorum peccata solveritis aut retinueritis remittentur c. Jo. 20.23 Of this Church it is said That it shall be * a City placed on a hill and a candle put on a Candlestick and not covered under a Bushel Matt. 5. * The pillar of Truth 1. Tim. 3.15 And the foundation of God which standeth ever sure 2. Tim. 2.19 * An uniforme Building raised upon its corner stone Christ Ephes 2.21 And * a Body with joynts and ligaments deriving nourishment one from another firmly knit together under its Head Christ Col. 2.19
decrees yet it is not affirmed by Catholicks that either a non-possibly or a non-morally fallible certainty of these Councils or of their Decrees or Definitions is necessary to all persons for the attaining a divine and salvifical belief of all the necessary articles of their Faith Of which see below § 125.127 Provided that every one be rightly disposed to believe both concerning Councils and their Decrees what is or shall be by their Superiors sufficiently proposed to them without and before which proposal he may be not only not infallibly certain but without peril to salvation ignorant supposing the common Creeds professed by him to contain all articles that are necessary ratione Medii to be explicitâ—y believed both what Councils are lawfully General and what such General Councils have decreed CHAP. X. 15. Q. Lastly Catholicks pretending a Divine Faith of the Articles of Christian Religion to be necessary to salvation and all Divine faith necessarily to be grounded on Divine Revelation it is asked upon what ground a Christian by a Divine Faith believes all those Articles of his Faith that are defined by particular Councils Where if it be said from the testimony of the present Church which is declared by the divine Revelation infallible the question proceeds whence this testimony can be proved by divine Revelation infallible unless it be from God's Word written or unwritten But then such writings for effecting a Divine Faith cannot be proved to be God's Word but from some other Divine Revelation for a Divine Faith can never ground it self save on a Divine Revelation where also we cannot return again to the testimony of the Church I mean as this is by Divine Revelation infallible without making a Circle § 120. To which is answered 1. That the object of a Divine Faith is alwayes in it self infallible § 123. 2. That Divine Faith alwayes resolveth it self into Divine Revelation and that into some one wherein it ultimately resteth without a process in infinitum or wheeling about in a Circile § 129. n. 1 § 132 143 144. 3 4. That such Divine Faith is alwayes wrought in Christians by the operation of God's Spirit § 164. n. 2. 5 6. But attainable without any extrinsecal infallible Introductive or Proponent Neither that it is necessary that all men for the enjoying a Divine and saving Faith be first infallibly certain that the external proponent thereof is infallible § 127. c. 7. Yet that there are those morally-certain grounds producible for this Faith and all the Articles thereof as they are believed in the Catholick Church which no other Religion befides Christianity nor no other Sect or seducing private spirit in Christianity can pretend to § 135. 8. That a rational certainty or morally-infallible ground of a Christians Faith for this at least that the Scriptures are the Word of God and consequently whatever is contained therein infallible is affirmed by all § 136. But further That an infallibility of the Church-Guides in necessaries as clearly revealed in Scripture and by Tradition Apostolical is believed by Catholickes From which infallibility of the Church thus cleared to them they retain a firm faith of all those other points that are not in Scripture or Tradition as to all men so evidently revealed as Church-infallibility is In many of which points those-others who believe only infallibility of Scripture are liable to miscarry § 140. Shewed from the precedents that no Circle is made in the Roman-Catholicks resolution either of a Divine or acquisite Faith § 143. c. The Conclusion Wherein of the many advantages of promoting their salvation lost by Protestants in persisting out of the Communion and rejecting the conduct of the spiritual Guides of the Roman-Catholick Church IN this Query which follows concerning the Resolution of Faith wherein several Catholicks do variously express themselves according to their liberty of opinion unrestrained by any former Church definition and many of the terms have such a latitude of signification as it is hard to speak so distinctly as not in something to be misunderstood I have purposely quoted several Catholick Authors of good note in confirmation of what is delivered to remove from you all jealousie that any thing is said here new Heterodox or formerly censured by the Roman Church § 120 15ly In the last place it is further pressed Q. 15. That a moral certainty or if you will a moral infallibility could it perhaps be shewed for many of those things mentioned in the former questions yet is not sufficient to afford a ground of that faith which Catholicks do require as necessary For that they say that a Christian cannot with a right and a divine faith believe the particular points of his faith to be divinely revealed unless he have an infallible or not possibly fallible assurance thereof nor can he have such infallible assurance unless the Church's definitions in her General Councils that deliver such doctrines to be divine Revelations be so infallible Nor can he infallibly believe the definitions of any Council in part cular to be so infallible unless he be infallibly certain that it is a lawful General Council for all other inferior Councils Catholicks grant may err in their Definitions nor can he be infallibly certain of this unless he be so of all those things too without which Catholicks grant it is no General Council And if an infallible certainty also of all these things so far as it is necessary should be pretended from the Tradition of the Church ever since the time of the sitting of such Councils delivering and declaring to posterity these Councils in gross for lawfully General because this Church-Tradition is held infallible It is asked again whence this Tradition is infallibly known to be so where if it be said from our Lord's promises to the Church declared in the Scriptures and so the infallibility of the Church-Tradition be resolved into Divine Revelation It is still urged whence can any know infallibly either in particular that those Texts which are urged to make good such a promise have such a sence as is-pretended or in General that the Scriptures containing such Texts are the infallible Word of God and here again if we return to prove an infallible certainty of the sence of these particular Scriptures or in general of the Scriptures being divine from the tradition and testimony of the Church then here again I must make this testimony of the Church infallible and the former question returns as unsatisfied by the former answer viz. whence I can prove its testimony or Tradition infallible of which infallibility for me here to resume an evidence from the Scriptures or from the former Texts will cast my reasoning into a vicious circle § 121 But if I proceed and say That the Tradition of the Church may be proved sufficiently to be infallible from the motives of credibility much dilated on by Catholick Writers As From the multitude of those who have affirmed their receiving of
c. 7. or if distinct a very small quantity of the blood with very great caution given in the bottom of a spoon For the second the Cross and Pictures and a due veneration of them are used as well in these as in the Greek and Roman Church See for the veneration of pictures in the Abyssine Church according in most things with the Egyptians Thom. a Jesu l. 7. p. 380. And the Priests and Religious are said to carry alwayes a Cross in their hands †Roger's Terre Saincte p. 348. And for the use of crossing see the Liturgies For the third Monastick Vows and Celibacy of the Clergy The first of these cannot be denied to be practised in them all §. 179. n. 1. and from this therefore the lawfulness of the second I mean of an injunction of Celibacy to the Clergy is justified as hath been shewed before § 164 and a necessity of such Celibacy jure divino is not affirmed by the Roman Church But for this second The practice in these Churches is much what the same as in the Greek viz. that persons married are freely admitted to be Priests but none after made Priests suffered to marry which being a yoke that few where liberty to take wives before-hand is granted have a firm mind to undergo hence it so happens that most of the secular Clergy in these other Churches as well as in the Greek are de facto married meanwhile †Thom. a Jesu l. 7. c. 9. the Regulars that are Priests do live alwayes in Celibacy and so do all the Bishops that are chosen out of Regulars as they are so chosen most frequently and in some Churches as in the Abyssine †Terre Saincte p. 347. and I think in the Greek they only can be-chosen Bishops For the fourth Auricular or Sacramental Confession §. 179. n. 2. and penance though such confession in few or none of these Churches wherein the Church-discipline in such a commixture of Mahometanism and Heathenism is much decayed is so strictly observed as in the Roman or yet as in the Greek Church either as to their making it so often as they receive the Communion or as to an enumeration of their particular faults when they make it yet it seems not to be altogether omitted or disused as with Protestants it is Zaga Zabo an Abyssine Bishop saith †Apud Damianum à Goes de Ethiopium morth it is used by the Abyssines and to give it in Brerewood's words ‖ Enquiries p. 166. That presently upon commission of sin they resort to the Confessor and at every Confession though it were every day receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist Again that Mulieres gravidae ante partus tempus semper confitentur corpus Domini confessae accipiunt ut infans capiens inde nutrimentum ex ejus communicatione sit sacratus And They have great respect saith the Fr. Recollect †Terre Saincte p. 361. to all the Sacraments and as for Confession they appoint rigorous penances and those publick for publick offences And with these Authors may those quoted by Daille †De confessione auriculari l. 4. c. 1. to say the contrary well agree whilst they speak of several parts of a vast Country or of an usual omission of it by some of these Sonthern Christians before they receive for all receive frequently viz. on all Festivals †Thom. a Jesu p. 371. and of a perfunctory performance of it only in general by many when they do it So Thom. a Jesu out of the Bishop of Sidon's Relation †p. 387. saith of the Jacobites and Armenians Sacramentum confessionis rarissimè not nunquam apud nationes illas frequentatur multique not omnes communicant sine auriculari confessione And of the Cophthites †p. 361. Moris non est ante vigesimum aut circiter annum unquam Sacramentum paenitentiae recipers And †Ib. p. 416. Sacramentum Confesâ—ionis auricularts ut est apud Ecclesiam Romanam Confirmationis extremae Vnctionis ferè non agnoscunt Sacramental Confession therefore in these Churches seems rather de facto much neglected than de jure not allowed or required and looks rather like a custom by the malignity of time somewhat defaced than never at all known or used And this neglect of Confession perhaps may partly arise from a different judgment they have of mortal sin the only necessary matter of confession whilst they account some few of the greatest only such § 180 Yet for external penances and austerities especially in the Monasticks and Clergy of these Eastern and Southern Churches they are observed to be very great and one of the chiefest causes of their dislike and contempt of the Latine Church besides the difference which they have in several other Ceremonies of Religion to arise from hence that they see many of them in such corporal severities more remiss See Rogers Terre Saincte l. 2. p. 335. And Thom. a Jesu l. 6. p. 284. Species austerioris vitae quae in eorum Hieromonachis Metropolitis Archiepiscopis frequenter cernitur Latinos contemnendi praebet occasionem c. So the Abyssine Religious and Bishops †Roger Terre Saincte l. 2. p. 347. go barefoot wear hair-cloth never eat flesh and in Lent which they begin three dayes after the Purification and other Fasts eat no Fish or white-meats make only one meal a day without any Collation at Sun-set drink no wine though when they happen to be in a Country that affords it as their own doth not use disciplines carry great weights about their bodies See much what the same abstinences of the Greek Bishops and Monks †Ib. p. 337. Goar Eucholog p. 407. who also keep four Lents or solemn Fasts in the year adding to ours that of Advent another from the first of August to the Assumption of our Lady another from the Octave of Whitsuntide to S. Peter's day the same is said of the Maronites †Ib. p. 426. the same * Ib. p. 336. or more of the Armenian Bishops and Religious never eating flesh not indulging themselves in their Lents fish white-meats or so much as oyl or any thing boiled Hence are all these much displeased with the Western liberty of using fish and wine and Collations in Lent and of several Religious Orders eating flesh out of it From what hath been said then may be discovered the defects of that summary account which after a long discourse Dr. Field in l. 1. c. 1. p. 75. gives of the Agreement both of the Greek § 181 and other Eastern Churches with the Protestants in all the principal modern Controversies where he thus informs his Reader 1st saith he They all deny and impugne that supreme universality of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction which the. Bishop of Rome claimeth Of this see below § 186. the Greeks allowing though not so much as the Pope claimeth yet more than I think many Protestants will consent to 2ly
only heareth them and not the Saints God only is properly invocated as the only fountain and doner of all we petition for say also Roman Catholicks and the Saints only are sued to as Comprecators that what follows is misrelated see before § 161. This is opposed to Dr. Fields account how rightly is left to your judgment Meanwhile as in these points Dr. Field hath noted the Eastern and Western Churches to differ so we may conclude that in those other points of modern controversie that are omitted by him as Freewill Justification not by faith alone adoration of the Eucharist and offering it pro vivis defunctis Monastick life and vows Sacramental Confession and penances their publick service and the Ceremonies attending it they do agree or that this Doctor was somewhat overseen in his choice To this consent of the modern Greek Church with the Roman in many of the modern Controversies much urged by Roman Catholicks especially from Jeremias Patriarch of Constantinople his censure to prove the Protestant's departure not from the Roman only but the whole modern Catholick Church you may see if you please what answers have been returned by several other late Protestant Writers by Arch-Bp Lawd § 29. n. 4. by Bp Bramhal Reply to Chalced. c. 9. p. 356. by Dr. Gunning in a conference with some of the Roman party called Schism unmasked p. 605. by Mr. Stillingfleet Rational account part 2. c. 8. p. 500. c. And by the Wittenberg Divines against Socolovius in the preface before their Acts with the same Patriarch To give you some account of them and here to begin with these last who first apologiz'd These Tubing Divines in their Reply to Socolovius whilst they produced nothing wherein the Patriarchs doctrines suited with theirs save Communion in both kinds and the admitting married men to take Orders thought fit rather to justifie the lawfulness of a reformation though against the whole Catholick Church of that time on this manner Defectionem porrò à Romanâ pontificiâ Ecclesiâ immò ut Rhetor amplificat ab ipso terrarum orbe omnibusque Ecclesiis quòd nobis objicit sciat Polonus iste discat si ignorat non omnem defectionem vitio vertendam esse hominibus Quoties enim Deus populum suum per Prophetas suos hortatus est ut averterent se à viis suis pessimis quas à suis majoribus pessimis didicerant Johannes in suâ Apocalypsi hortatur Ecclesiam ut exeat à Babylone quam Hieronymus Romam intelligendam docet ne plagarum ejus fiat particeps And there also they declare the intention of their sending their confession into the East notwithstanding what is said before § 166. Si quo modo say they per gratiam Dei operatiâ—nem Spiritus sancti oculi caecutientium hoc modo medio aperi ntur erroribus usitatis aliquot saeculorum agnitis eisdem valedicentes adveritatis agnitionem pervenirent And afterwards Se Graecos non constituisse communis causae judices neque studiesè ab illis recipi petiisse sed hoc egisse studiosè quod bonos cordatos pios decet viros ut ad agnitionem syncerae doctrinae Religionis eos perducerent And they apologize for their not publishing the Patriarchs answer Quòd nullam admodum ex istâ editione ad Ecclesiam Christi utilitatem perventuram sperare possent cùm alia exstent plurima ac meliora scripta malorum alias plus satis sit Lastly make their appeal notwithstanding to the Catholick Church but this collective of all ages and including the Apostles De nostro cum Apostolicis Ecclesiis dissidio mentitur Nos certe non solùm ad has sed etiam omnium temporum universalem Patriarcharum Prophetarum Apostolorum Ecclesiam pâ—ovocare non dubitamus cum quibus nos conjunctissimos esse luculenter supra ex ipsâ Scripturâ Propheticâ Apostolicâ est demonstratum Such was the reply of these German Divines § 183 To come to our own men Mr. Stillingfleet α 1st endeavours to weaken the Patriarch's authority by saying †Rat. account p. 503. That it is well enough known how much Barbarism had crept into the Greek Church after their being subdued by the Turks the means of instruction being taken from them and that it is therefore more to be wondred they should preserve so much of the doctrine of faith entire as they have done than that any corrupt practises should prevail amongst them 2. Next β That as in some things he is opposite to the Protestants so in other things to the Church of Rome †p. 500. that it is sufficiently known how much the Greeks agree with the Protestants γ in the opposition to the great points of the Pope's Supremacy δ and the infallibility of the Church of Rome ε how far they are from the belief of Purgatory in the Roman sence That the Patriarch doth also profess his consent with Protestants †p. 502. ζ that the Sacrament was to be received in both kinds η that the use of Marriage was not absolutely to be forbidden the Clergy And θ that he opposed also invocation of Saints in such a sence as that they hear us Thus he and some of these are mentioned also in the forecited conference with Dr. Gunning § 184 To what he saith first α I answer that as Protestants urge this present illiterate and desolate condition of the Eastern Churches when their opinions or practice make against them so it is meet they should remember it when in their appealing to a General Council they seem to set so high a value on the judgment and sentence of these remote Churches therein resting no way satisfied with that of the West Next I say whatever corrupt practices have prevailed of late times in the East yet that as for those wherein both East and West that is the whole Catholick visible Church at Luther's coming agreed in especially when at such enmity between themselves these Churches in both of them having the like customs do bear mutual witness to one another that they could be no innovations in either of them § 185 To β. viz. the Greek Churches their agreeing in some things with Protestants against the Church of Rome To β. as in others with the Roman Church against Protestants from which it seems to follow that the Church of Rome must as well be culpable of Schism or any other crime in what the Greeks and Protestants differ from it as the Protestants in what the Greek and the Roman accord in against it I answer that any Churches co-ordinate may without Schism or fault differ from one another or one of them from all the rest in several doctrines and opinions if such opinions or doctrines be not defined or the practice of them not required by any theâ—r Superiors but any Church differing from the rest in any doctrine formerly defined or to which conformity is required by their Superiors or by the
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
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