Christian Faith Nor yet the Church entring into any State take away any of the Civil Rights or Authority thereof which is given to the Governours of this State by God and which it was justly possessed of before the Church entred into it Takes away I say none of these Rights where Persons or Things formerly Civil do not by their Dedication to God become Sacred Nor the Church callenge any Temporal Right or Authority as to the use of the Secular Sword which the State doth not first invest it with α And That therefore these two Bodies may always without any jealousy most peaceably consist together Because the Principles of Christianity do most entirely secure and preserve all the Secular Rights of Princes And because in leaving only to Princes the use of the Temporal Sword the Church can never in any difference that happens be the invading but only the suffering Party § 2 2. Therefore 2dly in consequence hereof They hold That the Subordinations of Ecclesiastical Government such as are necessary for the exclusion of Heresies and Schisms and conservation of the Churches Unity Uniformity and Peace throughout several Nations And these which are instituted by Christ or his Apostles or are afterward established in the Church Catholick by Ecclesiastical Canons made by the chief Representative thereof I mean such Canons as can no way be justly pretended to do any wrong to the Civil Government They hold That such Subordinations of Church-Government cannot justly be changed nor the observance of such Constitutions be abrogated or prohibited by any Secular Supreme Christian or Heathen within their own Dominions § 3 3. Since it is clear That Christ sent his Ministers to preach the Gospel and do other meerly Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Offices in all Nations and in those Nations too then as now under some Supreme Civil Governor which Offices also those Ministers did accordingly perform for three hundred years tho the said Governors prohibited and opposed them So for Example the Apostles and other Church-Governors in those times assembled themselves in a Council at Jerusalem to consult and give orders throughout the Churches concerning the Abrogation of former Legal Ceremonses So St. Paul in those times gave Commission to Timothy for the of the Christian Church in Ephesus to Titus for the governing those in Creet to ordain Clergy thro the Cities there and in these Provinces to receive Accusations hear Witnesses promulgate the Doctrines formerly received silence False-teachers excommunicate Offenders c. 1 Tim. 1.3 5.19 2. Tim. 2.2 Tit. 1.5.11 3.10 And so he gave order also to them to hold publick Assemblies 1. Cor. 5.4 Heb. 10.25 for the common Worship of God and for the exercising of the forenamed Acts. And so the Successors of these first Church Governors also used the same authority for those three first Centuries in all dominions distributed into several Provincial and Parochial or Diocesan Governments tho the Secular Powers frequently resisted imprisoned executed the Church Officers for it These things therefore thus granted and allowed hence they infer that as a Heathen Prince cannot justly prohibit all Christian Clergy so neither can a Christian Prince amongst this Clergy justly prohibit all those whom only these Ecclesiastical Magistrates do judge Orthodox and worthy from professing and publishing the Orthodox Faith and otherwise officiating in Divine matters within his Dominions Else as where the Prince is Heathen Christianity cannot be propagated in his Territories against Infidelity so where the Christian Prince happens to be Heretical suppose an Arian as the Emperour Constantius was the Truth of Christianity cannot be preserved in his dominions against Heresy or where he Schismatical the Unity of the Churches Communion cannot be preserved against the Sects in his dominion For Confirmation of these three preceedent Theses see at large the Protestant Concessions in letter δ. To which is annexed an Answer to all their Pleas and Defences made by them for a lawful Reformation of Ecclesiastical Persons and Matters by the Secular Power § 4 4 Consequently to the Precedents seeing that as there are many temporal Jurisdictions descending on the Church originally from the Secular Power so there are also other spiritual Jurisdictions primitively belonging to and exercised by the Church and held from the donation of our Lord such as the forementioned viz. To hold publick Religious Assemblies to promulgate the Doctrines formerly delivered to administer the Sacraments of the Church to receive Accusations hear Witnesses in point of Heresy and Schism to bind absolve to silence False-teachers excommunicate obstinate Offenders and that in all Nations and within any Princes Dominions whatever They accordingly affirm 1. That no Secular Power can bestow or derive their spiritual Jurisdictions on any person but that to be in such dominions by any person lawfully executed these must first be conferred on him by the Clergy 2dly That the act only of some inferior Clergy against their Canonical Superiors or of the minor part of Clergy against the major can be no legitimate act of the Clergy for conferring such spiritual Jurisdictions but the contrary to it is so § 5 And hence 5ly They gather That tho Princes for the greater security of their Civil Government and the many secular obligations which the Church hath to them may nominate and present to the Clergy and Ecclesiastical Magistrates such persons as they think most meet to receive from the Church these spiritual Jurisdictions within their dominions yet if any Secular Power should possess such person of these Jurisdictions in any Province either by his own sole authority or by the concurrence of some inferior Clergy or minor part of such Province whom the major part of the Clergy of such Province or the due Ecclesiastical Superiors to whom according to Church Canons the conferring of such Jurisdiction doth belong to judge uncapable or unfit and therefore refuse the collation of them on such a subject They affirm such an Act of the Prince or Clergy assisting him to be unlawful and that it must needs open a way to all Heresy and Schism and dissolve the Faith and Unity of the Church Catholick Neither can any such Person so introduced tho he be validly ordained justly exercise such spiritual Jurisdictions neither do all such people as know receive any salvifical benefit by his unlawful administration to them of the Church's Sacraments or at least of the Sacrament of Penance and Absolution by reason of a defect of a right disposition in the Suscipients and the great guilt they contract in applying themselves to such a Person unless this be done in a case of necessity when there is no Catholick Clergy to repair to for such Offices So had Novatianus ordained and adhered to by three or four Bishops been upon this setled by a Christian Emperor in the Apostolick Chair against Cornelius ordained and confirmed in these Jurisdictions by all the rest of the Body of the Roman Episcopal Clergy yet Novatianus would no less for this
of God notwithstanding any secular force prohibiting the same must needs maintain by consequence that the Church hath Power in it self to hold all such Assemblies as shall be requisite to maintain the common Service of God and the Unity in it and the order of all Assemblies that exercise it Thus Mr. Thorndike § 16 Dr. Taylor in Episcopacy asserted published by the Kings Authority after that p. 236. he hath laid this ground for the security of Secular Princes That since that Christ hath professed that his Kingdome is not of this world that Government which he hath constituted de novo doth no way make any Entrenchment on the Royalty hath these Passages p. 237. he saith That those things which Christianity as it prescinds from the interest of the Republick hath introduced all them and all the causes emergent from them the Bishop is Judge of Such are causes of Faith ministration of Sacraments and Sacramentals Subordination of inferiour Clergy to their Superiours Rites Liturgies c. As for the Rights of the Secular Power he layeth down this Rule p. 236. Whatsoever the Secular Tribunal did take Cognizance of before it was Christian the same it takes notice of after it is Christened And these are all Actions civil all publick Visitations of Justice all breach of municipal Laws These the Church saith he hath nothing to do with unless by the favour of Princes these be indulged to it these by their favour then indulged but not so the former Accordingly p. 239. he saith Both Prince and Bishops have indicted Synods in several ages upon the exigente of several occasions and have several Powers for the engagements of clerical obedience and attendance upon such Solemnities That the Bishops Jurisdiction hath a Compulsory derived from Christ only viz. Inflictions of Censures by Excommunications or other minores plagae which are in order to it And that the King is supreme of the Jurisdiction viz. that part of it which is the external Compulsory i. e. as he saith before to superadd a temporal penalty upon Contumacy or some other way abet the Censures of the Church P. 243. he saith That in those cases in which by the law of Christ Bishops may or in which they must use Excommunication no Power can forbid them For what power Christ hath given them no man can take away And p. 244. That the Church may inflict her Censures upon her Delinquent Children without asking leave that Christ is her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that he is her warrant and security And p 245. That the King 's supreme Regal Power in causes of the Church consists in all things in which the Priestly office is not precisely by God's law employed for regiment and care of Souls I suppose those he named before p. 237. and in these also that all the external Compulsory and Jurisdiction as he expoundeth 〈◊〉 before p. 239. is the King 's And lastly p. 241. he saith That the Catholick Bishops in time of Arian Emperors made humble and fair remonstrance of the distinction of Powers and Jurisdiction that as they might not intrench upon the Royalty so neither betray the right which Christ had concredited to them to the encroachment of an exterior Jurisdiction and Power i. e. the Royal. § 17 Bishop Bramhal frequently stateth the Primacy or Supremacy of Princes in Ecclesiastical matters thus Schisme Guarded p. 61. he saith All that our Kings assume to themselves is the external Regiment of the Church by coactive Power to be exercised by persons capable of the respective branches of it And p. 63. quoting the 37 Article of the Church of England where the King's Supremacy is expressed thus To preserve or contain all Estates and Orders committed to their trust whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in their duties and restrain contumacious offenders with the Civil Sword in which restraining offenders and containing all in their duty with the Civil Sword the Prince is willingly acknowledged by Catholicks the and the only Supreme he comments thus upon it You see the Power is Political the Sword is Political all is Political our Kings leave the Power of the Keys and Jurisdiction Spiritual purely to those to whom Christ hath left them And in answer to another Passage in the 37th Article and also in the Oath of Supremacy wherein the Bishop of Rome is denied to have any Jurisdiction in the Kingdome of England he distinguisheth between a Jurisdiction suppose to excommunicate absolve degrade purely Spiritual governing Christians in the interior Court of Conscience and extending no further and an exterior coactive Jurisdiction exercised in the exterior Ecclesiastical Courts the exterior Coaction of which he saith is originally Political and so belonging only to and held from the Prince His words are Schisme Guarded p. 160. Our Ancestors in denying any Jurisdiction that is Patriarchal to the Pope meant the very same thing that we do our only difference is in the use of the words Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction which we understand properly of Jurisdiction purely Spiritual which extends no further then the Court of Conscience But by Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction they did understand Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the exterior Court which in truth is partly Spiritual partly Political The interior habit which enableth an Ecclesiastical Judge to excommunicate or absolve or degrade is meerly Spiritual but the exterior Coaction is originally Political So our Ancestors cast out external Ecclesiastical coactive Jurisdiction the same do we They did not take away from the Pope the power of the Keys or Jurisdiction purely Spiritual no more do we And Ibid. p. 119. We acknowledge that Bishops were always esteemed the proper Judges of the Canons both for composing of them and executing of them but with this caution that to make them Laws he means such laws for observance of which secular coaction might be used the confirmation of the Prince was required and to give the Bishop a coactive Power to execute them the Prince's Grant or Concession was needful So that Bishops may both compose and execute Canons in the Kings Dominions and use the Ecclesiastical Censures by their own Authority without the Prince only they can use no Coaction by pecuniary or corporal punishments c. in the Execution of them without his which is granted to him Again Vindic. of the Church of England p. 269. he saith That in Cases that are indeed Spiritual or meerly Ecclesiastical such as concern the Doctrine of Faith or Administration of the Sacraments or the ordaining or degrading of Ecclesiastical persons Sovereign Princes have and have only an Architectonical Power to see that Clergy-men do their Duties i. e. not what he but what their Superiors in Spiritual matters judge to be so And Schisme Guarded p. 136. We have nothing concerning any Jurisdiction meerly Spiritual in all the Statutes of Henry the Eighth They do all intend coactive Jurisdiction in the exterior Court of the Church We give the supreme Judicature of
THE PREFACE BEcause the Doctrines of the Church are as by some wittingly mis-related so by many others ignorantly mistaken the Author thought it might be useful for the informing of those who are withheld from professing Truth only because they do not know it not because they hate it or prefer some secular interest before it to draw up some brief Catholick Theses as well negative as affirmative extending to most of the principal Points of Controversy between the Roman and Reformed Churches In which Theses he Professeth 1 That there is not any thing wittingly denied that is affirmed by any allowed Council 2 Nor any thing affirmed that is in any such Council denied Nor 3 any thing affirmed or denied here but what if not in Council yet in some Catholick Writers uncensured by the Church may be shewed to be so and all to be bounded within such a Latitude of Opinion as the Church indulgeth For the more evidencing whereof such Propositions as he conjectured might be by some less read and experienced any way doubted of whether acknowledged and received by Roman-Catholicks He hath confirmed either with the Testimonies of approved Catholick Divines or which might have more weight with some Readers the Concessions of Learned Protestants leaving only so many of these Theses unguarded as he presumed their own Perspicuity would secure But here 1 The Author pretends not that all is comprehended in these Theses which hath been delivered by Councils in all these Points because this he thought both too tedious a Task and needless since the main Points are here comprised and the intelligent Reader will discern That many of those omitted may be readily inferred by necessary consequence from those here expressed and since he who in these concurs with the Church's Judgment must needs so much reverence it as easily in the rest to resign himself to it Nor 2 doth he pretend that no Catholick Author of good esteem delivers the contrary to any Proposition here set down i. e. such of them as have not been the Determinations of Councils For the Church herein allows a Latitude of Opinions and he thought it sufficient to his Purpose to shew that none to be esteemed true Sons of the Church Catholick and right Professors of her Faith need to be of any other Perswasion then this here delivered and not that all are or must be of it And strange it were for any on this account only to desert the Church because he can produce some persons in it that hold a thing he conceives false or unreasonable whilst the same Mother indulgeth him to hold only that which he thinks rational and true For any therefore to gather a Body of such Testimonies except those of Councils against any of these Theses is labour lost so long as he cannot produce some obligation laid upon all to conform to such Opinions or follow such a Party and so long as the Church equally spreads her lap to all those who think or say otherwise Nay further could he produce some Catholick Author of good repute affirming the contrary to something here said to be the Doctrine or Faith of the Church or something here said to be contrary to it yet neither is this conceived to the purpose unless his saying it is so proves it to be so For a learned Author possibly for the greater reputation of his Doctrine may be too facile to entitle the Church to it either as supposing it deducible by some necessary consequence from some Decree thereof or as contracting the words of such a Decree to a more particular sense than the Council intended them or indeed had light either from Scripture or Tradition Apostolical precisely to determine and sometimes so it hath hapned that contrary opinions have both of them urged the same Church Decree couched only in more general Expressions as deciding the Controversy their own way But it is here reasonably desired That such Conciliary Decree it self be produced and well examined and those Authors put in the other Scale who are here shewed to maintain that to be well consistent with or also to be the Church's Doctrine which some others perhaps may pronounce contrary to it It not being the Author's Design in this Collection to shew that Roman Catholicks agree in all things here said but that none to be true Roman Catholicks need to hold or say any thing otherwise By this to remove out of the way that great Scandal and Stumbling-block of well-inclined but mis-informed Protestants who apprehend that such gross Errors in Faith and Manners as no sober and rational Christian can with a good Conscience subscribe are not only held and tolerated in the Roman Church but also by it imposed The Author hath also endeavoured in these Theses to descend so far to several particulars and circumstantials as that the intelligent may easily discern them applicable to the solution of most doubts such as are material and to the explanation of his meaning where to some Readers seeming ambiguous or obscure and they may serve them for a Comment or Exposition on most he hath written wherein his principal Design hath ever been Truth always preserved Unity and the Peace of the Church of God a design which can never be compleated whilst new Writings still succeed the former till by the Divine Mercy these present Dissensions arrive unto their just period CATHOLICK THESES On several Chief HEADS of CONTROVERSY HEAD I. Concerning the Church Her being a Guide 1. More General Concerning the Church her being a Guide 1. CAtholicks do affirm That our Saviour's gracious Promises of Indefectibility Matt. 16.18 19 -28.19 20. Jo. 14 16.26.-16.13 comp Act. 15-28 -1 Jo. 5.20.27 Matt. 18.20 comp 17 18. 1. Tim. 3 15 -2 Tim. 2.19 comp 16 17. Eph. 4.11.13 made to his Church are so to be understood not only that his Church shall never fail or fall away as to Doctrine or Manners if she do her duty as some expound them But also that his Church shall never fail to do her duty for what is necessary to Salvation and that these his words are not an hypothetical but absolute Prediction that his Church shall never fail 2. That such Promises belong to the Church Catholick as a Guide 3. That this indefectibility of the Church as a Guide doth extend to an inerrability as in all Fundamentals in which if it errs it is no more a Church So in all other points the contrary Tenents to which are dangerous to Salvation For there seemeth to be no reasonable ground of a Restraint of our Saviour's Promises made indefinitely narrower then this 4. Amongst the several ways whereby the Church Catholick may deliver her Judgment as a Guide whether by Messengers Communicatory Letters or Councils that consent of judgment or those Councils which are the most universal as the times and places are capable thereof and which are the most dignified also with the presence of the most eminent Church Magistrates convening therein
Laodicea Council of Trent Sess 4. under Paul the Third ratified in full Council Sess ult under Pius and accepted by all the Western Churches save the Reformed Or according to St. Austine's Rule De Doctrina Christiana 2. l. 8. c. In Canonicis autem Scripturis Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quam plurimum authoritatem sequatur Inter quas sane illae sunt quae Apostolicas sedes habent Epistolas i. e. communicatorias ab illis Ecclesus Apostolicis accipere meruerunt or the more and more dignified Churches Catholick have received and used for such 5. There is no more assent or belief required upon Anathema by any Council concerning those Books of the Canon which the Reformed call in question than this Ut pro Sacris Canonicis suscipiantur So Council Trid. Sess 4. Si quis libros ipsos c. pro Sacris Canonicis non susceperit Anathema sit But these words by some imposed upon that Council See Bishop Consin § 81. p. 103. Si quis omnes libros pari Pietatis affectu reverentia veneratione pro Canonicis non susceperit Anathema sit are not found there Next Concerning the Sufficiency of this Canon of Scripture as a Rule or that which contains in it the matter of the Christian Faith Concerning the sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for the Rule of Faith 1. Catholicks concede the holy Scriptures to contain all those Points of Faith that are simply necessary by all persons to be believed for attaining Salvation α to contain them either in the conclusion it self or in the Principles from which it is necessarily deduced And contend that out of the Revelations made in the Scriptures as expounded by former Tradition the Church from time to time defines all such points except it be such Practicals wherein the question is only whether they be lawful for the deciding of which lawfulness it is enough if it can be shewed that nothing in Scripture as understood by Antiquity is repugnant to them 2. But 2dly The sense rather then the letter being God's word they affirm that all such Points are not so clearly contained in the words of Scripture as that none can mistake or wrest the true sense of those words 3. And therefore 3dly They affirm the Church's Tradition or traditive Exposition of these words of Scripture necessary for several Points to be made use of for the discerning and retaining the true sense which under those words is intended by the Holy Ghost and was in their teaching delivered by the Apostles to their Successors wherein yet they make not the Tradition or delivering of this Sense but the Sense delivered that is the Scripture still for these Points their Rule or that which contains the matter of their Faith the oral expression or exposition thereof being only the same thing with its meaning or sense and why are the Scriptures quoted by them but because the matter is there contained 4. They contend that there are many things especially in the governing of the Church in the Administration of the Sacraments and other sacred Ceremonies which ought to be believed and practised or conformed to that are not expresly set down in the Holy Scriptures but left in the Church by Apostolical Tradition and preserved in the Records of Antiquity and constant Church-custome in several of which Protestants also agree with them in the same Belief and Practice β And amongst these Credends extra Scripturas is to be numbred the Article concerning the Canon of Scripture γ α S. Thom. 22.1 q. art 9. primus ad primum Art 10. ad primum In Doctrina Christi Apostolorum he means scripta veritas fidei est sufficienter explicata Sed quia perversi homines Scripturas pervertunt ideo necessaria fuit temporibus procedentibus explicatio fidei contra insurgentes errores Bellarm. de verbo Dei non scripto 4. l. 11. c. Illa omnia scripta sunt ab Apostolis quae sunt omnibus simpliciter necessaria ad salutem The main and substantial points of our Faith saith F. Fisher in Bishop White p. 12. are believed to be Apostolical because they are written in Scripture γ See Dr. Feild 4. l. 20. c. Dr. Taylor Episcopacy asserted § 19. Reasons of the University of Oxford against the Covenant published 1647. p. 9. Where they speak on this manner Without the consentient judgment and practice of the Universal Church the best Interpreter of Scripture in things not clearly expressed for Lex currit cum Praxi We should be at a loss in sundry Points both of Faith and Manners at this day firmly believed and securely practised by us when by the Socinians Anabaptists and other Sectaries we should be called upon for our Proofs As namely sundry Orthodoxal Explications concerning the Trinity and Co-equality of the Persons in the God-head against the Arians and other Hereticks the number use and efficacy of Sacraments the Baptizing of Infants National Churches the Observation of the Lord's Day and even the Canon of Scripture it self γ Dr. Field 4. l. 20. c. We reject not all Tradition for first we receive the number and names of the Authors of Books Divine and Canonical as delivered by Tradition Mr. Chillingworth 1. l. 8. c. When Protestants affirm against Papists that Scripture is A Perfect Rule of Faith their meaning is not that by Scripture all things absolutely may be proved which are to be believed For it can never be proved by Scripture to a Gain-sayer That the Book called Scripture is the word of God HEAD V. Concerning the perpetual use and necessity in all Ages of New Determinations and Definitions in matter of Faith to be made by the Church Concerning the necessity of the Church in several Ages her making new Definitions in matter Faith 1. IT is granted by Catholicks That all Points of Faith necessary to be known explicitly by every one for attaining Salvation are delivered in the Scriptures or other evident Tradition Apostolical or also all those of speculative Faith so necessary delivered in the Apostles Creed 2. Granted also That the Church Governours since the time of our Saviour and his Apostles have no power to Decree or impose any new Doctrine as of Faith or to be believed as a Divine Truth which was not a Divine Truth formerly revealed either explicitly in the like terms as they propose it or implicitly at least in its necessary principles and premises out of which they collect it Nor have power to decree or impose any new thing as of necessary Faith or necessary to be believed to Salvation that is necessary absolutely to be by all persons whatever some of whom may be blamelesly ignorant of what the Church hath defined after such Decree known or believed explicitely with reference to attaining salvation which was not so necessarily formerly 3. Yet notwithstanding this Catholicks affirm that there are many divine truths which are not explicitely and in terminis delivered in the Scriptures Apostles Creed
Poverty distance of Place Le ts of temporal Magistrate or voluntary also out of some unlawful respect Which Absence of some few in comparison of the whole if it can hinder the necessary Generality of the Council it is probable that there will never want within the Confines also of the Church Catholick now spread thro the Dominions of several Princes of contrary interests some either Bishops or Secular Governours that are averse from the meeting of such Council in respect of some Circumstances belonging to it at least those of time place c. 3. For these reasons therefore 3 such Council seems to be unquestionably General not to say here that none less their such can justly be so where are present in person or by his Legates the Bishop of the Prime Apostolick See without whom no such Council can be held and by their Lieutenants at least all or most of the other Patriarchs such as are in Being and have some considerable part of the Church Catholick subjected unto them It is said most of them for the presence and concurrence of all of them was not thought necessary neither in the third nor fourth of the allowed General Councils And the Representatives of a considerably major part of the Catholick Provinces and more especially the Representatives of the largest and most dignified of these Provinces 4. In the Absence of some Patriarchs or chief Churches in such Council or in the presence there only of a smaller number of Delegates from the greater and more numerous Provinces and of a greater number from other less as five or six Bishops only delegated from the Western Churches were present in the Council of Nice or in any other deficiency of the representment of the greatest part of the Church Catholick in this Assembly yet when the Decrees and Acts of such smaller part being sent and made known to the Absent are both confirmed by the Bishop of Rome the Primate of the Patriarchs and of the universal Church and accepted also by the much major part of the Catholick Provinces tho these be not accepted by some others of them such Council ought either to be received as General or as equivalent thereto and the Acts thereof are obligatory to the whole Church Catholick For seeing that if all the Provinces had convened in one Place and Body the disagreeing votes of some Provinces in such Councils being fewer and lesser could not have justly hindred but that the contrary votes of the other much major part would have stood in force and obliged all to obedience then neither can their dissent out of the Council be rationally pretended to hinder the same And what engagement the several Provinces of the present Age have to such Council the same also all future seem to have for the same reason till an equal Authority to that which established such Ecclesiastical laws reverse them which in matters of necessary Faith will never happen So the Arian Churches of the fifth Age are as much obliged to the Definitions of the Nicene Council as those of the fourth And in any Age what means can there be of Preservation of Unity for matter of Faith in the Church Catholick if a few in comparison will neither be regulated by any one Person or Head Nor yet concluded by the much major part Here by acceptation of the much major part of Catholick Provinces is understood none other necessary then only a peaceful acquiescence in and conformity to the Decrees of such Councils and a not declaring against them tho such Acceptation proceed not so farr as to the passing of an Act to this effect in Provincial or National Synods For this last hath not been done to those Acts of Councils universally held General 5. To go yet a little further Considering the present Condition both of the Eastern Churches and of such Patriarchs as are yet left besides the Roman such now rather in name than in power the paucity poverty and illiterature necessitated by their great oppressions of their Clergy their incapacity to assemble themselves even in lesser Synods for consultation to say nothing here whether any of these Churches have declined from the former Definitions of the Church Catholick and so are become Heretical and so uncapable of sitting in Ecclesiastical Synods in these times a General Council such as ought to oblige may be well apprehended to receive narrower bounds than formerly And such a Council where those who are Catholick in Eastern Churches are wished for invited and if any come not excluded and to which all the Western Provinces yet flourishing in Religion and not obstructed from meeting are called and in which the Representatives of the greatest part of them joined with the Prime Patriarch are assembled such Council I say ought either to receive the denomination of General especially as to these Doctrines wherein the Eastern Churches consent or of the most General that the present times will afford or at least of a Patriarchal and lawful Superiour Council and so in the same measure accepted obligeth all the Provinces of the West to yield obedience thereto and therefore in such an Age for any Person or Church that is a Member of this Western Body to call for a larger Council than can be had is only an Artifice to decline Judgment and for any to Appeal to a future Council which can be no larger than that past to whose sentence they deny Submission what is this but to renounce the Authority they appeal to To which may be added that any Appeal to a future Council concerning such Controversies wherein one knoweth the unanimous Doctrine of the much major part of the present Christian Churches as well Eastern as Western to be against him seems bootless and affording no relief Because such Council can consist only of the Governours and so of the judgments of such particular Churches put to together and therefore such as the present Doctrine is of the major part of these Christian Churches and of the several Bishops presiding in them especially now after the cause reasons pretended demonstrations of the dissenting Party for so many years divulged pleaded considered such we may presume will be that of the Council For what can effect a Mutation of opinion in these Persons joined which altereth nothing now in them severed HEAD IX Concerning the Vnity of the Church and of its Government and Succession in respect of Seculars § 1 1. CAtholicks affirm That the Church and Civil Societies are two distinct Bodies Concerning the Unity of the Church and of its Government and Succession in respect of Seculars subject to their distinct Superiors and that the Church Catholick is but one in many States Again That the Civil State entring into the Body of the Church cannot thereby justly take from it any of its former Rights which are instated upon it by our Lord and which it did or might justly exercise in such Civil State before this State submitted it self to the
accusaverit Of which Canon thus Dr. Field p. 518. Patriarchs were by the Order of the 8th General Council Can. 17. to confirm the Metropolitans subject unto them either by the imposition of hands or giving the Pall. And l. 5. c. 37. p. 551. ' Without the Patriarchs consent none of the Metropolitans subject unto them might be ordained And what they bring saith he proves nothing that we ever doubted of For we know the Bishop of Rome hath the right of confirming the Metropolitans within the Precincts of his own Patriarchship as likewise every other Patriarch had And thus Bishop Bramhal Vindic. c. 9. p. 259. c. What power the Metropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province the same had a Patriarch over the Metropolitans and Bishops of sundry Provinces within his own Patriarchate And afterwards Wherein then consisteth Patiarchal Authority In ordaining their Metropolitans or confirming them δ. δ Bishop Carleton in his Treatise of Jurisdiction Regal and Episcopal 4. c. p. 42. § 14 External Jurisdiction is either definitive or mulctative Authority definitive in matters of Faith and Religion belongeth to the Church Mulctative power is understood either as it is with coaction i. e. using Secular force or as it is referred to Spiritual Censures As it standeth in Spiritual Censures it is the right of the Church and was practised by the Church when without Christian Magistrate and since But coactive Jurisdiction was always understood to belong to the Civil Magistrate whether Christian or Heathen Ibid. 1. c. p. 9. As for Spiritual Jurisdiction standing in Examination of Controversies of Faith judging of Heresies deposing of Hereticks Excommunications of notorious and stubborn offenders Ordination of Priests and Deacons Institution and Collation of Benefices and Spiritual Cures this we reserve entire to the Church which Princes cannot give to nor take from the Church And by this Power saith he 4. c. p. 39. without Coaction the Church was called Faith was planted Devils were subdued the Nations were taken out of the power of darkness the world reduced to the obedience of Christ by this Power without coactive Jurisdiction the Church was governed for 300 years together But if it be enquired what was done when the Emperors were Christian and when their coactive Power came in The Emperors saith he p. 178. never took upon them by their Authority to define matters of Faith and Religion that they left to the Church But when the Church had defined such Truths against Hereticks and had deposed such Hereticks then the Emperors concurring with the Church by their Imperial Constitutions did by their coactive Power give strength to the Canons of the Church § 15 Mr. Thorndike Rights of the Church 4. c. p. 234. The Power of the Church is so absolute and depending on God alone that if a Sovereign professing Christianity should forbid the profession of that Faith or the Exercise of those Ordinances which God hath required to be served with The judgment of which Faith and Ordinances what they are Protestants also affirm to belong to the Clergy or even the Exercise of that Ecclesiastical Power which shall be necessary to preserve the Unity of the Church it must needs be necessary for those that are trusted with the Power of the Church not only to disobey the Commands of the Sovereign but to use that Power which their Quality in the Society of the Church gives them to provide for the subsistence thereof without the assistance of Secular Powers A thing manifestly supposed by all the Bishops of the ancient Church in all those actions wherein they refused to obey their Emperors seduced by Hereticks refused to obey them in forbearing to teach still and publish the Catholick Doctrine when prohibited by them and to suffer their Churches to be regulated by them to the prejudice of Christianity Which actions whosoever justifies not he will lay the Church open to ruine whensoever the Soveraign Power is seduced by Hereticks And such a difference falling out i. e. between Prince and Clergy in Church matters as that to particular persons it cannot be clear who is in the right It will be requisite saith he for Christians in a doubtful case at their utmost perils to adhere to the Guides of the Church against their lawful Sovereign tho to no other effect than to suffer if the Prince impose it for the Exercise of their Christianity and the maintenance of the Society of the Church in Unity See the same Author Epilog 1. l. 19. c. The contents whereof touching this subject he hath briefly expressed thus That that Power which was in the Churches under the Apostles can never be in any Christian Sovereign That the interest of Secular Power in determining matters of Faith presupposeth the Society of the Church and the Act of it And there he giveth reasons why the Church is to decide matters of Faith rather than the State supposing neither to be infallible Ibid. c. 20. p. 158. he saith That he who disturbs the Communion of the Church remains punishable by the Secular power to inflict temporal penalties not absolutely because it is Christian but upon supposition that this temporal power maintaineth the true Church And afterward That the Secular Power is not able of it self to do any of those Acts which the Church i.e. those who are qualified by and for the Church are qualified by vertue of their Commission from Christ to do without committing the sin of Sacrilege in seizing into its own hands the Powers which by God's Act are constituted and therefore consecrated and dedicated to his own service not supposing the free Act of the Church without fraud and violence concurring to the doing of it Now among the Acts and Powers belonging to the Church which he calls a Corporation by divine right and appointment he names these 1. l. 16. c. p. 116. The Power of making Laws within themselves and then I suppose of publishing them made among all the Subjects of the Church in whatever Princes Dominions else why make them of electing Church Governors of which see 3. l. 32. c. p. 398. and of Excommunicating and 3. l. 32. c. p. 385. The Power to determine all matters the determination whereof is requisite to maintain the Communion of Christians in the service of God and the Power to oblige Christians to stand to that determination under pain of forfeiting that Communion The Power of holding Assemblies which must be by meeting together in some place or other and by some Church Authority calling them Of which he speaks thus 1. l. 8. c. p. 53. I must not omit to alledge the Authority of Councils and to maintain the Right and Power of holding them and the obligation which the Decrees of them regularly made is able to create to stand by the same Authority of the Apostles And afterward I that pretend the Church to be a Corporation founded by God upon a Priviledge of holding visible Assemblies for the common Service
Controversies of Faith to a General Council and the supreme Power of Spiritual Censures which are coactive only in the Court of Conscience and suitably in the interval of General Councils he must allow to National Synods the same Judicature and Censures abstracting from the Prince Ibid. p. 92. he saith We see the Primitive Fathers did assemble Synods and make Canons before there were any Christian Emperors And then may not they do the same still Both assemble Synods as the Apostles did at Jerusalem Act. 15. And make Canons and then also publish them made as the Apostles did when an Heretical Prince concurreth not with or also opposeth them Provided that there be no apparent danger to the Prince or State of any Sedition by such meeting But they had no coactive Power to compel any man against his will This therefore is the Power which Emperors when become Christian and her Subjects bring in and add to the Church without taking away from it any of that Power which before from Christ's time it was possessed of under Heathen Princes The Summe is He challengeth for the Prince only a double coactive Power with his temporal Sword which is either executed by himself or committed to the Church Governors one for constraining of the Laity to the obedience of the Church the other of the inferior Clergy to the obedience of their Superiors in all Spiritual matters § 18 The same saith Dr. Fern Answer to Champny 9. c. p. 284. It is a mistake that the Prince by his supreme Power in Spiritual and Ecclesiastical things is made supreme Judge of Faith and Decider of all Controversies thereunto belonging and may ordain what he thinks fit in matters of Religion Who also in his Discourse of Presbytery and Episcopacy p. 19. Grants That no Secular Prince can justly prohibit within his Dominions the exercise of Ordination and of Judicature so far as the Keys left by Christ in his Church do extend nor prohibiting is to be obeyed and Christ's Substitutes herein being denied the assistance of the Civil Power are to proceed without it And Exam. Champny p. 290. saith That the Bishops and chief Pastors of the Church are the immediate proper and ordinary Judges in defining and declaring what the Laws of Christ be for Doctrine and Discipline That they have a coercive Power in a spiritual restraint of those that obstinately gain-say So Dr. Fern. § 19 Mason de Ministerio Anglicano 3. l. 3. c. asketh the Question Quis enim nostrum unquam affirmavit Principes in causes Fidei Religionis supremos esse Cognitores Judices De hac a Cardinale Bellarmino aliis Pontificiis Ecclesiae Anglicanae illata injuria sic olim conquestus est Doctissimus Whitakerus c. § 20 Dr. Field Of the Church p 667. The State of the Christian Church the good things it enjoyeth and the felicity it promiseth being Spiritual is such that it may stand tho not only forsaken but greatly oppressed by the great men of the world And therefore it is by all resolved on That the Church hath her Guides and Rulers distinct from them that bear the Sword and that there is in the Church a Power of convocating these her Spiritual Pastors to consult of things concerning her welfare tho none of the Princes of the world do favour her And p. 81. Touching Errors of Faith or Oberrations in the performance of God's worship and service saith he There is no question but that Bishops and Pastors of the Church to whom it pertaineth to teach the Truth are the ordinary and fittest Judges and that ordinarily and regularly Princes are to leave the judgment thereof unto them And below We do not attribute to our Princes with their Civil Estates power newly to adjudge any thing to be Heresy without the concurrence of the State of their Clergy but only to judge in those matters of Faith that are resolved on i. e. in former Councils according to former resolutions And the same much what is said by Dr. Heylin Reformation Justified p. 80 81. in affirming That if the Reformation be in such Points of Doctrine as have not been before defined in such manner i. e. in a General Council or in a particular Council universally received The King only with a few of his Bishops and learned Clergy tho never so well studied in the Point disputed can do nothing in it That belongs only to the whole Body of the Clergy in their Convocation rightly called and constituted By these Expressions the Reformation allowed to Christian Princes seems only of Errors first declared such either by the Resolutions of former lawful Councils or of a new lawful Council of Clergy first had which will easily be granted them Provided that Councils be understood in their due Subordinations and according to their due votes not the Decree of some inferior Synod preferred by such Prince to the Decree of a Superior nor the vote of a Minor part in a Synod or of some Clergy out of it before that of a Major part But if they mean the Princes taking the Guidance of some Council against a Superior or of some part of the Clergy opposed by a Major this is only deluding the Reader and in effect granting nothing § 21 Again thus Dr. Field of the entring of any person into or his Deposition from the Ecclesiastical Ministry Ibid. p. 681. It is resolved that none may ordain I add or force the Clergy to ordain any to serve in the work of Ministry but the Spiritual Pastors and Guides of the Church 2dly That none may judicially degrade or put any one lawfully admitted from his Degree and Order but they alone else had the Secular Magistrate no other Power yet if he may place and displace Clergy at his pleasure within his Dominions he may hereby advance or depress what Sect of Religion what Doctrines what Discipline he pleaseth Next of the Power of the Prelates of the Church to call Councils independently on Princes p. 668. It is evident saith he that there is a Power in Bishops Metropolitans Primates and Patriarchs to all Episcopal Provincial National and Patriarchal Synods and that neither so depending on nor subject to the Power of Princes but that when they are Enemies to the Faith they may exercise the same without their consent and privity and subject them that refuse to obey their Summons to such punishments as the Canons of the Church do prescribe in cases of such contempt or wilful negligence To which may be added that of Bishop Bilson Government of Christ's Church 16. c. When the Magistrate doth not regard but rather afflict the Church as in times of Infidelity and Heresy who shall then assemble the Pastors of any Province to determine matters of doubt or danger To which Question he Answers The Metropolitan When they are Enemies to the Faith saith Dr. Field I understand him either when Enemies to the Christian Faith as Heathen Princes or if Christian
to the Catholick Faith as Heretical Princes for the Church hath as well need of using these her Privileges against Heretical Princes as Heathen otherwise the later may do her as much mischief as the former Next what is said here of calling Councils without such Princes consent I apply to the exercise of all those particulars which are allowed to be the Churches Rights and to have been exercised by her under Heathen Princes as in this Council assembled the making Decrees in points of Doctrine controverted and Canons for her Government The publishing and requiring obedience thereto from all her Subjects in whatever Princes Dominions and punishing with the Church Censures the Refractory § 22 And with these Church-Privileges and Practices not only as to Heathen but Heretical Princes Bishop Andrews Tort. Tort. p. 377. also seems well content Who in answer to Bellarmin saying the Authority alledged out of the New Testament to be given to Princes was to the Heathen who yet had no Primacy in Ecclesiasticals and therefore these places served nothing for proving such a Primacy grants neither Infidel Princes nor yet Christian if Heretical to have an Ecclesiastical Primacy over God's Church Primatum ad Reges infideles pertinere non probant these Texts Non sanc magis ad hos in novo quam ad Ahasuerum vel Nabuchodonosor in veteri Interim sit vel Infidelis sit vel Haereticus oretur pro co c. And Non id agitur ut Ecclesiae Persecutores Tiberii Caii Ecclesiae Gubernatores habeantur Tum demum vero Ecclesiae Gubernacula capessant cum conversi ad fidem fuerint fidem i. e. Christianam if Heathen Catholicam if Hereticks After him Mason De Ministerio Anglicano 3. l. 5. c. In case not only of Infidelity but of Heresy or yet if I mistake him not in any other eminent Defect of Sanctity denies to Princes at least the Exercise whatever remote Power he placeth in them of some branches of their Primacy Regibus saith he qui vel non sunt Christiani vel si Christiani non tamen orthodoxi vel si orthodoxi non tamen Sancti Primatus competit quidem sed secundum quid id est quoad authoritatem non quoad rectum plenum usum authoritatis quoad officium non quoad illustrem executionem officii None such therefore may execute any Ecclesiastical Primateship so as by vertue of it to do any thing against the Acts of the Clergy in Spirituals unless this Author seek some refuge in the Epithetes rectus plenus and illustris § 23 After the former Passages of Bishop Andrews and Mason See Dr. Hammond in his Answer to S. W. Schisme disarm'd p. 203. who to the Drs words Schisme p. 125. that the Canons of the Councils have mostly been set out and received their Authority by the Emperors replied That never was it heard that an Emperor claimed a negative voice in making the Canon of a Council valid which concerned matters purely Spiritual To which Dr. Hammond returns this For the appendage c I need not reply having never pretended nor seemed to pretend what he chargeth on me concerning the Emperors negative Voice in the Council what I pretended I spake out in plain words That the Canons have been mostly set out and received their Authority by the Emperors and this receiving their Authority is I suppose in order to their powerful Reception in their Dominions and this he acknowledgeth and so we are friends By Dr. Hammond's consent then A negative Voice the Prince hath not to reverse or contrary the Church Canons in Spiritual matters only thus he may be said to give Authority to them by causing a powerful reception of them in his Dominions Powerful i.e. by assisting the Church in the Execution of them with this coactive Power And elsewhere Answer to Schism disarmed p. 164. he grants in the Controversy of Erecting Metropoles That if the Prince exerciseth this Power so as to thwart known Canons and Customes of the Church this certainly is an abuse And afterwards saith It is invalid as doing wrong to another in those Priviledges he enjoys by the Canon § 24 Thus also Grotius Rivet Apol. discuss p. 70. well seen in the Imperial Rights not long before his death Imperatorum Regum aliquod esse officium etiam circa res Ecclesiae in confesso est At non tale quale in Saeculi negotiis ad tutandos non ad violandos Canones jus hoc comparaturs est Nam cum Principes filii sunt Ecclesiae non debent vi in matrem uti omne corpus Sociale jus habet quaedam constituendi quibus membra obligenter hoc jus etiam Ecclesiae competere apparet Act. 15.28 Heb. 13.17 Where he quotes Facundus saying of Martianus Cognovit ille quibus in causis uteretur Principis potestate in quibus exhiberet obedientiam Christiani And obedite Praepositis saith he etiam Regibus dictum § 25 I will conclude with the Sentiments of our two last most Gracious Sovereigns King James and King Charles the First in his Defence of the Right of Kings against Cardinal Perron p. 427 428. It is granted saith he That if a King shall command any thing directly contrary to God's Word and tending to the Subversion of the Church that Clericks in this case ought not only to dispense with Subjects for their Obedience but also expresly to forbid their obedience for it is always better to obey God than Man Howbeit in all other matters whereby the Glory and Majesty of God is not impeached it is the duty of Clericks to ply the people with wholsome Exhortations to constant obedience c. Therefore the Clergy are the Judges for Christ's Flock whatever Princes Subjects they be when the Prince commands any such thing which how it consists with another judgment of the Prince concerning the Doctrines of the Clergy whether these command any thing against God's Word a judgment not only discretive for himself but prescriptive also to his Subjects in prohibiting that no such Doctrine be taught to them by the Clergy I cannot divine unless there can be two ultimate Law-givers in the same matters over the same persons both whom delivering contrary things they may be obliged to obey Again a little before I grant saith he That it is for Divinity Schools to Judge How far the Power of the Keys doth stretch I grant again That Clericks both may and ought also to display the Colours and Ensigns of their Censures against Princes who violating their publick and solemn Oath The King speaks of Christian Princes Do raise and make open War against Jesus Christ he means in maintaining some Heresy and opposing his Church I grant yet again that in this case they need not admit Laicks Doth he not here also include Princes to be of their Council nor allow them any scope or liberty of Judgment yet all this doth not hinder Prince nor People from taking care of the preservation of their own
By the Acts of some pious Emperors cassating the Decrees of some Ecclesiastical Synods as particularly Theodosius the Decrees of the second Ephesine Council 3. ε. ε By many precedents of later Christian Princes and amongst them the Kings of England before Henry the Eighth vindicating such Rights of Princes against the Pope But indeed none of these well examined will bear the weight they charge on them To α. The first Instance which is the main To α. Habuerunt Reges § 43 saith Bishop Andrews Tort. Tort. p. 379. in vetere Testamento primatum suum atque inde Nervi lacerti causae nostrae in novo autem deteriore jure non sunt It is willingly granted 1. That Princes may reform and that as Supremes in the exercise of their Civil Power in matters of Faith and Religion 2. May reform as Bishop Andrews would have it Ibid. p. 365. Citra Declarationem Ecclesiae without any Declaration of the Church at that time in Doctrines of the Church known and undisputed and formerly declared as those things the Kings of Judah reformed in were and justly are Princes blamed for any their neglect in this the duty of their Place and wherein their Secular Power is much more effective of a thorow Reformation than the Priest's 3. May reform the Clergy too such as sound in the Faith neglect their Duty or also are fallen from that Faith which is taught by that Church that is the Canonical Judge of such Controversies and Princes in punishing such Clergy are to be accounted Assistants to the Church 4. May reform this Clergy tho these a greater number than those professing the Catholick Faith because the legislative Church-power remains not in these separated and excluded tho the more but only in the whole or in the major part of the Catholick party easily discernable from the Apostates as were those deserting Moses's Laws and changing the former Divine Service and but a few at the first Only it is contended that never may Princes so reform against that Body of the Clergy which is the Canonical Judge of Controversies in matters of Faith nor can it beproved that the Godly Kings of Judah did so either that they reformed all the Priests or the High-Priest who was always their Guide in matters of Religion or reformed the People against them or reformed the People at least without them § 44 The chief Reformations were made by David Jehosophat Hezekiah and Josiah And in all these we find an Orthodox Clergy Co-adjutors and Con-reformers and the Prince rectifying nothing in them but with them and if the King's Actions appear in the Book of Kings or Chronicles more set forth than their's it is because it is an History of the Acts of the Kings not of the Priests When after the flourishing times of the Church under David and Solomon in Jeroboam's Reign Israel fell away yet the Priests and Levites revolted not with the People but leaving their Cities and Possessions went over to Judah See 2. Chron. 11.13 14. 13.9 15.9 and new Priests were made by Jeroboam for his new Worship Afterward we find these Priests and Levites assisting Jehosaphat in his Reformation 2. Chron. 17.7 8. and 19.8 9 10. In the times of Ahaz's Apostacy these Aaronical Priests were excluded the Doors of the house of our Lord shut up 2. Chron. 28.24 and new Priests not descended from Aaron called Chemarim consecrated with many Sacrifices and ordained for the new idolatrous Worship of whom see 2. King 23.5 Zeph. 1.4 Hos 10.5 Ezech. 44.8 To whom I will not deny but that some also of Aaron's race joined themselves But after this we find Hezekiah's Reformation in the very beginning of his Reign assisted with the Orthodox Clergy 2. Chron. 29.11 12. c. He opened the doors of the Lord saith the Text 2. Chron. 22.3 4 c. and brought in the Priests and the Levites viz. whom Ahaz had excluded not long before Afterwards these Priests of the Lord being excluded again from officiating in a greater persecution of Manasses Yet by him at last repenting we find them also restored and officiating in the Temple before Josiah's time 2. Chron. 33.16 And in the next Chapter 2. Chron. 34. Josiah perfected the Reformation which his Grand-father had begun by their Assistance and particularly by that of the High-Priest Hilkiah who also found in the Temple the Book of the Law this in those times at least entire being very rare and communicated it to the pious Prince who had neither seen it nor heard it read before this Eighteenth Year of his Reign and therefore must formerly have learnt God's Service and the true Religion to which he now so zealously reformed the People not from the Scriptures but from the Priests Neither were any of those Priests and Levites that assisted King Josiah such as had before Apostatiz'd under Manasses in that Josiah would permit none of those Levitical Priests who had formerly offered Sacrifices in the High-Places tho these to the God of Israel afterward to officiate at the Lord's Altar in Jerusalem but only indulged them their Diet with the rest of the Priests See 2. King 23.7.9 This Good King Josiah was the last Reformer And if the Clergy after this fell away in a much greater number so did the Princes too much more irrecoverably But in those times also when it is said 2. Chron. 36.14 That all i.e. very many as it is not unusual in Scripture of the chief of the Priests and of the People transgressed very much after all the abominations of the Heathen yet a remnant still there was that remained Catholick whom the rest now being Extra Ecclesiam King and People were obliged to obey in Spiritual matters a remnant I say Catholick as appears out of Ezekiel who began his Prophecy some few years before the Captivity where Ch. 44.15 The Lord having condemned the lapsed Priests or Levites to lower service saith of these But the Priests the Levites the Sons of Zadoc either of Zadoc mentioned 1. King 2.35 c. And 1. Chron. 6.8 or of Sadoc mentioned 1. Chron. 6.12 Grand-father to Hilkiah the High Priest in Josiah's time that kept the charge of my Sanctuary when the Children of Israel went astray from me they shall come near to me to minister unto me c. Some Priests therefore there were thro all those evil times whom God accepted and owned and who stood firm as to the Faith tho many of these guilty of great neglect of their Duty of Covetousness and several other Vices and particularly of undertaking to foretel Good things to a Wicked people instead of exhorting them to Repentance and of persecuting the true Prophets who foretold things bad which rendred them the frequent subject of the Prophet's complaints See Jer. 23. c. § 45 This that all the Princes Reformations in the State of Judah that are instanced-in were done with the Priest's consent and assistance none against them And if instead
There is in all good Works a dignity of Grace Divine similitude goodness and honour Phil. 4.8 4ly Affirm also this worth of the actions of the Regenerate after Justification much different from and transcendent to that worth which is in the former dispositions precedent to Justification done indeed by the external help of God's Grace but before the transfusion into us of his Spirit But this always to be remembred that no worth of the one or the other is from our selves as of our selves but the worth of them is from God They affirm accordingly that there is in these Works of the justified proceeding in us from this Divine Principle a worth and similitude some way proportionable and corresponding to the reward promised to them in respect of which worth Life eternal and the beatifical Vision of God and all the consequences thereof are called the Wages and Stipend Reward Prize and Crown of these Works Matt. 5.12 Apoc. 22.12 Matt. 20.8 2. Tim. 4.8 Apoc. 2.10 1. Cor. 9.24 25. And they said truly to merit such reward according to the sense of the word Merit used by the Fathers and the word Dignity used in the Scriptures a chief portion of which reward as a greater measure of God's Spirit and Charity and Sanctification in the most intense degree received in the next world and the augmentations of Grace daily received in this are only higher degrees of the same kind and nature with that of which they are the reward And God also is said to give such rewards to these ex justitia quia digni sunt Apoc. 3 4. 2. Thess 1.5 Heb. 6.10 2. Tim. 4.8 not only in this respect that God is just and faithful in keeping his promise once made tho to a Service of little or no worth at all but in respect of some valuable goodness and worth tho this from God also in the condition it self to which he makes the promise of such reward They rationally affirm also that whatever benefit any ones Sanctity or good Works may be said by way of impetration to procure from God for others they may be said also to have the same power with God for themselves when by relapse into sin or falling into any necessity or misery themselves are in the same condition as such others and when their ingratitude and affront and contempt of former Grace c. doth not aggravate their offence and fall beyond that of others See 2. Chron. 9.3 Nehem. 13 14.22.31 5ly Yet this worth of the Righteousness or works of the justified whatever it it be as it hath its original not from us but from God and is also without any purchase thereof wholly due to him from us his Creatures and Vassals so is it not affirmed to ascend so high as any way to equal those rewards promised to it but to be far inferior and God ever to reward beyond any such Merit Matt. 25.22 2. Cor. 4.17 For whereas our good Works momentary are not only said to merit Life eternal but also to merit those higher measures of the Holy Spirit and degrees of Sanctification that shall be conferred on us there as also the the increase of Grace in this life here it is manifest that the lesser degree the Merit and the greater the reward cannot be equalled in their worth Some proportion some similitude there is between this Seed the justified sow here and the Fruits thereof they reap hereafter sufficient to support the Phrase especially after the intervening of a Pact of the one meriting or being worthy of the other but not to maintain in commutative justice one of equal value or worth to the other α. This we have title to by Christ's Merits only not our Works to the which Merits also we owe that we have these Works therefore the Council of Trent that admits meritum bonorum operum ex pacto and so ex justitia c yet waves the expression ex condigno as liable to Mistakes ε. ε. Bellarm. de Justificat 5. l. 16. c. Catholici omnes agnoscunt opera bona justorum esse meritoria vitae aeternae sed tamen aliqui censent non esse utendum his vocibus de condigno de congruo sed absolute dicendum opera bona justorum esse meritoria vitae aeternae ex gratia Dei Bishop White Answer to Fisher p. 172. and the same p. 512. The Opinion of Modern Papists saith he concerning the Merit of Condignity was always opposed by Pontificians themselves Scotus Durand Marsilius Dionysius Cisterciensis Gregory Ariminen Thomas Walden Paulus Burgensis Joh. Ferus Eckius Pighius c. and see many more later added by Bishop Forbes de Justificat 5. l. 4. c. which I mention here to shew a liberty of Opinion herein left to her Subjects by the Roman Church and many who propugne ' the Doctrine of Merit of Condignity speak improperly Thus Bishop White Mr. Thorndike Epilog 2. l. 33. c. p. 308. As it cannot be denied that the Church of Rome allows this Doctrine of Merit he means of Condignity to be taught yet can it not be said to enjoyn it Because there have not wanted to this day Doctors of esteem that have always held otherwise Again They who only acknowledge Meritum congrui in Works done in the state of Grace i. e. that it is fit for God to reward them with his Kingdome say no more than that it was fit for God to promise such a reward which who so denieth must say that God hath promised that which was unfit for him to promise And if the Dignity of our Works in respect of the reward may have this tolerable sense because God daigns and vouchsafes it such reward the Council of Trent which hath enacted no reason why they are to be counted Merits can neither bear out these high Opinions he means maintained by some of the Roman Authors nor be said to prejudice the Faith in this point Again That which necessarily comes in consideration with God in the bestowing the reward which the condition he contracted for must necessarily do tho it cannot have the nature of Merit i. e. taken in a Protestant sense because the Covenant it self is granted meerly of Grace in consideration of Christ's death yet it is of necessity to be reduced to the nature and kind of the Meritorious Cause Nor can the Glory of God or the Merit of Christ be obscured by any consideration of our Works that is grounded upon the Merit of our Lord Christ and expresseth the tincture of his Blood as all the Roman Merit professedly doth And so do many Roman Authors both before and since the Council And also most of those other that use this Phrase to signify some true worth in these Works as before explained Thes 3 4. yet so qualify it as that it can offend no rational Protestant 6ly That therefore first he who conceits any good works of the justified are or may be such as may challenge from God's justice life
great soever But 3ly that there are some greater crimes and offences against God which are inconsistent with and destructive of the State of Grace which do so break God's Commandments as that if not worthily repented of they make us actually liable to eternal Damnation after the committing of which expelling us from the Grace and Priviledges of our Baptisme we cannot be reconciled to God nor restored to our former condition without the help of the Keys of the Church where-ever this may be had Lastly from which Sins by the Grace of God the Regenerate Person may totally abstain and totally reform his life and in respect of them may through his whole life perfectly observe all God's Commandments 4ly That there are other lesser Sins which are well consistent with the State of Regeneration From committing of which one or other of them no man tho Regenerate abstracting from God's special Priviledge can for any long time live free nor in respect of these can be said perfectly to observe God's Commandments Bellarm. de amiss Gratiae upon Matt. 5.22 Si quis leviter irascitur which he calls a Venial Sin is jam recedit a perfecta observatione legis Si quis autem manifestum convitium in proximum jactat is demum non a perfecta observatione sed simpliciter ab observatione legis recedit Which Sins however they do or do not offend against God's Laws or also in their nature do or do not merit eternal punishments yet all agree on this that no Regenerate person at all by committing them doth actually fall from God's favour or his former righteousness nor actually incur external punishments and that the Regenerate committing them have always at least an habitual repentance of them Next Concerning a Possibility to the Regenerate of fulfilling God's Laws and freedome from either Mortally or Venially offending him Next Concerning a Possibility to the Regenerate of fulfilling God's Laws 1. Catholicks do believe that some good thought word or work may be performed by the Regenerate and God's Commandments be observed therein perfectly and without any contagion or adherence of any Sin But 2ly that none can certainly know of himself 1. Cor. 4.4 when any work is so purely done 3ly They also willingly concede that the most or very many of the good works of the Regenerate are not done without some Sin or defect in some smaller Circumstances thereof by reason of concupiscence negligence and that no Regenerate person abstracting from the Divine special Priviledge can for any long time keep all God's Commandments as these Commandments are understood by any to involve the Prohibition of lesser and those commonly called Venial Sins But 4ly they maintain that many have kept and may keep them all thro the Grace given us by Christ at our Regeneration in the abstaining from greater or those commonly called Mortal Sins HEAD XVIII Of Works commonly called of Supererogation Counsels Evangelical or Works of Supererogation COncerning Evangelical Counsels or Precepts of Perfection and the Observance of them called Works of Supererogation 1. Catholicks disclaim any such Works taken in such a sense as Protestants explain and impose on them viz. That all things be performed and fulfilled that the Divine Law commandeth i. e. in living free as well from all those called Venial as from Mortal Sins α α. Bishop White Answer to Fisher p. 522. To the Definition and being of Works of Supererogation Two things are required First That all be performed and fulfilled which the Divine Law commandeth he meaneth without any Sin at all incurred Venial or Mortal See p. 525. but if without Mortal Sin and such as excludes from Grace were only meant by this Bishop so he must grant That all persons whilst in the State of Grace do thus fulfil God's commands He goes on But if just men have any Sin they perform not all which the Divine Law requireth Again p. 527. Supererogation implies these things 1st A perfect and exact performance of all commanded Duties without omission of any c. But saith he supposing the perfection of the Divine Law and presupposing all men to be Sinners in part i. e. as to Sins Venial the former is impossible So Perkins Demonstrat Problem p. 117. Of the Fathers Volunt Supererogationem fieri non quod officium aliquod praestari possit ultra legem moralem integram as now the Papists hold sed quod fit 1suo Ultra negativam partem ut non furari c. 2suo Ultra actus externos 3suo Unum aliquod mandatum 4suo Ultra mandatum caeteris hominibus commune Bishop Andrews Resp ad Apol. 8. c. p. 196. Quis nescit fieri a nobis multa libere quae a Deo non sunt imperata voveri reddi In hoc tamen Supererogandi vis tota non est Erogare prius oportet summam integram quae imperata est nobis Erogare quicquid debitum a nobis Id ubi jam factum tum ultra illud amplius quid Supererogare Peccavit in praecepta quis quae debuit facere non fecit sed votivum nescio quid vel voluntarium praestitit Hoc jampraeter erogare est forte non super Where his Answerer Discovery of Dr. Andrews Absurdities p. 363. long ago observed That he would have Works of Supererogation to be such good works only as are done after the Precepts are fulfilled or fully observed and so quite changed the question as it is stated by Catholicks And 2ly beyond this That something more be performed by us than is any way due to God from us β. β. See the Reason given in the Fourteenth Article of the Church of England why the Doctrine of Works of Supererogation is arrogant and impious For saith the Article by them men do declare that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do i. e. absolutely in respect of all the Divine Precepts but that they do more ' for his sake than of bounden duty is required Whereas Christ saith plainly When ye have done all that are commanded you say We are unprofitable Servants Vossius Thes de bonis Operibus Quest 3. Thes 1 2. Cum nemo in hac infirmitate vitae praestet ea quae debet impia est eorum sententia qui plus aiunt proestare quam debet Refellit hoc etiam Christus apud Lucam 17.9 10. Bishop White 's Answer to Fisher p. 526. out of St. Bernard By the obligation of Gratitude we owe to the Almighty omne quod sumus possumus c. And 3ly As some Protestants add γ. γ. Dr. Hammond Of Will-worship § 52. vindicating himself in the holding Evangelical Counsels yet from maintaining works of Supererogation The Romanists saith he mean by Supererogating that after having sinned and so become debtors to God they have paid that debt by satisfaction i. e. done something else which may satisfy God for their former sins Which satisfaction they say they may perform so far as