he a Synod consisted of the Metropolitans ‖ l. 5. c. 30. p. 513. and Bishops of one Kingdom or State only the chief Primate was Moderator 2 If of many Kingdoms one of the Patriarchs and chief Bishops of the whole World was Moderator Every Church and therefore this of England as to Ecclesiastical Governme being subordinate to some one of the Patriarchal Churches and incorporate into the unity of it 3. Thirdly the Actions of a whole Patriarchship were subject to a Synod Oecumenical And elsewhere he saith ‖ l. 5. c. 52. p. 668. That the Patriarch of the West may call a Council of the Western Bishops lawfully punishing those who obey not his summons and he and ihe Council so assembled may make Decrees which shall be obligatory to all the Western Church And thus Bishop Bramhall ‖ Vindic. of the Ch. of England p. 257. What power the Metropolitan had over the Bishop of his own Province the same had a Patriarch over the Metropolitans and Bishops of sundry Provinces within his own Patriarchate And afterward Wherein then consisted Patriarchal Authority in ordaining their Metropolitans for with inferior Bishops they might not meddle or confirming them in imposing of hands or giving the Pall in convocating Patriarchal Synods and presiding in them c when Metropolitical Synods did not suffice to determine some emergent differences or difficulties So in Schism-guarded p. 349. he saith That the Ecclesiastical Head of the Church is a General Council and under that each Patriarch in his Patriarchate and among the Patriarchs the Bishop of Rome by a Priority of Order And see Ibid. p. 4. his allowing this Bishop to be Exordium Vnitatis This of the subordination of the Bishops of several Nations to a Council Patriarchal taken out of others because omitted by Dr. Hammond Above which the next and highest subordination is that of all the Bishops in Christianity to a Council General To which General Council this Doctor thus professeth elsewhere ‖ Of Heresie §. 11. p. 149. the due subjection of the Church of England Vpon the strength of this perswasion saith he that God will never permit any such universal testimony concerning the faith to conspire in conveying error to us as we have never yet opposed never opposed that implies obedience of Silence but upon the former perswasion I see not why he should not say never dissented from any universal Council nor other voice of the whole Church such as by the Catholick Rules can be contested to be such so for the future we professe never to do And on 1 Tim. 3.15 The Church is the Pillar and Ground of truth he comments thus According to this it is that Christ is said Eph. 4.11 to have given not only Apostles c. but also Pastors and Teachers i.e. the Bishops in the Church for the compacting of the Saints into a Church for the continuing them in all truth that we should be no longer like children carried about with every wind of doctrine And so again when heresies came into the Church in the first Ages it is every where apparent by Ignatius's Epistles That the only way of avoiding error and danger was to adhere to the Bishop in communion and doctrine and whosoever departed from him and that forme of wholesom words kept by him was supposed to be corrupted And the same also to S. W. objecting ‖ Schism disarm p. 255. That it availed not for freedom from Schism to adhere to the Authority of our Bishop as the Arrians did if such Bishop hath rejected the authority of his Superiors and taught contrary to them He grants ‖ Answ to Schism disarm p. 261. concerning any Bishops and those adhering to them if departing from their Superiors That retaining the Authority of their Bishops is not being taken alone any certain Argument or Evidence of not being schismaticks c. This he for establishing such Church-authority and the due subordinations thereof from any of which whether person or Council a voluntary departure of those who are subordinate ‖ Of Schism c 3. Answ to C. Gentlem. p. 30 or also a wilful continuance under their censures laid upon them ‖ is by him declared Schism Of which Schism he speaks thus ‖ Answ to C. Gent. p. 9. First saith he those Brethren or People which reject the Ministry of the Deacons or Presbyters in any thing §. 4. wherein they are ordained and appointed by the Bishop §. 24. n. 2. and as long as they continue in obedience to him and of their own accord do break off and separate from them ‖ Of Schism p. 34. refuse to live regularly under them they are by the ancient Church of Christ adjudged and looked on as Schismaticks Here then are many late Sects among Protestants rejecting the Clergy I know not well by what name to call them confessed guilty of Schism In like manner saith he ‖ P. 37.41 if we ascend to the next higher link that of the Bishop to whom both Presbyters and Deacons as well as theBrethren or People are obliged to live in obedience the withdrawing or denying this obedience in any of these will certainly fall under this guilt And as this obedience may be of two sorts either of a lower or of a higher kind the denying obedience in any particular lawful command of the Superior or the casting off all obedience together de throning them or setting up our selves either in their steads or in opposition to them so will the Schism be also a lighter and a grosser separation And here are all Protestant Presbyterial whether Persons or Churches for any thing I can understand opposing Episcopacy or setling instead of it a Presbyterial Church-Government confessed also by him guilty of Schism of Schism I mean from their spiritual Superiors wherby also they becom no members of the Church-Catholick which Church-Catholick stands always contradistinct to Heretical and Schismatical Churches nor are any such Schismaticks known to be so and not recanting such their Schism to be admitted to enjoy the communion of the Presbytery of any Church that professeth it self a member of the Catholick Which thing will 1st cut off no small body of the Protestants from the Catholick Church And 2ly will render in some manner partaker of their guilt any other Protestant-Clergy that shall communicate knowingly with them The same sentence upon the Presbyterians deserting their Bishops that is their spiritual Superiors pronounceth Dr. Ferne They have incurred saith he by leaving us ‖ The Case between Eng. and Rome p. 46 48. and I wish they would sadly consider it no less then the guilt of Schism which lies heavily on as many as have of what perswasion or sect soever wilfully divided themselves from the Communion of the Church of England whether they do this by a bare separation or by adding violence and sacriledge to it For making good saith he this charge of Schism against them we
some of them enemies to the Christian Religion and divided into so many Communions that it is not visible to the eye of man how they should be regularly assembled I say here he adds ‖ Schisme guarded p. 352. That because it is not credible that the Turk will send his Subjects that is four of the Proto-Patriarchs with their Clergy to a General Council or allow them to meet openly with the rest of Christendom in a General Council it being a thing so much against his own Interest that therefore if these Patriarchs do deliver the Sense and Suffrages of their Churches by Letters or by Messengers this is enough to make a Council General And That as there have been General Oriental Councils Without the personal presence of a Western Bishop so there may be an Occidental Council I add General without the Personal Presence of one Eastern Bishop by the sole communication of their Sense and their Faith And for the calling also of this General Council §. 35. n. 2. he saith ‖ Ib. p. 356. That if the Pope have any right either to convocate General Councils himself or to represent to Christian Soveraigns the fit Seasons for Convocation of them either in respect of his beginning of unity or of his Proto-Patriarchate he doth not envy it him since there may be a good use of it in respect of the division of the Empire so good caution be observed And before p. 91. he saith That at present he will not dispute whether the Bishop of Rome by his reputed Primacy of Order or beginning of Vnity may lawfully call an Oecumenical or Occidental Council by power purely spiritual which consists rather in advice than in mandates properly so called or in mandates of courtesie not coactive in the exterior Court of the Church that considering the division and subdivision of the ancient Empire and the present distraction of Christendom it seemeth not altogether inconvenient That the Primitive Fathers did assemble Synods and make Canons before there were any Christian Emperors but that was by authority meerly spiritual they had no coactive power to compel any man against his will and the uttermost they could do was to separate him I suppose he meaneth who contemned their summons or their Canons from their communion and to leave him to the coming or judgment of Christ Ib. p. 120. He seems to allow the Church-Governours a right to summon Councils where there are no Christian Soveraigns to do it i. e. that will do it and to make Canons such as the Primitive Bishops made before there were Christian Emperors Only I hope he will consequently allow further what was done also by these Church-Governours in the Primitive times that if Ecclesiastical Governors have authority as need requires to summon such a Meeting they may appoint some place for it which place will always be in some Princes temporal Dominions and that if they may make Canons they may divulge and send abroad their Laws and Canons to the Church's Subjects upon spirituâ—l censures inflicted on the disobedient which must be also amongst some temporal Prince his Subjects for so did the Governors of the first Council ‖ Act. 15. appoint the place of their Meeting Hierusalem and sent abroad their Canons amongst the Emperors Subjects both contrary to the then secular Powers and this without entrenching on any ones Politick Rights The Bishop having condescended to thus much concerning General Councils §. 35. n. 3. he yields further ‖ Reply to Chalced presat That until such Council the most general that is procurable he submits himself to the Church of England wherein he was baptized or to a National English Syxod But here he makes too great a leap though perhaps he had some reason for it in removing his Submission immediately from a General to a National Synod of his own Church for between these lies a Patriarchal or Occidental Synod to which he ought to submit the just authority also of which above a National Synod he elsewhere both freely maintaineth ‖ Vindic. of the Church of England p. 258. and though not here yet elsewhere he also refers his trial to it There is nothing saith he Schism Guarded p. 136. that we long after more than a General Council rightly called rightly proceeding or in defect of that a free Occidental Council as General as may be But then we would have the Bishop to renounce that Oath to the Pope that hath been obtruded upon them Lastly Concerning the quality of Obedience due to such Councils even in non-fundamentals he saith ‖ Vindic. of the Church of Engl. p. 27. That as to Questions non fundamental when these are once defined by a lawful General Council all Christians though they cannot assent in their judgment are obliged to passive Obedience to possess their souls in patience And they who shall oppose the Authority and disturb the Peace of the Church deserve to be punished as Hereticks where also he makes this the fourth way of rendring ones self guilty of Heretical pravity I suppose because though the Councils Determination in his opinion makes no point Heresie yet at least it equals the crime of the Opposer to that of an Heretick I have been somewhat copious in giving you the condescensions of this Bishop §. 36. n. 1. not to make advantage of what a single Author indulgeth Reply Where Conc. what Judgment of the Church sufficiently obligeth but because they seem no greater than reason requireth and what all Protestants allowing a Church-Government ought to stand to and therefore I desire your leave before I proceed to some other quotations to reflect a little on this submission of the Bishop's and to see how far it truly performed will rationally carry him or others towards a present settlement in many of the points controverted 1st Then This I presume here ought to be granted me that in the Bishop's or others professing a submission to the General or Vnanimous accord of the Church Catholick in any Doctrine or Practise this accord ought not to be taken so strictly either for what is defined by Councils or accepted by the Church diffusive as that if any particular Person Church or Party perhaps his own that is held Catholick dissent in any thing from all the rest being a much major part in respect thereof and joined also with the supreme Pastor of the Catholick Church and Primate of the Patriarchs he shall account himself discharged from Obedience or deny such a Consent to be sufficiently General and Unanimous to oblige him Concerning which see more Disc 2. § 25. and before § 31. 2. This premised Come we now to the Bishops submissions §. 36. n. 2. which are promised 1 st To the present Church Catholick viz. To all things universally believed or practised by it 2 ly To Free General 3 ly Or also free Occidental Councils Which to review in their Order In respect of the Church
Interests he is well enough content that the prime Patriarch summon it and then upon this conceded I think I may add as evident from what is said before § 35. n. 2. that the same Patriarch may both appoint some place of meeting and also such Council met divulge and upon spiritual Censures require to be observed its Decrees concerning matters meerly spiritual whether mean-while the secular Powers favour or frown I say appoint some place which place since it must be within the Dominions and under the Power of some particular Prince and farther distant from some particular Churches than others it cannot be expected that it shall ever be so fitly chosen as equally to serve all Interests or remedy all Inconveniences and therefore supposing free access free proposal and voting for all Prelates that come the post-acceptation must make amends for the necessity of many Prelat's or also Church's absence Things thus far conceded by him concerning General Councils §. 36. n. 4. that which I have chiefly to except against is this 1st In his reckoning up the Clergy of the Roman Graecian Armenian Abyssine Russian Protestant Churches as constituting the entire body of such a general Council and affirming that the rest of them are a body three times greater than the Roman including the Western Churches joined with it ‖ See before § 35. he seems much to miscount For 1st Several of the Protestant Churches viz. so many as have deposed Bishops and constituted a Presbyterial Government for any thing I can see are very clearly concluded by Dr. Hammond and Dr. Ferne to be Schismaticks and that from and against their Spiritual Superiours ‖ See Disc 2. and that from and against their Spiritual Superiours § 24. n. 2. which Schisme excludes them from being true Members of the Church Catholick or having place in her General Councils especially since their Clergy also are no Bishops See Bishop Bramhall Vindic. of the Church of England p. 9. opposing Catholick and Schismatical as he doth elsewhere Catholick and Heretical But then as for the Bishops of other Protestant Churches neither can they escape the same imputation of Schisme by the same Dr. Hammonds Concession if those Councils mentioned below § 50. n. 2. whose Authority and Decrees they have rejected be truly their Superiours nor yet Heresie in the Catholick account or perhaps in Bishop Bramhall's considering what he saith Vindic. of the Church of England p. 27. quoted before § 36. and Schism Guarded p. 352. if any of these Councils be Legally General 2. Next As for several of those Eastern and Southern Churches that are brought in by the Bishop to enlarge the Church Catholick in comparison of the Roman Catholick §. 36. n. 5. they are a Mass of many several Sects of which see what is said more at large in Disc 3. § 1.76 c. such as after the Council of Chalcedon some sooner some later deserting their former Patriarch have since ranged themselves under several Patriarchs of their own residing in several Cities of the East the different Sects having set up in later times without any Conciliar Authority acting in it no less than seven or eight Independent Patriarchs They stand divided both from the Latine and Greek Church and also from one another in several Tenents concerning our Lord's Person Natures and Wills many of those dispersed in the more Eastern parts Assyria Mesopotamia c. suspected as Dr. Field ‖ Of the Church p. 62. acknowledgeth of Nestorianisme somwhat qualified many of the Southern as the Egyprians or Cophtites Ethiopians or Abyssines as to their Religion dependent on the former suspected as the same Dr. Field relateth ‖ Ib. p. 64 66 of Eutychianisme or rather of Dioscorism who was Patriarch of Alexandria and condemned in the Council of Chalcedon divers of them also amongst other extravagant Rites retaining Circumcision If this then be true which this Doctor relates though they be not perfect Eutychians and Nestorians in their Opinions yet such they are as do transgress against the Faith and Definitions of the third and fourth General Council the later of which Councils the greatest body of them expresly rejects See Dr. Field p. 70 71. No reason then can Bp. Bramhall have to admit these to a Suffrage in a Catholick General Council And if it be said ‖ See Dr. Field l. 3. c. 5. that most of them in such illiterate Regions are only through invincible ignorance material not formal Hereticks and therefore are not so unmercifully to be cut off from the Catholick Church it is to be remembred that we speak not here of cutting off either them or also Protestants so many as are invincibly ignorant from being internally still members of the Church and of the Body of Christ and possibly capable of salvation but of their having externally no right being involved in such Tenents to officiate in the Government of the Church or vote in its Councils from which Councils in expelling Hereticks the Church can only look to the external profession thereof and to which suppose a Material Heretick admitted his ignorance would be as to voting as much the bane of Truth there as the formal Hereticks pertinacy But 3 ly were they never so good Catholicks §. 36. n. 6. yet their Body and bulk taking in the Greek Church also as for those residing in the Turks dominions is far from being so considerably great as it is made Where especially for the former Prelacy the oppression is so great these Dignities so set to sale and their means and revenue so alienated and most of the Metropolies in Asia so ruin'd as that the bare title only now descending of many of the Ancient Sees is neglected and the succession in them ceased And though the territory is much vaster yet it may reasonably be presumed that abstracting those which in these parts are adherents to the Roman Communion as the Marointes a long time have been there are more Canonical Prelates and perhaps Christians in some small part of Europe than there are throughout all Turky where also the chief Supporters of the Christian-Religion are mostly Regulars and Monks no welcom Colleagues for the Protestants to join with ‖ See Brerewoods Inquiries 10. c. Botero Relat Vniversal Rel. del Gr. Turco The chief and most united Body of these Eastern Christians is in Greece which Boterus but long ago conjectured might make up two thirds of the inhabitants there And as for those more remote divers of them by the diligent missions of several Religious Orders of the Roman Profession out of Europe into those parts who by the Merchants help procure houses of constant residence there have been from time to time reduced to the Unity of the Roman faith and communion as appears in the relation of these Missions See Spondan Annal. A. D. 1616. 8. and Dr. Field p. 63. what hath hapned in the more Eastern Churches since A. D. 1550. And as their number
Protestants defence and reformation is this 1st That they have a most certain Rule of their Faith common to them with the rest of the Church Catholick the Holy Scriptures and besides these a summary thereof drawn up in the Apostles Creed and explicated by the first three Ages i. e. the writings we have thereof and the first four-General Councils And that in the sincere belief of this primitive Rule they rest secure of believing all that is necessary for salvation and likewise of their retaining a firm-firm-Communion as to the essentials of Faith with the whole Catholick Church and even with that of Rome 2ly That the Roman Church is acknowledged by them a Catholick but not the whole Catholick Church one part only of the Catholick Church as also the Church of England is another 3ly That this Roman or any other part of the Church Catholick may err whilst it still remains a part of the Catholick in non-fundamentals or non-essentials and necessaries 4 ly That this part did err in such non-fundamentals and that grievously and that the Protestants or Church of England discovered these to be such grievous errors by the light of Scripture and testimony of Antiquity 5 ly That this Roman Church added this also to her erring that she exercised an unlawful dominion or jurisdiction over the Church of England and required an assent from this Church to such her grievous errors upon pain of losing her Communion 6 ly That the Church of England refused such assent to what by clear Scripture she had discovered to be Errors as in conscience she was bound though these had bin never so small ones nay though some of them were no Errors yet if she were perswaded they were so how much more when so great 7 ly Proceeded after mature consideration to reform these Errors but in her self only not imposing them upon or condemning by reason of them any other Church for non-Catholick 8 ly Whereas this her defence proceeds upon supposing the Romane Church that she left a part only and not the whole Catholick Church yet that were it supposed to have bin the whole or their departure to have bin from the whole also as well as from it that the whole though granted in Fundamentals infallible yet may err in non-fundamentals or non-essentially necessaries and that grievously and consequently if it should require assent from its members to such points in which it is fallible that they ought not to assent thereto nor to conceal if of consequence when they any way discover such Error nay further also that if the General Church neglect it they may and ought for themselves to reform such Error But this Plea seems easily overthrown §. 55. n. 2. in many of its particulars by this following Remonstrance made by the other side And of the Catholicks Remonstrance 1 To the first It is replied 1 That there is a faith of Agends or Practicals concerning what is lawful and unlawful and what is our duty to do or forbear as well as of speculative credends which faith is necessary and fundamental for attaining salvation and in which practical points also may be and have bin Heresies and Schisms I say the faith of them necessary because the practice of them is so which must be grounded on this faith that they are lawful or ought to be practised 2 That these points are of a much larger extent then the speculatives and that of these we have no Collection or Summary drawn up by the Apostles as we have of the other 3 That as these Protestants say they do not for the speculative Credends rely barely on the words of the Apostles Creed or any private sence of Scriptures but profess to believe them according to the Explications made of them by the Church in her first four General Councils and do place the security of their Faith in them not on their own judgment but on their conformity to the judgment of these Councils so it is all reason that for the practicalls also they should rely on the Scriptures only so as they are explicated by the Church in her General Councils 4 That for both these speculatives or practicals as they do or ought to rely on the Explications of the first four General Councils so * that they cannot rationally confine their submissions to these alone but do owe it also to any Councils of the Church following in any age whatsoever provided that these be of equal authority To which later Councils new Heresies may give like occasion of further explicating the Articles of our Faith either in speculatives or practicals as new Heresies did after three ot four hundred years time to the Explications made by those first Councils and * that for the speculative Articles of the Apostles Creed particularly that of the Procession of the Holy Ghost à filio the Protestants have submitted to the Explications of Councils after the four first and these too Western Councils only when the Greek Churches refused to consent to them and that as the Greeks say upon not a verbal but real diversity in their faith concerning this procession yet it seems the Protestants here preferr'd and thought fit to adhere rather to the authority of the Western Churches From all which it follows that if the Protestants dissent from the Explications of such Councils held in any Age in either of these speculative or practical Articles of their faith that are necessary of which necessity it is fit also the Council not they should judge they cannot be secure of their retaining all necessary faith so as no way to have fallen from it into Heresie or Schism no more then they will acknowledge Arrians and Socinians secure in their belief of the Apostles Creed when departing from the Explications of the four first Councils And thus is the Protestants security of their faith if any way built or dependent on the first Councils so also devolved on the perpetual conformity to the Decrees of other lawful General Councils of what Ages soever in all their Definitions Again 6 since Schismaticks I mean those that are so in respect of their spiritual Superiours by whom in a line of subordination they are joyned to the Head as well as Hereticks are no members of the Catholick Church and since all Schism doth not necessarily spring from some difference in the essentials of Religion but may arise upon smaller matters and occasions ‖ See Bishop Bramhall Reply to Chalced p. 8. Dr. Field l. 1. c. 13. l. 2. c. 2. Dr Hammond Schism 3 c. 3. and §. 9. §. 55. n. 3. any wherein obedience is due and the lesser the occasion of it the more criminal many times the Schism therefore there is no security to Protestants in this first Branch of their Defence that becaus they agree with the whole Catholick Church in the Essentials of faith hence they do still remain in its Communion This said to the first 2 ly To what follows it
allows a fallible King or Parliament to do But see Canon 36. Of the same Synod 1603. where the Church also requires the Subscribers not only not to affirm the 3. Articles contained in that Canon to be erroneous Namely That the Kings Majesty is the only Supreme Governour of his Realm in spiritual things 2. That the Book of Common prayer containeth in it nothing contrary to the Word of God c. But in the third Article more expresly requires him to subscribe That he alloweth and acknowledgeth i.e. confesseth believeth all the 39. Articles to be agreeable to the word of God Add to this That whereas the Canon 140. excomminicates till they publickly revoke their wicked error any who shall affirm that those who had not given their voices to the decrees made in the Sacred Synod of this Nation are not subject to the decrees thereof and therefore in the conference at Hampton-Court the Puritan Party moved this question how far such Ordinances of the Church were to bind them without impeaching their Christian liberty They received from the King this answer I will have one Doctrine and Discipline one Religion in Substance and Ceremony and therefore I charge you never to speak more to that point How far you are bound to obey When the Church hath ordained it This Injunction of King James to Puritans had it been obeyed by the first Reformers would it not have prevented the birth of Protestantisme and the dispute at Hampton-Court Again the Church of England §. 83. n. 2. in some of those Canons excommunicates men for not doing something which she commandeth to be done now in all such in junctions of Practicals there is involved an injunction of assent fiâ—st that such practises are lawful The ninth Canon runs thus Whosoever shall hereafter separate themselves from the Communion c. in the Church of England accounting the Christians who are conformable to her Doctrine c. to be profane and unmeet for them to joyn with in Christian Profession let them be excommunicated ipso facto and not restored till after their repentance and publick Revocation of such their stored till after their repentance and publick Revocation of such their wicked errors Here the Church of England requires under pain of Excommunication that none do account her Communion profane c. For whosoever accounteth the Church of England such her self being judge ought to separate from her an erronious conscience obliging Neither may any say that the Church here for his restitution enjoyns repentance only for his separating but rather for his accounting those who conform profane 1. for his errors from which once granted a separation ought to follow Again Canon 12. Those who submit themselves to be ruled by any Ecclesiastical constitutions made without the Kings authority are excommunicated Here the Canon requiring men not to submit to be governed by such constitutions requires them to believe also such Ecclesiastical Constitutions to be unlawfully made and not obliging else men ought to submit unto them Canon 59. Those Parsons who do not teach on Sundays the Catechism set forth in the Common-prayer Book are excommunicated But if they hold any thing in such Catechism unlawful they may not teach it therefore the Synod in expresly requiring them under pain of Excommunication to teach it virtually under the same penalty requires their assent that it is lawfully to be taught 2 ly In the National Synod §. 83. n. 3. held under King Charles 1640. See the third Canon 2. where it is ordered That all Popish Recusants though silent though nothing affirming whatever way they can be discovered whether by their refusing to take the Oath of Allegiance which Oath exacts their punctual assent to several Dâ—ctrines or by their refusing to receive the Communion with the Members of the Church of England a practice that requires their assent that this Church is not Schismatical be excommunicated Where whilst the Church of England thinks she hath sufficient authority to exclude from her Communion all that hold the Popish Tenents why complains she of the tyranny of the Roman Church in excluding from her Communion all that hold the Protestant Tenents Again in the fourth Canon it is decreed That any one who is accused of Socinianism unless he will absolutely in terminis abjure it be excommunicated Now he that is required upon pain of Excommunication to abjure the Popish or the Socinian Tenents is required under the same penalty so often to assent to the Protestant or the Anti-Socinian Tenents where ever these are immediately contrary or contradictory to the other as many times they are So whoever is obliged to abjure Filium non esse Consubâ—â—antialem Patri Is obliged by the same Canon to assent Filium esse Consubstantiatem Patri Lastly in the sixth Canon there the Synod requires * assent and approbation of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England as containing all things necessary to Salvation and * the Profession of this assent upon Oath I A. B. do swear that I do approve and sincerely acknowledge the Doctrine and Discipline established in the Church of England as containing all things necessary to Salvation that is I do assent and believe it to contain c. Thus much of several Injunctions and Canons of the Reformed Synods of the Church of England which seem to tye her Subjects to as strict an Obedience of assent and approbation for any thing I can diâ—cern to all her Doctrine and Discipline as any other Councils have done and to give as little liberty to any to oppose her decrees not withstanding what she saith of the Church and of Councils Art 20. 21. Hence that complaine of the Presbyterian Ministers §. 83. n 4. concerning their obligation to these Articles and Canons in their Reasons shewing necessity of Reformation printed 1660 * That if they might not subscribe with such an addition so far forth as the same Articles are agreeable to Gods Word it must needs be granted that the composers of them are admitted to be infallible or else that the Statâ—te 13. Elizabeth 12. intendeth to tyrannize over the Consciences of men i. e. in requiring them to profess what their conscience tells them is not truth * That the Statute requireth Belief of every one of these Articles when it enjoyns not only subscription but an assent unto them punishing all with deprivation that shall affirm and maintain any Doctrine repugnant to them which every man must do if they be found contrariant to the Word or he muâ—t be false to God And p. 36. Concerning obligation to Ceremonies * That these ought not to be imposed on those who cannot be fully perswaded in their own minds and consciences that they are lawful and therefore must sin if they use them Thus the Presbyterians Yet this course as most necessary was long ago hinted by Mr. Calvin to the first Founder of the English Reformation the Lord Protector in
relinquishing the Roman communion and that in which she is chiefly charged to have violated the Unity of the Catholick Church ‖ Sâ—â—llin p. 55. that it came forth many years after the Protestants discession from this Church whether we look at Luther's or that under King Edward or the last under Queen Elisabeth and many years too after the birth of their XXXIX Articles made against the Roman Faith both after those composed under Edward VI. A. D. 1549 and reconfirmed under Queen Elisabeth 1562. This Bull not being made till 1564. So that herein they seem to take their chiefest excuse for their discession from that Church from a thing that hapned long after it as if they departed from it out of the foresight of an offense which though it then was not yet would be given them by it The 4th thing I have to observe to you touched before is §. 85. n. 7. Obs 4 that though the Church of England in her Synod affixeth not particular Anathemaes to her Articles as the Roman-Catholick doth in that of Trent with a Si quis dixerit c. Anathema sit yet the forementioned 5th Canon of this Church pronounceth in general an Excommunication to a Si quis affirmaverit that any of these Articles is in any part erroneous The weighty value of which Excommunication also you may learn out of their Art 33. These things premised §. 85. n. 8. now to speak briefly to the former Protestant-Defence made Resp to α. § 84. n. 1. c. To α I answer that by the instances in the Canons c. produced before § 83. n. 1. and some of the expressions § 84. n. 3. the Church-Governours intention in requiring this Subscription seems to be Assent To β That as the Church of England requires submission to her Articles onely from her own Children or Subjects So doth the Council of Trent whose Subjects if it be a general one ‖ Or which see Consid on Coun of Trent § 15 c. is all Christianity if a Patriarchal ‖ Of which see Ib § 43. all the Western Churches and amongst the rest that of England To γ That as subscription to the Articles in the Church of England is only required from those who are to be initiated into holy Orders or admitted to Ecclesiastical Preferments so is Pius's oath to the Canons only exacted from those who enter into sacred Orders or Religions But as the Anathemaes in the Council of Trent extend to all persons so doth the Excommunication of the Church of England Can. 5. To δ That though these are not penned with a particular Anathema yet they are with a general Excommunication Can. 5. To ε That as not by them to their Articles so neither by the Church of Rome to her Canons is subscription required as to Articles of her Faith or Articles Fundamental if Faith or Fundamental be understood in such a sense as the Protestant quotations above explain them This hath been shewed § 85. n. 5 6. To ξ By this it is confessed that of the 39 Articles no more are Articles of the Church of England's Faith than those only wherein Rome doth agree with her and then if to the rest of her Articles no assent be exacted of any as is contended above § 84. one in all things believing and being of the same perswasion with the Church of Rome is freely admitted into the Church of Englands Communion nay may without violation of her constitutions lawfully enter into her holy Orders and Ecclesiastical preferments and there remain without any engagement to defend the Church of England's Doctrine or teach and instruct the people against the Roman Errors To n That her Negative Articles involve Affirmatives and those too pretended divine Revelations see before § 85. n. 3. which are the objects of Faith and do bind so strictly on one side as the Roman Canons do on the other and supposing assent required to them do admit as little latitude of opinion and at Luther's appearance the matter of these Roman Canons being in possession as to the common belief and practice of the Church these Negatives of them of the two will prove the Innovations Lastly In what sense Protestants say these Negatives are no Articles of their Faith i. e. faith necessary ratione medii to salvation in the same sense the Roman Church saith neither are her Positives that contradict them To θ Of the many Canons in the Council of Trent made in opposition to them Luthers many errors and innovations of Doctrine which were daily collected and brought into the Council were the cause And as to the main Points that are in debate between the Church of Rome and of England the Negatives in the English Articles equal the Affirmatives in the Canons of Trent To χ Whether assent to the Articles be required in subscription or only non contradiction as to any uniform accord in their later Writers I see nothing clear and the later seems more agreeable with their Principles but in the former instances out of some Canons c. assent seems as strictly required in this Church and that upon Excommunication as in the Roman upon Anathemaes and the Act of Parliament Elisabeth 13. recited before § 83. n. 1. an Act passed not only by the Lords Temporal but Spiritual i. e. the Governours of this Church is most express for it Review it ‖ § 83. n 1. To λ § 85. n. 9. It is true also in the Roman Church that thought is free and Ecclesia non judicat de occultis or peccatis merè internis i. e. no way discovered but true also that the Ecclesiastical Magistrate may lawfully inquire into mens thoughts and beliefs and question a person herein for this is done in Baptism and that not only words are punishable as faults by this Magistrate but thoughts if any one shall reveal that he thinks so i. e. thoughts when they are any way discovered as any one upon examination manifesting any blasphemous thoughts or tenents of his may be lawfully excommunicated and in such a case is excommunicated not for the revealing them in word but for the holding them so who defignes a treason and afterward reveals it is justly punished not for the revealing but designing thereof and this the Church of Rome doth and if the Church of England extend not her Inquisition or censures thus far especially as to those persons she admits into the Clergy she may expect a Babel of Religions and dissenting judgements in points of greatest consequence under the mask of one external Communion To μ §. 85. n. 10. Only a conditional Assent required seems to signifie little for establishing unity of Faith or consent in Religion which tyes none so but that of two Subscribers one may absolutely assent another dissent the same person assent to day dissent to morrow And a Socinian confident of his opinion as freely subscribe as any other of the Reformed a Presbyterian
in that most reverend Council of Nice upon pretence that you have not had a convincing Proposal that this Definition was therein made according to Gods Word or the Scriptures yet how will you clear your self or your Socinian Congregations of Schism avoidable upon no plea of adherence to Scripture if it shall appear that you have for this opinion deserted the Communion of the Catholick Church out of which Church is no Salvation Soc. †Dr. Potter p. 75. I grant there neither is nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himself therefore I utterly deny that our Churches have made any separation from the Church Catholick at all and this for many reasons For 1st †Chillingw p. 274. We have not forsaken the whole Church or the external Communion of it but only that part of it which is corrupted and still will be so and have not forsaken but onely reformed another part of it which part we our selves are and I suppose you will not go about to perswade us that we have forsaken our selves or our own Communion And if you urge that we joined our selves to no other part therefore we separated from the whole I say it follows not in as much as our selves were a part of it and still continued so and therefore can no more separate from the whole than from our selves Prot. So then it seemes wee need fear no Schism from the Church Catholick tilla part can divide from it self which can never be § 29 Soc. Next As for our separating from all other particular Churches the ground of our Separation being an error which hath crept into the Communion of these Churches and which is unjustly imposed upon us in order to this Communion we conceive in this case if any They not We are the Schismaticks for as the Arch. Bp. †Lawd p. 142. The Schism is theirs whose the cause of it is and he makes the separation who gives the first just cause of it not he that makes an actual separation upon a just cause preceding § 30 Again Though we have made an actual Separation from them as to the not-conforming to or also as to the reforming of an error yet 1st As to Charity we do still retain with the same Churches our former Communion †Dr. Ferne Division of Churches p. 105. and 31 32. Not dividing from them through the breach of Charity Or condemning all other Churches as no parts of the Catholick Church and drawing the Communion wholy to our selves as did those famous Schismaticks the Donatists § 31 Next as to matter of Faith We hold that all separation from all particular Churches in such a thing wherein the unity of the Catholick Church doth not consist is no separation from the whole Church nor any more than our suspension from the Communion of particular Churches till such their error is reformed For as Mr. Stillingf †p. 331. There can be no separation from the whole Church but in such things wherein the unity of the whole Church lies Whos 's therefore separates from any particular Church as to things not concerning their being is onely separated from the Communion of that Church and not the Catholick Now that for which we have separated from other Churches we conceive not such as is essential or concernes the being of a Church so that without it we or they cannot still retaâ—n the essence thereof we declare also our readiness to joyn with them again if this error be corrected or at least not imposed And †Stilling Ib. as Mr. Stillingf faith Where there is this readiness of Communion there is no absolute separation from the Church as such but onely suspending Communion till such abuses be reformed or not prâ—ssed upon us And as Bp. Bramhall †Vindic. of the Church of England p. 9. When one part of the universal Church separateth it self from another part not absolutely or in essentials but respectively in abuses and innovations not as it is a part of the universal Church but onely so far as it is corrupted and degenerated whether in doctrine or manners it doth still retain a Communion not onely with the Catholick Church and with all the Orthodox members of the Catholick Church but even with that corrupted Church from which it is separated except onely in such Corruptions § 32 Prot. Saving better Judgments methinks a separation if causeless from the Communion of all other Churches or from those who are our Superiours in a lesser matter than such a Fundamental or essential point of Christianity as destroyes the being of a Church should be Schism and the smaller the point for which we separate the greater the guilt of our separation Were not the Donatists Schismaticks in rejecting the Catholick Communion requiring their conformity in such a point in which St. Cyprian's error before the Churches definâ—ng thereof was very excusable and the Affrican Congregations in his time not un-churched thereby Soc. †Dr. Potter p. 76. But the Donatists did cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which they separated which is the property of Schismaticks And †Stillingf p. 359. Division of Churches p. 106. They were justly charged with Schism because they confined the Catholick Church within their own bounds But as Dr. Ferne saith †Had the Donatists only used their liberty and judgment in that practise of rebaptizing Hereticks leaving other Churches to their liberty and though thinking them in an error for admitting Hereticks without baptising them yet willing to have Communion with them as parts of the Catholick Church saving the practices wherein they differed then had they not been guilty of Schism In that which I hold I only follow my conscience condemn not the Churches holding otherwise On the other side †Chillingw p. 278. Christ hath forbid me under pain of damnation to profess what I believe not be it small or great and consequently under the same penalty hath obliged me to leave that Communion in which I cannot remain wothout the Hypocritical Profession of such a thing which I am convinced to be eroneous †Ib. 279. At least this I know that the Doctrine which I have chosen to me seemes true and the contrary which I have forsaken seemes false and therefore without remorse of conscience I may profess that but this I cannot and a separation for preserving my conscience I hope will never be judged causeless § 33 Prot. At this rate none will be a Schismatick but he who knowes he erreth i. e. not who holdeth but only who professeth an error or who knows that the point for the non-conformity to which required of him he deserts the Church is a Truth and the contrary which he maintaines an error But Dr. Hammond †Of Schism p. 23. 24. 25. tells you That he that doth communinate with those I suppose he means
at the comming of Luther § 36. 7. They affirm That though the Church Catholick cannot yet General Councils such as are not universally accepted by the Church diffusive may err in absolute necessaries to Salvation and that the Councils also universally accepted may err in non-fundamentals or non-necessaries § 34. 8. Yet that they allow all such Councils as are generally accepted by the Church diffusive to be either lawfully General or equivalent thereto and also to be infallible in necessaries § 35. Where That necessaries in their sence restrained only to a very few points of the Faith and universal acceptation extended to all sects of Christians do free them from any obligation to all or most Councils formerly held in the Church § 36. 9. And that they grant an obedience due to the Definitions and Decrees of such Councels from all inferior persons or Churches § 38. 10. But this obedience not necessarily that of assent to their decrees unless such decrees be in and known to be in necessaries but only of silence and non-publick contradiction § 39. Where Concerning the quality of the obedience that is yeilded by the Church of England to the decrees of the first General Councils § 40. 11. Nor this silence or non-contradiction generally due to all the decrees of such Councils but only to such decrees wherein the error of the Council is not manifest or intolerable § 43. Nor this breach of silence or contradiction of such decrees allowed only so far as to make complaint to Superiors who not allowing their complaint they are to acquiesce but allowed so far as that they may proceed upon the Superiors by them-conceived neglect of a redress to a reformation § 44. 12. And the Judgment when such errors are manifest and intolerable and to be reformed left to every particular person or Church for themselves § 47. Chap. 5. 13. Accordingly they declare and confine Heresie to be an error obstinately maintained not against some Church-Definition but some fundamental Article of the Faith without allowing any certain Judge what or how many Articles are fundamental and so what is Heresie § 51. 14. Concerning Schism 1st In respect of inferiors they declare it to be not any separation whatever but a separation causless § 55. or also as some more straiten it a separation in essentials § 57. from the Communion of other Churches or of the Church Catholick here again without leaving us any certain Judge what points are essentials or when the separation causless and consequently when Schism unless perhaps the separatist be this Judge 2. Again In respect of Superiors they enlarge Schism and declare them also guilty of it so often as by requiring unjust conditions of their Communion from Inferiors they give the cause of separation whereby the chief and governing Body of the Clergy of the whole Catholick Church at Luthers appearance seems by them charged with Schism and that from the Catholick Church § 61. Whether the Ecclesiastical Superiors when departing from no other their Superiors can become in respect of their subjects guilty of Schism § 63. n. 1. Chap. 6. A Reflection on the former different Theses of these two parties concerning Church-authority and the obedience due thereto § 64. And A Review of the two present opposite Churches which of them most resembles the ancient Catholick Church § 67. The face * of the ancient Catholick Church Ib. * Of the present Roman Church § 72. * Of the present Protestant Churches § 76. An Enquiry Chap. 7. Whether the Church of England doth not require obedience of Assent or Belief to her Articles of Religion Several Canons in her Synonds seeming to require it § 83. n. 1 The complaint of the Presbyterians conc it § 83. n. 4. The Doctrin of her Divines conc it § 84. n. 1. Where Conc. the just importance of Negative Articles § 84. n. 1. and 85. n. 2. And Conc. conditional assent § 84. n. 4. and 85. n. 10. That to some of the 39 Articles assent is due and ought to be required by the Church of England from her subjects § 85. n. 1. That the Roman Church doth not require assent to all the Canons of her Councils as to points Fundamental i. e. of any of which a Christian nescient cannot be saved § 85. n. 4. That the requiring of obedience either of Assent or Non-contradiction by the Church of England to all the 39 Articles seems contrary to the laws of the Church and to the Protestant Principles § 85. n. 11. Chap. 8. Solutions of several Protestant Questions concerning the Supreme Ecclesiastical Guide or Judge of Controversies § 86. 1. Q. From what we can be assured That Councils are infallible since neither the Texts of Scripture the sence whereof is disputed nor the decree of any Council whose erring is the thing questioned can give such assurance Ib. 2. Q. Whence General Councils have their infallibility such promise if made being made only to the Church diffusive and not delegable by this Church to others or if so no such delegation from the universal Church appearing before hand to have been made to all or any General Council § 91. 3. Q. How the infallibility of General Councils is necessary or serviceable to the Church without which Councils the Church subsisted for several ages most Orthodox § 98. 4. Q. How lawful General Councils which experience hath shewed to have contradicted one another can be all infallible § 100. 5. Q. Lawfull General Councils being supposed to be liable to error in some things How Christians can be assured concerning any particular point that these Councils do not err § 101. 6. Q. Whilst such Councils are supposed infallible How if they should not be so can any error of theirs be rectified § 102. 7. Q. Whether such Councils only when confirmed by the Pope or also unconfirmed by him be infallible § 104. 8. Q. How the Popes confirmation can any way concur to such Council's non-erring since if It erred it doth so still though he approve it if orthodox it is so still he not approving it § 105. 9. Q. In which the Pope or the Council this infallibility lies if in one of them the other needless If in both then either of them sufficient such qualities being where they are indivisible and without integral parts § 106. Chap. 9. 10. Q. If general Councils infallible whether they are so in their conclusions only which will infer Enthusiasm or new Revelation or also in their premises and proofs upon which assent will be due also to all their arguments § 107. 11. Q. Why being infallible in their Conclusions or Definitions They do not end all Controversies but leave so many unresolved § 108. 12. Q. How such infallibility of theirs differs from that of the Apostles and that of their decrees from that of Scripture § 109. 13. Q. How many persons or guides all fallible can make one infallible § 112. 14. Q. Supposing all lawful General Councils
we hold it impossible the Church should ever by Apostacy Of Dr. Field and miss-belief wholly depart from God in proving whereof Bellarmine confesseth his Fellows have taken much needless pains seeing no man of our profession thinketh any such thing Bellarmin's words are Notandum multos ex nostris tempus terere dum probant absolutè Ecclesiam non posse deficere Nam Calvinus caeteri Haeretici id concedunt sed dicunt intelligi debere de Ecclesiâ invisibili So we hold that it never falleth into any Heresie So that he is as much to be blamed for idle and needless busying himself in proving that the visible Church never falleth into Heresie which we most willingly grant Bellarmin's words are Probare igitur volumus Ecclesiam visibilem non posse deficere nomine Ecclesiae non intelligimus unum aut alterum hominem Christianum sed multitudinem congregatam in quâ sunt Praelati Subditi urging also afterward out of Eph. 4.11 the Ministries of Pastors Doctors c. never to fail in the Church quae Ministeria saith he non possunt exerceri nisi se Pastores Oves agnoscant From all which I collect that of such a visible Church-Government consisting of Prelates and Subjects it must be that Dr. Field affirms Ibid. That in things necessary to be known and believed expresly and distinctly it can never be ignorant much less err nor never fall into any Heresie As also afterward c. 4. In all Ages he acknowledgeth a Church that not as a Chest preserves only the Truth as a hidden Treasure but as a Pillar by publick Profession notwithstanding all Forces endeavouring to shake it publisheth it to the world and stayeth the weakness of others c. CHAP. VI. IV. Learned Protestants conceding the former Church's Clergy preceding the Reformation never so to have erred in defining Necessaries as that the Church governed by them did not remain still True Holy and Catholick § 41. § 41 IV. SUitably to their Concessions set down in the last Chapter these Learned Protestants do not assume the confidence to pronounce IV. 4. Learned Protestants conceding the former Churches Clergy preceding the Reformation never to have so erred in defining Necessaries as that the Church governed by them did not still remain True Holy Catholick The joint Body of the Governors of any precedent Age of the Church how corrupt soever they have been in their Conciliary Definitions to have erred or to have misled the people in Necessaries Essentials or Fundamentals of Religion whether in respect of Faith or Holiness notwithstanding that they have placed in these very times the Reign of Antichrist Whence it may be presumed that the Church shall not see nor suffer hereafter worse times than those past And that all these Governors in any succeeding Age shall not miss-guide the people in Necessaries or Fundamentals whom in the times of Antichrist they have not misled so Therefore Bishop Bramhall ‖ Vindic. 2 c. p. 8. Reply to Chalcedon p. 345. holds the present Roman a true part of the present Church Catholick and frequently affirms the Reformed as to Essentitials in Faith not to have separated from it And Dr. Potter speaks thus of the present Roman Church ‖ §. 3. p. 63. The most necessary and Fundamental Truths which constitute a Church are on both sides unquestioned and for that reason learned Protestants yield them the Roman the Naeme and Substance of a true Church Dr. Field also ‖ Des 3. pt p. 880. thus apologizeth for this Tenent at least for the times before Luther Because some men perhaps will think that we yield more unto our Adversaries now than formerly we did in that we acknowledge the Latine or Western Churches subject to Romish Tyranny before God raised up Luther to have been the true Churches of God in which a saving Profession of the Truth of Christ was found I will 1st shew that all our best and most renowned Divines did ever acknowledge as much as I have written And so he proceeds to urge several Authorities to confirm it And thus Mr. Thorndike ‖ Epilog Conclusion p. 416. saith Though I sincerely blame the imposing new Articles upon the Faith of Christians and that of Positions § 42 which I maintain not to be true yet I must and do freely profess that I find no position necessary to salvation prohibited none destructive to salvation enjoined to be believed by it the Roman Church And therefore I must necessarily accept it for a true Church as in the Church of England I have always known it accepted seeing there can no question be made that it continueth the same visible Body by the succession of Pastors and Laws that first were founded by the Apostles the present Customes that are in force being visibly the corruptions of those Customs which the Church had from the beginning I suppose he means being the same Customs which the Church had from the beginning though in some manner corrupted For the Idolatries which I grant to be possible though not necessary to be found in it by the Ignorance and carnal Affections of Particulars not by command of the Church or the Laws of it I do not admit to destroy the salvation of those who living in the Communion of this Church are not guilty of the like There remaines therefore in the present Church of Rome the Profession of all the Truth which it is necessary to the Salvation of all Christians to believe either in point of Faith or Manners So he saith concerning Prayer to Saints That those who admit the Church of Rome to commit Idolatry therein can by no means grant it to be a Church the very being whereof supposeth the Worship of one God exclusive to any thing else And l. 3. c. 23 Concerning Communion in one kind he saith That they in the Church of Rome who thirst after the Eucharist in both kinds do receive the whole Grace of this Sacrament in the one kind is necessary to be believed by all who believe that the Church of Rome remains a Church though corrupt and that Salvation is to be had in it and by it 2. Again For the Essentials or Necessary Doctrines in order to Holiness these learned Protestants grant § 43 that Holy is an Attribute unseparable from Catholick Credo Sanctam Catholicam Ecclesiam And that the Church cannot be the one unless it be the other and as in the whole so in the parts that no particular Church is a part of the Catholick that hath not the Holiness of the Catholick Of which thus the Archbishop ‖ p. 14◠If we will keep our Faith the whole Militant Church must be still Holy For if it be not so still then there may be a time that a falshood may be the Subject of the Catholick Faith which were no less than Blasphemy to affirm For we must still believe the Holy Catholick Church And if she be not still Holy
then at the time that she is not so we believe a falshood under the Article of the Christian Faith Of this more needs not be said § 44 3. Again If under such Governors the visible Church preceding the Reformation is allowed to have been Catholick and Holy from these it must needs be granted also not to have been Heretical or Schismatical Which Churches Protestants contra-distinguish to the Catholick Church and all the Members of it and in which Churches dividing from the Vnity of the Catholick no salvation can be had by those who if either knowing or culpably ignorant of these sins of such a Church do not actually desert such a Communion For this likewise see the Quotations out of the Archbishop before § 367. and out of Dr. Field before § 40. Bellarmine saith he is to be blamed for idle and needless busying himself in proving that the visible Church never falleth into Heresie which we most willingly grant And l. 1. c. 7. he saith That the name of Catholick Church distinguisheth men holding the Faith in Unity from Schismaticks whom as also Hereticks though he there affirms to be in some sort of the Church taken more generally as it distinguisheth men of the Christian Profession from Infidels yet not of the Church Catholick or fully and perfectly of the Church with hope of Salvation ‖ l. 1. c. 14. p. 21 c. 7 p. 13. The Common Prayers also used both in the Roman and Protestant Churches on Good Friday shew the same Oremus saith the one pro Haereticis Schismaticis ut Deus eos ad Sanctam Matrem Ecclesiam Catholicam atque Apostolicam revocare dignetur Have Mercy Lord saith the other upon all Jews Turks Infidels and Hereticks and so fetch them home to thy Flock that they may be saved among the remnant of the true Israelites and be made one Fold under one Shepherd But in the trans-ferring these Good Friday Collects out of the former Missal into their new Common-Prayer-Book 't is observable that though the Reformed retained Hereticks yet they omitted Schismaticks and 2 ly changed the former Expression of revoca ad Sanctam Matrem Ecclesiam Catholicam Apostolicam into Fetch home to thy Flock c. As if the mention of our Holy Mother the Catholick Apostolick Church might occasion in the people some Mistakes See also Bishop Bramhal's Vindication of the Church of England c. 2. p. 9 27 28 before § 34. And thus Mr. Thorndike in his Letter concerning the present state of Religion ‖ 208. ' When we say we believe the Catholick Church as part of that faith whereby we hope to be saved we do not profess to believe that there is such a company of men as professing Christianity but that there is a Corporation of true Christians excluding Hereticks and Schismaticks and that we hope to be saved by this faith as being members of it of that Corporation And this is that which the stile of the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church signifies as distinguishing the Body of true Christians to wit so far as Profession goes from the Conventicles of Hereticks and Schismaticks For this title of Catholick would signifie nothing if Hereticks and Schismaticks were not barred the Communion of the Church Thus he § 45 In the former passages you may observe that the Authors fore-quoted speak not of some or other in the Church before Luther to have bin Catholick and consequently holy c. but of the visible Church consisting of the ruling Clergy and the subject and conforming Laity according to the publick doctrines and Definitions thereof as these being not deficient in the Essentials of the Church Catholick either as to Faith or Holiness for such a Church Catholick they believe always to be whose doctrine and definitions discipline and external visible profession maintained by the Governors thereof is Catholick And if in any other sense we call it a Catholick-Church when we hold its Governours and Doctrines mean-while Heretical and Schismatical viz. by reason of some that may be found herein Catholickly perswaded we may as well call that an heretical Church the Doctrines and Doctors of which are Catholick if perhaps some only in it be heretically affected To go on Therefore Dr. Field proceeds also so far as to own the Western Church that was before Luther § 46 for the Protestants true Mother for indeed where could he find at that time a Church any whit better to call Mother and to confesse ‖ l. 3. c. 6. ' That she continued the true Church of God until our time And To those saith he that demand of us where our Church was before Luther began We answer it was the known and apparent Church in the world wherein all our Fathers lived and died wherein Luther and the rest were baptized and ‖ 3 Part p. 880. wherein a saving profession of the truth in Christ was found In order to which he so far justifies the publick service also of those dayes which our Fathers frequented even the Canon of the Mass it self as to say ‖ Append. 3 l. p. 224. ' That the using therof no other was used in those days than is now is no proof that the Church that then was was not a Protestant Church and that both the Liturgie it self and the profession of such as used it shew plainly that the Church that then was never allowed any Romish errour And again so far justifies he the doctrine of that Church which he owns as Catholick and the Protestants Mother as to affirm ‖ 3 l. p. 81. That none of those points of false doctrine and errour which the Roman Church now maintaineth and the Protestants condemn were the doctrines of that Church before Luther constantly delivered He must mean constantly for the present Age before Luther for in that Age he acknowledgeth it Catholick or generally received by all them that were of it but doubtfully broached and devised without all certain resolution or factiously defended by some certain only c. It seems therefore that look how many Doctrines of those now condemned by Protestants may appear to have bin in the Church §. 47. n. 1. I say not here the Catholick but the Latin Church for of this he speaks before Luther not doubtfully broached but in her Councils resolved in her publick Liturgies conformed to and generally received Generally not as including every single person for so perhaps were not the doctrine of the Trinity or of Christs Incarnation received but so generally received by the then Western Church-Governors as is necessary for the ratification of the Decrees of their Representatives met in Councils for more than this cannot rationally be required so many he will acknowledge for Catholick and in obedience thereto shew a filial Duty to this his Mother And therefore after this to defend the discession of the Reformed from and their present non-communion with the present Western Church he seeks to relieve
a manifold Idolatry in her worshipping the Eucharistical Bread the Relicks and Images of Saints and making Prayers to them were they not the same in the Church before Luther and the same their effect Or if the same Errors then light are now become grievous Upon what account Is it upon a more evident Conviction Christians may have now than heretofore that such are Errors But what ground can we have to say that they now culpably and convincibly err in these who no more than those before Luther can be accused for holding any Errors save such as are the Publick Faith of the Church now authorized as much as that before Luther and who to preserve themselves from erring make use of the securest way that Reason can imagine or that Christians are prescribed whilst for the sence of the Scriptures controverted in such Points they chuse not to rely on their own judgment but on that of the supremest Guides of the Church and Judges of divine Truth that are afforded them here on earth and so if they err yet take the wisest course to miss erring that Religion or Reason can dictate To which Guides also all the Subjects of this former Communion believe submission of their private judgment to be due and to be commanded which is a very plausible one if an Error From whence also it follows that till they are convinced of Error in this one Point of Submission not to be due they are not capable of being convinced in any other where it is required Nay yet further to the Obedience of which Guides at least for silence and non-contradiction they are obliged even by the Doctrine of Learned Protestants ‖ See Disc 3. § 44. where-ever they cannot demonstrate the contrary which demonstration is a degree of Conviction surely very few can pretend to § 52 1. It is said indeed by Protestants ‖ Stillingf P. 330. Archbishop Lawd § 21. n. 5. That all Particular Churches or the whole Catholick Church in some age or ages may universally hold some Tenent that is an Error but then granted by them That any such universally held Error can never destroy the Essence or Being of the Church Catholick or render it non Catholick because thus in such age the Church Catholick would fail Now from this I collect my security ni holding any Tenents though they should happen to be Errors which were universally held in the Church before Luther that as they destroy not the Church it's being still Catholick so neither do they expell me from still continuing in the bosom of the Church Catholick And hence for example I am secured that I am no Idolater if not swerving from the Church's Doctrines because the Church whilst Catholick as she is affirmed to be is not such But in joining with a Church that pretending to reform holds the contradictories of these former universal Tenents I am not here secure but that some of these Tenents may be such Errors as exclude this new Church from being a part of the Catholick and me if adhering to it from being a Member thereof as the maintaining by the Arrians and others of some Tenents contrary to the universal Doctrines of the former Church hath separated them from the Church Catholick I say for any Tenent I can shew to have been spread over the whole Catholick Church at Luther's appearance I am secured by Protestants that in holding this I am free from Heresie or being rendred thereby extra-Catholick But then I am not so in my entring into a new Society that contradicts this Church and such Tenents except in such Points of the truth of which I am infallibly certain 2. Again it is affirmed by Protestants ‖ That a Separation may be made without Schism § 52 from the external communion of all particular Churches some of which or all which I say See Stillingf p. 331. Chillingw c. 5. §. 52 55 56 59. must be the Catholick of some age for some Points if held and imposed by them viz. Those Points wherein the Essence and Union of the Church Catholick consisteth not because in such the Church Catholick may err but cannot without Schism for other Points viz. such as constitute the necessary Faith of the Church Catholick wherein she erreth not for so she would cease to be Catholick Now from hence also I gather that I continuing in the external communion of all those particular Churches can never be non-Catholick or guilty in concurring in any Schism for my holding and conforming to any of the Church's universal Tenents because none such can destroy the Church from being Catholick still ‖ But in my separation from all these Churches imposing such Tenents I am not secure because some of these Tenents as Protestants grant may possibly be such as are some part of the necessary Catholick Faith and so my separation if made on such account is Schism § 54 This security then they seem to enjoy who live and die in the Communion of the unreformed And danger to those deserting it Western or Roman Church before or since Luthers times they being acquitted thereby from Heresie and Schism or any other error damnative to them who therein follow their spiritual Guides not against Conscience But the like I see not how any may promise to himself in living and dying in a new-raised Communion and in deserting the former especially if deserting it for any former general doctrines and practises thereof which if not enjoin'd he here left to his free liberty hath no reason for these to withdraw himself from the Communion of the whole but if enjoyned ought in these to submit to the judgment of the whole especially so many as cannot demonstrate against it ‖ See 2 Disc §. 20. to submit at least so far as if not to assent yet not to contradict All which are transgressed in following the Reformation where such a person for the sence of the Scriptures controverted and for his denying conformity to the doctrines delivered by the Church as matter of Faith either relies on his own judgment or in submitting to a Guide follows inferior against Superior Governors or Synods or a Minor against a much major part Lastly follows those who have refused conformity to the external Communion even to the Liturgies and publick service of the whole former Catholick Church whether Eastern or Western and have set up a new one against them of their own which are all manifest breaches of the unity of the whole I say I see no security any can have in such a new Communion excepting that which invincible ignorance affords which in such an apparent decession from former Churches and Councils God knows how few especially of the Learned that peruse the Writings of former times it may shelter The most moderate §. 55. n. 1. and plausible defence which Protestants or to speak more particularly which the Church of England makes for her discession Where A brief Relation of the
is replied That the whole Catholick Church of Christ is but one body compacted with a due subordination of its members as well Churches as persons for the preservation of truth and peace among them and the avoiding of Schism 3ly That the Church of England is a member of the Western Church and subordinate to the Patriarch thereof the Bishop of the prime Apostolick See joyned with a Council composed of this Body 4 ly That being a part of this Body this Church together with the rest of the Protestants dissented and departed from the consenting judgment not only of one particular Church the Roman but of all the other Occidental Churches in several points of faith that are necessary as the other say but as themselves confess that are of moment and the failings in which are by them charged on the other side as grievous errors which will infer the contrary to be needful truths disceded likewise from their consenting judgments concerning the testimony of Scriptures rightly understood and of the Fathers affirmed by these not to be for but against them 5 ly Departed both from them and the most General Councils that have bin held therein for near this thousand years 6 ly And departed from them in several points wherin the Eastern Churches also consented and do so still with these Occidental Churches and their Councils 7 ly And for submission required to these doctrines §. 55. n. 4. departed also from the external communion not only of all the Western but of the Eastern Churches even of the whole visible Catholick Church of that Age of which in every Age is said Credo unam Sanctam Catholicam Apostolicam Ecclesiam wherein this discession was made From the external Communion I say so as they neither could nor yet can communicate with any Church Eastern or Western in their publick worship and service of God nor in the participation of the blessed Sacrament and Communion of the Altar And the necessity of such their universal discession both sufficiently appeareth from the modern Eastern and Roman Missals compared the Masses of S. Chrysostom S. Basil which admitting som small variations ‖ See Cassand liturg c. p. 24 c. are the present service of all the Eastern Southern Churches not much differing from the Roman and being as well as the Roman disallowed by Protestants And also the Discession it self is confessed both long ago by Calvin lamenting the Protestant's want of Union amongst so many Adversaries ‖ Epist P. Melancthoni p. 145. A toto mundo discessionem facere coacti sumus And by Mr. Chillingworth l. 5. § 55. As for the external Communion of the visible Church saith he we have without scruple formerly granted that Protestants did forsake it i. e. renounce the practise of some Observances in which the whole visible Church before them did communicate See likewise § 56.89 Forsake the external Communion of the whole visible Church i. e. as he expounds himself § 32 by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgies and publick Worship of God Thus he And this surely was done for some Errors extant in this publick Worship else why did Protestants also reform this publick Service And these again such Errors as were not only held and used in but justified and allowed by this Church Catholick and Obedience and Conformity from her Subjects required thereto since if any thing after the holy Scriptures be held by this Church Catholick sacred and authentick and by all her Subjects to be embraced and frequented her publick Liturgy and the most August Sacrifice of the Altar must be so What ground therefore of Discession and what just complaint the Protestants have against the Western Church excluding them from her Communion because requiring something in it they cannot conform to the same ground of complaint they have also against the Eastern Churches as requiring somthing in their Communion to which they cannot assent nor in which join with them This for the external Communion of the Oriental as well as Occidental Church as to God's Publick Worship partaking of their Sacraments forsaken by them And next as to any other Communion internal mean-while professed with these Eastern Churches in the Fundamental Faith and Essentials of Religion they can pretend none but that they have and confess they have the same Communion with the Western Churches too In what sence therefore they stand separated from the Roman Church viz. in external Communion of their publick service of God and receiving with that Church the blessed Sacrament they stand separated from the Eastern also and in what sence they still retain the Communion of the East viz. in the Essential and Fundamental Articles of Faith they still retain this with Rome as much as them How is it then that they say often in the Reformation they left the Roman Church only not the whole Catholick numbring the Greek Russian Abyssine and other Churches as three parts of four and all these as on their side and joined with them And to what purpose is the calculating what proportion the Western Church hath to the whole Catholick when as their separation for communion external is as much from the rest as it and both Churches if any for this their separation equally culpable and when as for the internal Communion i. e. in all the Essentials of Faith they maintain this no more with the rest of the great body of the Catholick Church than they do with the Roman or Western Church But here again if they alledg their further Union with the Eastern Churches not in Fundamentals only but also in some other Points not Fundamental which are but few and none of them on the Greek side defined by any former Superior Council wherein these Churches oppose the Roman among which is named the Pope's Supremacy and Infallibility of the Roman Church the later a thing the Roman Church taken singly pretendeth not to yet what will this help ‖ See Disc 3. §. 185. as to those many other points defined by Superior Couneils ‖ See before § 50. n. 2. and wherein both East and VVest consent as those mentioned in the third Discourse § 26. c. In which Points chiefly Protestants are questioned for having made in the Reformation not a secession from their Western Mother to another part of the Catholick Church but a discession from the consenting judgment of the whole Catholick 8. Departed from the whole in these points which were §. 55. n. 5. at that time of a general belief and practice not only so far as to dissent but also as to contradict and reform against them 9. And all this in several of these Controversies upon pretence of the clearness of those Scriptures the sence whereof by a much major part of the West and by the greatest Councils that could for those times be assembled there where these Controversies arose the sence also of the Eastern Church concurring in the
same Doctrines and interpretation of Scripture was judged clear on the other side 10. Of which Controversies and matters in debate if any were in points necessary it must be granted that such Councils being universally accepted in such a sence as can only be rationally required ‖ See before §. 38. in these were unerrable and might lawfully require from their Subjects assent thereto Or at least if later Councils faulty in demanding their Subjects assent so must be the four first that are allowed by Protestants 11. To which Councils also and not to their Subjects must belong the judgment of what or how many Points are to be accounted necessary Or else neither did the judgment hereof belong to the four first Councils nor could they justly upon it require assent and join som such points to the Creed 12. But if such Controversies be supposed in non-necessaries yet for the peace of the Church after the determination of such a Council the advers party ought to acquiesce in silence and non-contradicting without either pronouncing that an Error which such Council holds a Truth or the Scripture clear for such a sence as such Council disallows 13. Or If Protestants will not be obliged to this why do they appeal to a free General Council for deciding differences and setling a peace when they will neither yield the obedience of silence to the Definitions of such Councils in points not necessary nor grant that any of the Controversies concerning which they appeal to them are points necessary wherein such Council universally accepted may be submitted to by them as un-errable The summe then is That their Reformation was not from some co-ordinate Church attempting to tyrannize over them as the second branch of their defence and those following to the eighth do import but from their Superiors From these not for somthing held or practised and not enjoined for here all having their liberty was no cause to depart but for points defined and wherein Conformity was required by them to whose judgment therefore they ought to have submitted so far as to learn from it in matters questioned what is Truth and Error Or at least so far as not to contradict it and consequently as not to reform against it In doing the contrary of which they are charged as guilty of Schism and of breaking the Laws of Subordination and Vnity established in the Church ‖ Of which see Disc 2. §. 24. n. 1. 14. Lastly VVhereas against such Obedience an Obligation is pleaded n. 6. to do nothing against Conscience It is replied that a man's conscience miss-perswaded that somthing is an Error is to be followed indeed and he upon no command to profess assent thereto but excuseth not from guilt nor freeth from the Church's Censures those who might have better informed it ‖ See Dr. Hammond of Schism c. 2. §. 8. Thus the Remonstrance After which well weighed I see not what security any one can have in continuing in such a Society as hath thus broken the Links of Ecclesiastical Government and lives in a separation from the main Body if either the rejecting the Definitions of the Church's former Councils be Heresie or relinquishing her Communion Schism CHAP. VIII VI. That according to the former Concession made in the Fifth Chapter § 32. If so enlarged as ancient Church-practice and Reason requires all or most of the Protestant Controversies are by former obliging Councils already decided § 56. n. 1 c. An Instance hereof in the Controversie of the Corporal Presence in the Eucharist or Transubstantiation § 57. NOw to consider the other Concession ‖ See before §. 41. and § 32 c. of more moderate Protestant Divines §. 56. n. 1. * granting our Lord's assistance to the Church Catholick such as that she shall also for ever be an unerring Guide in Necessaries a thing denied by Mr. Chillingworth ‖ See before §. 4. That according to those Conditions of determining controversies that can justly be required most of those between Cathol Protestants have been already decided because of a Consequence thereof which he foresaw Namely That we must take her judgment and guidance also in this point what points are fundamental or necessary and then who seeth not what will follow Namely That we are to believe this Church in all Points wherein she saith she is unerring And upon this * granting also her General Council or Representative she having no other way to teach direct define any thing or at at least no other way so clear and evident to be unerring in Necessaries provided that such Council be universally accepted and not opposed or reversed by the Church Catholick in another following Representative but received by a general tacit at least approbation and conformity to its Decrees Where also it is conceded that a Council for its meeting less General yet if having an universal acceptation is equivalent thereto And hence making their frequent Appeal to these Councils as the supream and ultimate Ecclesiastical Court for setling Unity of Doctrine and Peace in the Church and wherein they promise victory to their Cause and an end of Debates Of which see before § 32. c. A General Council §. 56. n. 2. after it is admitted by the whole Church is then infallible saith the Archbishop ‖ p. 346. he means in Necessaries But Bishop Bramhall further When inferior Questions saith he ‖ Vindic. of the Church of England p. 27 not fundamental are once defined by a lawful General Council all Christians though they cannot assent in their judgments are obliged to passive obedience to possess their souls in peace and patience And they who shall oppose the Authority and shall disturb the peace of the Church deserve to be punished as Hereticks Reply to Chalced. Prefat And I submit saith he ‖ my self to the representative Church that is to a free General Council or so general as can be procured And Schism Guarded p. 136. There is nothing saith he that we long after more then a General Council rightly called rightly proceeding or in defect of that a free Occidental Council as general as may be See much more to this purpose said by this Bishop before § 34 c. And thus Dr. Hammond ‖ Of Heres §. 14. n. 6. notwithstanding what is quoted out of him before § 5. We do not believe that any General Council truly such ever did or shall err in any matter of Faith nor shall we further dispute the authority I suppose he means to oblige us then we shall be duly satisfied of the universality of any such Council And Answer to Catholick Gentleman ‖ c. 2. §. 3. A Congregation that is fallible may yet have authority to make Decisions and to require Inferiours so far to acquiesce to their Determinations as not to disquiet the peace of that Church with their contrary Opinions And ‖ Ibid. c. 8. §. ◠n. 7. I
sanguinem Christi mutare Sed quod Deus hanc suam absolutam Omnipotentiam in Eucharistiâ exerceat non videtur esse certo verbo Dei traditum apparet veteri Ecclesiae fuisse ignotum The third is Calvins Confession of faith ‖ Lib. Epist p. 5702. written two years before his death and directed to the Emperor and Princes of Germany Porrò saith he qui nos accusant quod Dei potentiae derogetur à nobis valde sunt in nos injurii Non enim hîc quaeritur quid Deus possit sed quid verbo suo velit extra quod nihil nobis qaaerendum ut hoc aut illud divinemus Quare illam quaestionem omittemus an Deus possit facere ut Christi Corpus sit ubique sed cum omni modestiā intra istos Scripturae fines consistimus qu◠perhibet Christum induisse corpus nostro corpori per omnia simile Interea extollimus Dei potentiam magis quam illi qui nos istiusmodi probris infamant Fatemur enim ipsamillam Christi à nobis secundum humanam naturam distantiam non impedire quò minùs in seipso nos vivificet habitet in nobis nosque adeo participes reddat ipsiusmet substantiae corporis sui sanguinis virtute incomprehensibili sancti sui Spiritus Ex quo apparet merè calumniosum esse quod nobis imponitur quasi nempe figeremus suos terminos Dei potentiae explacitis Philosophorum atqui omnis nostra Philosophia una est simpliciter admittere quod Scriptura nos docet And de vera Christianae pacificationis ratione c. 11. speaking of the Eucharist ' Quasi vero saith he hic de Christi potentia disputetur Rerum omnium conversionem fieri posse à Christo nos quoque fatemur This then I hope may be said with the approbation of Protestants that the interposings of sence though indeed in the Eucharist there is no error in our sences all that being really there which they perceive there but in our reason only arguing from the position of the accidents to the position of the subject or the interposing of Reason and Philosophy are not to be hearkned to in this matter till first it be cleared what is the divine Revelation concerning it which divine Revelation so often as it appears to have declared any thing contrary to them we may with modesty enough use that expression of F. Cressies causlesly censured ‖ Tillots p. 276. That we have learnt not to answer such Arguments but to despise them § 64 2ly All thus acknowledging their submission to divine Revelation This hath bin produced out of the Scriptures 2. For a corporal presence of Christs Body and a Conversion of the consecrated Elements into it Many texts urged if taken in their most literal proper and natural sence very express for it as Mat. 26.26 Mark 14.22 Luke 22.19 Jo. who speaking of it here omits it in the History of the Passion 6.51 53 54. 1 Cor. 11.24 27 29. 10.16 It being very observable here 1st That the words of Institution are still repeated punctually by four several sacred Writers Matthew Mark Luke and Paul without any variation or Exposition of any impropriety whereas it is not usuall so constantly to retain without Explication a tropical or figurative speech especially in a matter where the truth is so necessary to be known 2 Again that the fourth of these Writers cautiously as it were useth not his own stile in this matter as in others but chuseth to deliver our Lords commands punctually in his own words what I have received that I deliver c. And 3 That our Saviour also in these words seconds his first expression Hoc est Corpus meum without changing afterward any impropriety in them with the like words following Hic est sanguis and then confirmeth both these with a quod tradetur and qui effundetur i on the Cross to shew he was real in these words and meant no Figure Notwithstanding this the true sence of these Scriptures was called in question by a party not now only but eight hundred years ago contending that they were not properly but figuratively to be understood And upon this the usual remedy for the right understanding of Scriptures controverted was then repaired to and the same supreme Ecclesiastical Judge consulted for deciding and declaring the true and traditive sence of these Scriptures in this important controversie concerning the real substantial corporeal presence of our Lords Body as was formerly for declaring the traditive sence of the Scriptures controverted concerning the Divinity of Christ A General Council i.e. the most general that the times would permit was assembled in the West in our Forefathers days nay of these more than one as hath bin shewed ‖ §. 57 c. a substantial Conversion of the Elements and a corporal Presence declared to be the traditive sence of these Scriptures and a reverence suitable required in this great mystery not one Bishop in these Councils for any thing we know in the whole Church of God at that time dissenting and those of the Eastern Churches absent consenting in the same judgment ‖ See Disc 3. §. 158. what more can be done Ought not sence reason philosophy here to be silenced and ought not such a Decree to be if not assented to yet even in the judgment of those learned Protestant Divines before quoted ‖ § 56. n. 2. 59. acquiesced in so far as not to be by any contradicted § 65 But 3 ly what now if many of those contradictions and absurdities which are urged against the corporeal presence of the Catholicks 3. do as much overthrow that real presence that is maintained by Protestants I mean the Calvinists and so many in the Church of England as have not deserted their Forefathers and to flie the father from the Church of Rome are gone quite over into the Camp of Zuinglius changing a real into meerly a spiritual presence or a presence only of Christs Spirit uniting the worthy Communicant here on earth to his Body in Heaven But heretofore at least it hath bin the common Tenent of the English Divines to affirm not only a spiritual presence or a presence only by effect operation or grace but a substantial presence in the Eucharist and that is here on earth not to the Elements indeed but to the worthy Receiver of the very same Body of Christ that suffered on the Cross and that is now at the same time as here also in heaven § 66 To which purpose thus Calvin in 1 Cor. 11.24 Neque enim mortis suae keneficium nobis offert Christus sed Corpus ipsum in quo passus est resurrexit And Institut l 4. c. 17. § 7. Neque enim mihi satisfaciunt qui dum Communionem cum Christo ostendere volunt nos spiritus modò participes faciunt praeteritâ carnis sanguinis mentione Quasi vero illa omnia de nihilo dictaforent
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
Hooker Pref. §. 6. l. 2. §. 7. and in reason what can any say less § 21 10ly From this I also take it for granted That though such or so many Prop. 10. as can demonstratively prove the contrary are hereby disobliged to yield their Assent to the Doctrines of their former Guides yet so many others as cannot do the like remain obliged still to follow and obey the same their former Pastors and by no means may join themselves in communion or adhere to the new Demonstrators till they themselves are confirmed in the like Certainty By which Rule how few will there be of the Reformed that do not still owe their Obedience to the same Church giving her Laws still as formerly that was before Luther who upon new Evidences deserted it where all owe this Obedience save Demonstrators of their new Tenents CHAP. III. 11. That these Church-Governors may teach diversly and some of them err in Necessaries and fall into Heresies § 22. 12. And therefore Christians not left to follow whom of them they please But some certain Rule there is to which of them in any Division they ought to adhere That this in the universal Church-practice is and rationally can be no other than in these Judges subordinate dissenting to adhere to the Superior in those of the same Order and Dignity dissenting to the Major part § 23. c. Where Of the Major part concluding the whole in the ancient Councils § 25. n. 2. And Of the Defection of the Church-Prelacy in the times of Arrianism § 26. n. 2. 14. And that the Protestant-Marks whereby to discern true from false Guides as to the Quest here viz. to learn from these true Guides in matters controverted which is the true Faith are unserviceable § 28. § 22 11ly THat some of these Church-Governors more or fewer may become Hereticks and erroneous in points necessary and may guide Christians contrary to the rest of them Prop. 11. is granted by all sides and known by Experience § 23 12ly It seems therefore also evident That Christians for yielding the Obediences forenamed Propos 9th and allowed by Protestants in such dissenting of Governors Prop. 12. may not safely follow which of them they please or judge to be in their doctrines the rightest for so they judge of their Judges and may as well judge the Controversies but that some Rule there is to whom in such case they are to adhere whom to relinquish it being as necessary for the same divine providence to leave some means by which to know our Guide as to give us one And this Rule also by tradition hath been and in reason can be no other but that in Judges Ecclesiastical subordinate whether Persons or Councils dissenting men ought to adhere to the Superior in Judges equal dissenting to adhere to the Major not minor part For Example In England a Synod Diocesan and one compounded of both the Provinces dissenting here Obedience is due to the Provincial Synod or Convocation and in the Provincial Synod again a minor part dissenting due to the Major Otherwise any may hold what doctrine liketh him best and oppose the maintainers of the contrary since ordinarily some Ecclesiastical Governor either Inferior or Superior if not a greater yet some smaller part or other of them may be found also to hold it And thus the Unity of this Catholick Church as to doctrine is quite overthrown 1st In Persons §. 24. n. 1. or Councils subordinate that the Superior in case of any dissent rightly challengeth our Obedience I think it out of dispute So in England for the establishing of the authority of the supreme National Synod and the Obedience thereto in respect of all Inferiors for preventing dissentions see the Decree in Can. 139. 140. of the Synod under K. James 1603. Where it is said Whosoever shall affirm that the Sacred Synod of this Nation is not the true Church of England by representation Or shall affirm that no manner of person either of the Clergy or Laity not being themselves particularly assembled in the said Sacred Synod are to be subject to the Decrees thereof in causes Ecclesiastical as not having given their voices unto those Decrees let him be excommunicated and not restored until he repent and publickly revoke that his wicked Error And for Obedience to this Highest Ecclesiastical Court see the King 's resolute Speech in the Conference at Hampton-Court ‖ p. 72. I will have one Doctrine and one Discipline one Religion in substance and Ceremony and therefore I charge you never to speak more to that point How far you are bound to obey when the Church hath ordained it What Subjection then for preserving Unity is required in the English Church cannot reasonably be disallowed by them in the Catholick Again see in Dr. Hammond's Book of Schism ‖ c. 3. an acknowledgment of primitive Subordination as of a Presbyter to the Bishop so of Bishops to Metropolitans of Metropolitans to Primates or Patriarchs where he comes short but one Link of those which the Roman Church maintains viz. Of the Patriarchs to the Proto-Patriarch or the Bishop of Rome And again see his acknowledgment ‖ Schism c 8. p 158. Ans to Cath. Gentl. p. 29. of a Subordination of all these severed persons to the whole Corporation or Body of them assembled in Council in which Council he saith It is evident that the power which severally belongs to each Bishop Answ to Cath. Gentl. p. 29. §. 9 10. is there united I add and therefore if that Power which they have severally be by divine right so is this which they have conjunctly notwithstanding what is disputed against it ‖ See Stil Rat account 3 par c. 1. p. 515. c. as a subordination of all the Bishops in a Province to a Council Provincial in a Nation to a Council National of all Christianity to a Council General Only here he omits one subordination well known in the Church and sufficiently attested by other Protestants viz. a subordination of the Bishops of several Nations that are under one Patriarch to a Council Patriarchal Which defect of his give me leave to supply to you out of Dr. Field and Bishop Bramhall Authorities as authentick as his Thus then Dr. Field ‖ Of the Ch. p. 518. These Patriarchs might convocate the Metropolitans of their several divisions and hold a Patriarchal Council which was of greater Authority then either those in the several Provinces or of a whole Nation formerly mentioned because it consisted of more and more honourable Bishops yet had the Patriarchs no greater authority over the Metropolitans within their larger Circuits than the Metropolitans within their lesser Compass And Ib. 513. shewing against Bellarmine that by reason of the several subordinations of the Churches Officers and of their Consults there was no further necessity of a Monarchical Government in the Church for conserving the unity thereof 1 If saith
again he using the ordinary care of persons desiring instruction cannot but come to know its Councils and their definitions its doctrines and Laws which we find as the Leaders of all Sects do theirs so those of the Church Catholick are studious to divulge and publish so far as they are by him considering his condition necessary to be known and the profession or practice thereof required of him For Example In the Church of England who is there using the ordinary care necessary in matters of his salvation that first cannot easily discern this Church from the several other later and unheaded sects that are in this Kingdom and this Church known who may not easily attain therein to a knowledg also of its Articles of Religion and Canons its Synods or Convocations delivered by the common Tradition and by the Church-Guides and publick Writings daily inculcated so far as the understanding of them is to him necessary The same evidence therefore in these things must be allowed not to be wanting to those who have once found among the many Societies of Christians that Church which is their right Guide § 49 And litle reason have the reformed to affirm a necessity that all Necessaries should be made most evident even to the unlearned in the Scriptures if asserted on this account because such people have no means of attaining any certain knowledge of them from the Ministry of the Church And with litle reareason seem Mr. Stillingfleet and others to affirm which yet is used by many late Protestant-Writers as a main ground of evacuating the authority of the Church * that it is no easier a thing to know what the Church defines than what Scripture determines and That the same Arts that can evade the texts of Scripture will equally elude the Definitions of Councils Tillots Rule of saith p. 21. as if all writings were equally plain or equally obscure or if none free from therefore all equally liable to cavils Again * That the Argument of the willingness of all Protestants to submit their judgments to Scripture will hold as well or better for their unity as that of the readiness of all those of the Church of Rome to submit their judgments to the sence and determination of the Church will hold for their unity And this unity to be effected by the Scriptures he speaks of as to those matters wherein the sence of the same Scriptures is controverted amongst Christians for in such only it is that Christians for their unity seek to the decisions of the Church As if they undertook to defend this That a living Judge set up for the expounding of the dubious places of the Law to the sentence of which Judg all are agreed to assent yet is no more effective for ending controversies about the sense of the Laws and for uniting parties than the Laws themselves are without such Judge Mr. Stillingfleets words are ‖ p 101. Your great Argument for the unity of your party because whatever the private opinions of men are they are ready to submit their judgments to the censure and determination of the Church if it be good will hold as well or better for our unity as yours because all men are willing to submit their judgments to Scripture which is agreed on all sides to be infallible If you say that it cannot be known what Scripture determines but it may be easily what the Church defines It is easily answered that the event shews it to be far otherwise for how many disputes are there concerning the power of determining matters of faith c concluding thus so that upon the whole it appears setting aside force and fraud which are excellent principles of Christian unity we are upon as fair termes of union as you are among your selves Where doth he not say this in effect that the true Church being known and its authority granted infallible as that of the Roman Church is by its subjects Yet we can no more know what this Church defines suppose what the Church of Rome or of England defines concerning Transubstantiation St-Invocation Sacrifice of the Mass c. than what Scripture determines concerning these points and that Canons Catechisms c. authorized by a Church can no further clear any point to us than Scripture did formerly and that only the Church is so unfortunate in her publick interpretations of Scriptures that her Expositions are no plainer than the Texts and that only force or fraud unites her subjects in their opinions And if so what fault hath the Council of Trent made in its new definitions if after these it seems ‖ Stillingf p. 102. there is as much division and then liberty also of opinions as was before them Why do they accuse its decrees as plain enough but erroneous and not invalidate them rather as dubious and uncertain Why dispute they not whether these we have now extant be its genuine Acts Would it not be advantageous to the reformed to shew that this Council makes nothing against them In such unreasonable Contests hath Mr. Chillingworth by inventing many captious questions to weaken Church-authority engaged his followers As if though Catholicks allow several things in Councils obscurely delivered some proceedings in some things unjust the legality of some Councils disputed c yet there could not remain still enough clear and unquestionable both of Councils and their Canons both * to establish the most illiterate subjects of the Catholick Church in all such as is thought necessary faith whose obligation is not to believe all things defined but all things sufficiently proposed to them to be so and * to overthrow the past Reformation THE THIRD DISCOURSE CHAP. I. Roman-Catholicks and Protestants agreed 1. That the Scriptures are God's Word § 1. 2. That in these Scriptures agreed on it is clearly declared that the Church in no age shall err in Necessaries § 2. 3. That the Church-Catholick is contra-distinct to Heretical and Schismatical Churches § 4. 4. That Christ hath left in this Church Pastors and Teachers to keep it from being tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of Doctrine § 5. § 1 1st BOth Roman Catholicks and Protestants are agreed That there is sufficient certainty in the General Tradition of the Catholick Church descending to the present Age that the Bible or Holy Scriptures are the Word of God 2ly They are agreed That it is clearly declared in these Scriptures that the Catholick Church § 2 in no age shall err in Credends or Practicals necessary for obtaining Salvation From which Christians seem to be secured That in their approving § 3 and conforming to what is granted generally to be held by the Church-Catholick of any age whatsoever they shall incur no Error or Practice destructive of Salvation Whereas a hazard herein may be in their departing from the Doctrine or Practice of the Church-Catholick or of all the particular Churches of any age all or some of which must be the Catholick § 4 3ly
verbi gratiâ id sentire de Christo quod Photinus opinatus est i. e. in modern language to be a Socinian no small errour in ejus haeresi baptizari extra Ecclesiae Catholicae Communionem alium vero hoc idem sentire sed in Catholicâ baptizari existimantem ipsam esse Catholicam fidem Illum nondum Haereticum dico nisi manifestatâ sibi doctrinâ Catholicae fidei resistere maluerit illud quod tenebat elegerit c. § 19 And this is Dr. Hammonds Comment on the fore-quoted place of Titus how consonant to his own or other Protestants doctrines I know not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ‖ P. 761. self-condemned signifies not a man's publick accusing or condemning his own doctrines or practices for that self-condemnation being an effect and part of repentance would rather be a motive to free any from the censures of the Church who were already under them then aggravate their crime or bring that punishment upon them Nor yet 2ly can it denote him that offends and yet still continues to offend against conscience and though he be in the wrong yet holds out in opposition to the Church For besides that there are very few that do so and these known to none but God and if that were the Character of an Heretick then none but Hypocrites would be Hereticks and he that through pride and opinion of his own judgement stood out against the doctrine of Christ and his Church in the purest times should not be an Heretick this inconvenience would further be incurred that no Heretick could possibly be admonished or censured by the Church for no man would acknowledge of himself that what he did was by him done against his own conscience nor could any testimony be produced against him before any humane Tribunal no man being able to search the heart It is rather an expression of his separation from and disobedience to the Church and so an evidence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being perverted and sinning wilfully and without excuse For he that thus disobeys and breaks off from the unity of the Church doth in effect inflict that punishment on himself which the Church useth to Malefactors that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 13.10 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cutting off from the Church which when he being an Heretick and therein a Schismatick also doth voluntarily without the Judges sentence his very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a spontaneous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or excision And that this Doctor may not go alone see Dr. Fernes Comment on the same place ‖ The Case between the Ch. of Engl. and Rome p. 53. when he writ against Presbyterians accusing them of Schism from the Church of England The word Heretick saith he according to the use of it then implied one that obstinately stood out against the Church or that led any Sect After the strictest Sect or Heresie of the Pharisees Acts 26.5 After that which they call Heresie Acts 24.14 a factious Company divided from the Church so they called or accounted of Christians and Gal. 5.20 we have it reckoned among the works of the flesh Debates Contentions Heresie So here Heretick that leads a faction a sect or that wilfully follows or abets it A man therefore that is a Heretick contentious disobedient to the Order and authority of the Church reject for he is self condemned having both past the sentence upon himself by professing against or dividing from the Church and also done execution like that of the Church's censure and excommunication upon himself by actual separation or going out of the Church A fearful condition Thus he And something to the same purpose saith Dr. Hammond ‖ Of Fundamentals c. 9. §. 4. concerning the guilt of those who afterward deny or oppose the things defined and added to the Apostles Creed by the first Councils Though the Creed saith he in the ancient Apostolick form were sufficient for any man to believe and profess yet when the Church hath thought meet to erect that additional Bulwark against Hereticks the rejecting or denying the truth of those their additions may justly be deemed an interpretative siding with those ancient or a desire to introduce some new Heresies And the pride or singularity or heretical design of opposing or questioning them now they are framed being irreconcileable with Christian charity and humility is justly deemed criminous and liable to censures Again § 6. Though those who believed c. the matter of the Apostles Creed had all those Branches of Christian Faith which were required to qualifie mankind to submit to Christs Reformation yet he grants the wilful opposing these more explicit Articles added by Councils and the resisting of them when they are competently proposed from the Definition of the Church will bring danger of ruine on such persons Again § 8. This i of one Baptism and all the former additions in the Nicene Creed being thus setled by the universal Church were and still are in all reason without disputing to be received and embraced by the present Church and every meek member thereof Here then it seems that Heresie it is or something criminous equivalent thereto to oppose the Church's definitions and additions though the former Creed was sufficient to have been believed and professed in all times before them Lastly King James in his Answer to Card. Perron penned by Casaubon seems to have the same Notion of Heresie as also of Schism with the Roman Church and the Fathers making Heresie any departing from the Faith Schism from the Communion of the Church Catholick Credit vero Rex saith Casaubon ‖ Letter to Perron simpliciter sine fuco fallaciis unicam esse Ecclesiam Dei re nomine Catholicam sive Vniversalem toto diffusam mundo extra quam ipse quoque nullam Salutem debere sperari affirmat damnat detestatur eos qui vel jam olim vel postea aut a fide recesserunt Ecclesiae Catholicae facti sunt Haeretici aut à Communione facti sunt Schismatici Difference here about the Extent of the Catholick Church there is some but none that all opposition of its Faith is Heresie Again Nullam spem Salutis superesse iis qui à fide Ecclesiae Catholicae aut ab ejusdem Communione discesserint Rex ultro concedit I suppose here is meant the present Catholick Church and in any difference the main Body thereof its whole and integral Faith or any part thereof and its external Communion Otherwise if this meant of the Catholick Church collectively of all ages when in some ages several points of Faith were not yet defined and of every member thereof in those ages when in most points may be found some dissenters and of Points of Faith necessary inferiors being Judges a term applyed as any one pleaseth to more points or fewer Lastly of Communion internal which may be said now to be deserted now retained as any
no agreement or union from the Common Superiors of them both and so long as one part divides not from the other in any thing wherein the other agrees with the whole against it or which the whole enjoyns both to the other and it But in such case the division of this part is as from the other part so from the whose and so becomes for its division from the whole and not from the other part Schismatical 2 ly They grant also that one part may lawfully and without Schism separate or rather absent it self from the external Communion of another so often as either the Communion of the other part suspected of Heresiae or Schism before any evidence of the contrary is thought unlawful or as this part requires some condition of its external Communion to which the other is not by the whole or by the Superiors of both any way obliged Thus the Catholicks CHAP. IV. On the other side the Protestants after the four first Propositions conceded thus proceeding to qualifie them 5. In their granting the Catholick Church unerrable in Necessaries understanding thereby only such few Points without which Salvation no way attainable § 24. 6. Affirming the Church Catholick or all particular Churches of some one age or ages errable in several other doctrines dangerous to Salvation gross damnable c. § 25. Because it appears that many of the chief Points from which Protestants dissent were the General Tenents and Practices at the coming of Luther § 26. 7.8 Affirming * the Church's General Councils also when universally accepted to be unerring in Necessaries but not so in other and that is in the most Points And in the former 1 Extending universal acceptation to all particular Churches and 2 Restraining Necessaries as before to those absolutely so Again * The Councils not so accepted to be errable also in Necessaries § 34.35 36. 9.10 Allowing Obedience also due to the Definitions and Decrees of such Councils But not that of Assent but only of Non-contradiction § 39. Where of the Quality of the Obedience yeilded by the Church of England to the four first Councils § 40. 11. Of Non contradiction not generally but where the Error of the Council not manifest and intolerable § 43. Claiming also where the Errour manifest a power against such Council to reform it for themselves § 44. 12. The judgement also as for themselves when there is or is not such Error in Councils left to particular Persons or Churches § 47. § 24 BUt the Protestants after conceding the four first Propositions labour to pull down these superstructures of the Catholicks which they see else would ruine their cause and thus proceed After the first four Propositions above agreed on 5 ly They explain themselves That by the Necessaries wherein Prop. 2 they grant the Catholick Church of all ages unerrable they understand only those few Points spoken of before Disc 2. Prop. 6. without the explicit Belief of which Salvation is not at all attainable For in their saying that she is so unerrable they thus declare themselves That there alwayes shall be a number of men professing Christianity in the world So Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ Stillingf p. 251. A company of men that profess at least so much Truth as is absolutely necessary for their Salvation So Mr. Chillingworth ‖ P. 15. That Christ doth and will so defend his Church that there shall be forever till the end of the world a Church Christian on the earth So Dr. Hammond ‖ Defence of Lord Fulkland c. 1. §. 5.6 p. 23. No more inerrability in Faith you see here affirmed than that without which Salvation is absolutely on what terms soever in the Profession of Christianity not attainable wherein they straiten Christs promises as the Catholicks enlarge them by which they gain the liberty of reforming as they think fit from the universal Church of God as to some age or ages in most of her Doctrines as they granting her not save in some few necessaries unerrable that may as it were still preserve life in Her neither will they concerning this Question what are points necessary wherein our Lord hath promised an indefectibility to his Church what not by any means stand to her judgement § 25 6 ly They say ‖ that though the Church-Catholick is preserved always from errors in absolute necessaries taken in their sence § 24 for otherwise there would cease to be a Church of Christ upon earth yet the same Church or at least any or all particular Churches of some age or ages some one or many or all which particular Churches must be the visible universal Church-Catholick of that age or ages may generally hold and the Governors thereof impose upon their Subjects such errors and corruptions as are dangerous to Salvation gross damnable c. and therefore which upon a general Reformation neglected are corrigible and reformable by any particular Church for it self See what Arch-bishop Laud § 26 § 37. n. 5.6 Mr. Stillingfleet Part 2. c. 2. p. 330. and c. 4. p. 370.371 and c. 8. p. 478 479. Mr. Chillingworth c. 5. § 64.49 45 27. and the 31 st Article of the Church of England have said to this purpose § 27 And the Reason of this Assertion seems to be because these great points of modern controversie § 28 1. A Corporal Presence and a Transubstantiation or substantial Conversion of the Elements into Christs Body § 29 2. Adoration of the Eucharist i. e. of Christs Body and Blood as present in it which followes from the former § 30 3. The Sacrifice of the Mass not onely that of Prayers Praise and Thanksgivings nor only of the Mysteries in the consecrating of them offered as a Commemorative of the Passion a thing conceded also by learned Protestants but also of the very Body and Blood of Christ in these Mysteries which thing follows from the first Point offered in this Service pro vivis Defunctis c. 4. Invocation of the Blessed Virgin and Saints § 31 And 5. Such Prayer for the dead as infers their present condition before the day of Judgement whatever their restraint or sufferings be to be conceived better able by the Intercessions of the Living Do appear to have been universally held and practised and the approbation and conformity to them imposed by the Ecclesiastical Governors both of the Greek and Latine Church at the coming of Luther § 32 The clearning of which because it is a consideration of great importance and not meet to be omitted nor can be here inserted without making too great a Parenthesis and distracting your thoughts from the matter in hand I have rather chosen to annex it at the end of this discourse Cap. 11. § 158. referring you to that place for the perusal thereof if not in this matter already satisfied § 33 This then concerning the 6 th Proposition The Protestants affirming that the Catholick Church of some age may incurr and maintain dangerous
is so great and considerable as to invalidate the ratification of the rest when not Nor see I how it can be reasonably defided yet a thing of greatest consequence unless herein the minor will be content to follow the judgment of the much major part concerning what Councils stand thus admitted or rejected which rule were it observed then both in a valid acceptance of the Councils held in the Western Church in latter ages Protestants will be cast and by the determinations of those Councils several of their Disputes ended Mean while upon these and other pretences so it is that of 16. Councils or thereabouts reckoned up by the Cardinal ‖ De Council l. 1. c 5. whose Decrees all the Western Churches wherein several of these Councils the most General that those times could afford were called for ending of some Controversies that both a rose in and troubled only the West of 16. Councils I say which the Western Parts generally accepted when Luther appeared and which all the rest of the Western Churches except these Reformers continue still to approve they allow none of them that have handled matters of Controversie wherein the present times are concerned after the four first or the 5 th and 6 th but then cutting off here the Canons made in Trullo even those wherein both East and West consented and so do allow none of any note that have been held in the Church for near this 1000 years there being none of the more famous of them and the acts whereof are exstant wherein something hath not been passed that is contrary to the present Protestant Tenents ‖ See 1 Disc §. 50. n. 2. § 38 9ly To the Decrees of these General Council also when universally acknowledged such which yet when so they say may err in non necessaries they grant indeed an obedience due by all Inferiors Persons or Churches And consequently to those Decrees in which they hold such Councils unerrable i. e. in necessaries if all these necessaries were certainly distinguishable from all other points that are not so they must allow due an obedience of assent § 39 But 10ly They allow not absolutely This obedience of assent to their decrees ‖ Stillingf p. 506. but onely where inferiors see just cause of dissenting as sometimes they say they may since all these Councils are liable to error in non-fundamentals which also it is not known how far they do extend that of silence and non-publick contradiction § 40 The Church of England indeed professeth her Assent to the Definitions of the first four General Councils and Mr. Stillingfleet I know not on what Protestant ground saith ‖ P. 375. It is her duty to keep their Decrees and be guided by the sence of Scripture as interpreted by them But you may observe that this assent is not yeilded to those Councils because lawfully general and so presumed to be assisted by our Lord in the right defining and delivery of all necessary Faith for they say lawful General Councils not universally accepted in their sence may err in Fundamentals and those Councils that are universally accepted may err in Non-fundamentals but because the matter defined by them the Church of England being for Her self judge hereof ought to be assented to as being agreeable to the Scriptures and the Assent * is not yeilded for the Authority defining as infallibly assisted in necessaries but for the seeming evidence of the thing defined or at least for the non-appearing evidence of the contrary * is not yeilded because that particular persons or Churches are to take that for the true sence of Scripture which these Councils may possibly give of it but because those Councils gave in their Definitions that sence of Scripture which such particular Persons or Churches judge the true so that the reason which they give for their Assent to these General Councils obligeth as much their Assent to them had they been Provincial And upon the same terms as one person or Church assents to these Councils because they judge their Decrees consonant to Gods Word another without withdrawing any due obedience may dissent who judgeth the contrary and the authority or decision laies on Christians no ground of obligation as to belief save the reasonableness or non-appearing unreasonableness of the Councils Doctrines and submission of judgement is held not lawfully yeilded by any to whom the contrary seems evident and by all others is to be only conditional viz. until the contrary shall appear evident To this purpose §. 41. n. 1. see the 21 Article of the Church of England General Councils may err wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation have neither strength nor authority unless it may be declared that they were taken out of holy Scripture See the Act of Parliament 1 Elizabethae c. 1. wherein the determing or adjudging any thing Heresie by any Council is thus limited If in such Council the same is declared Heresie by the express and plain words of the Canonical Scriptures The words are Provided that such persons c. shall not have authority to determine any matters to be Heresie but only such as heretofore have been determined ordered or adjudged to be Heresie by the authority of the Canonical Scriptures or by the first four General Councils or any of them or by any other General Councils wherein the same was declared Heresie by the Express and plain words of the said Canonical Scriptures And see in Soave p. 344. 366. the exceptions taken by Protestants at the safe-conduct of the Council of Trent for not adding to the authority of Councils and Fathers fundantesse veraciter in Scriptura as it run formerly in the safe-conduct of Basil That the Councils Fathers c. conformable to the Scripture should be Judges by which means the Protestants reserved this retreat when Councils appeared against them that yet they were not obliged by them because these Councils went also against the Scriptures See Dr. Fern Consid p. 19. To all the determinations of the Church we owe submission by Assent and belief conditional with reservation for evidence out of Gods Word and In matters of Faith saith he we cannot submit to any company of men by resignation of our judgement and belief or standing bound to receive for faith and worship all that they shall define and impose for such for such resignation gives to man what is due to God See Arch-bishop Laud p. 245. General Councils lawfully called c. cannot err keeping themselves to Gods Rule And p. 239. In all truth necessary to Salvation saith he I shall easily grant a General Council cannot err if suffering it self to be led by the Spirit of Truth in the Scripture and not taking upon it to lead both the Scripture and the Spirit See Dr. Field p. 666. It is not necessary for us expresly to believe whatsoever the Council hath concluded though it be true unless by some other means it appear unto us
to be true and we be convinced of it in some other sort than by the bare determination of the Council only But it sufficeth that we be ready expresly to believe it if it shall be made to appear unto us See Dr. Hammond of Heresie p. 96. ' It is hence manifest also what is the ground of that reverence that is by all sober Christians deemed due and paid to the first four General Councils Because 1st They set down and convinced the Truth of their Doctrine out of the Scripture 2ly Because they were so near the Apostles times when the sence of the Apostles might more easily be fetched from those Men and Churches to whom they had committed it Thus he though besides that the first of these Councils was almost at 300. years distance the reason of obedience to Church Governors given by Doctor Hammond elsewhere ‖ Of Fundamentals p. 903. viz. ' Because Christ speaks to us in those Governors as his immediate successors in the Prophetick Pastoral Episcopal office infers that the Churches authority in all ages is equally valid and so voids this reason He goes on 3dly Because the great Fundamental Doctrines of Christianity were the matter of their definitions yet he saith see Disc 1. § 6. that General Councils are no infallible Guide in Fundamentals and ‖ Of Heresy p. 115. that it is the matter of the Decrees and the Apostolicalness of them and the force of the testification whereby they are approved and acknowledged to be such which gives the authority to the Council and nothing else is sufficient where that is not to be found See Mr. Chillingw p. 118. Dr. Potter §. 41. n. 2. together with the Article of the Church of England attributeth to the Church nay to particular Churches and I subscribe to his opinion an authority of determining Controversies of faith according to plain and evident Scripture and universal Tradition and infallibility whilst they proceed according to this Rule And p. 200. The Fathers of the Church saith he in after-times i. e. after the Apostles might have just cause to declare their judgment touching the sence of some General Article of the Creed but to oblige others to receive their Declarations under pain of damnation what warrant they had I know not He that can shew either that the Church of all Ages was to have this authority or that it continued in the Church for some Ages and then expired He that can shew either of these things let him for my part I cannot Yet I willingly confess the judgement of a Council though not infallible is yet so far directive and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to afford it an outward submission for publick peace sake See Mr. Whitby p. 92. We do appeal to the four first General Councils not because we believe them infallible but because we conceive them to agree with Scripture which is infallible so that we make them secondary not primary Guides we resolve not our belief of their decrees into their authority but into their agreement with Scripture we do not say we must believe this or that because any one of the first four General Councils hath defined it but because what the Council hath defined is evident in Scripture therefore do we believe it And if we should finde that in any Article they dissented from Scripture we should in that as much oppose them as we do you and p. 451. I answer with Dr Taylor that either these Councils are tyed to the Rule of Gods Word or not if the first then are they to be examined by it and to be followed no further than they adhere to this vnerring rule examined He means by those persons whom yet these Councils are to teach the sence of Scripture and p. 15. We generally acknowledge that no authority on earth obligeth to internal Assent This the firm ground i. e. his own judgement what Conciliary Decrees agree or disagree with Scripture that this young man builds on for the confuting of Mr. Cressies book See Mr. Stillingfleet p. 58. 59 133 154 252. and 375.517 compared There he saith on one side p. 375. That the Church of England looks on it as her duty to keep to the Decrees of the four General Councils And We profess saith he to be guided by the sence of Scripture as interpreted by the unanimous consent of the Fathers and the four first General Councils And p. 56. he saith That the Church of England admits not any thing to be delivered as the sence of Scripture which is contrary to the consent of the Catholick Church in the four first ages Here he seems to acknowledge a submission of Protestants to the consent of the Catholick Church in the four first ages and to the four first General Councils as their Guide for what is the sence of Scripture which seems to me no way to consist with a profession of submitting to the same Church or her Councils only when or as far as they agree in their Decrees with the sence of Scripture which last implies that I learn the sence of Scripture not from them but another and assent to them where they conform to that judgement of which I learn it Ibid He hath these two Propositions 2 That it is a sufficient prescription against any thing that can be alledged out of Scripture that it ought not to be looked on as the true meaning of the Scripture if it appears contrary to the sence of the Catholick Church from the beginning And this 2 That such Doctrines may well be judged destructive to the Rule of Faith which were so unanimously condemned by the Catholick Church within that time Where he allows not Christians to try and so assent to or dissent from the Decrees of Councils by what appears to them the sence of Scripture but refers them to learn the sence of Scripture from the Decrees of these first Councils But yet on the other side he contends how consistently I leave to the Readers judgement That the sence of the Catholick Church is not pretended to be any infallible Rule of interpreting Scripture in all things which concern the Rule of Faith And p. 17. concerning the necessity of believing the Articles of the Athanasian Creed he saith It is very unreasonable to imagine that the Chcurch of England doth own that necessity purely on the account of the Church's Definition of those things therein which are not Fundamental it being Directly contrary to her sence in her 19th and 20th Articles And that hence the supposed necessity of the belief of the Articles of this Creed must acccording to the sence of the Church of England be resolved either into the necessity of the matters or into that necessity which supposeth clear convictions that the things therein contained are of Divine Revelation And p. 133. He describes the Catholick Church a society of such persons who all
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
ecce illic ecce in deserto quasi ubi non est frequentia multitudinis ecce in cubiculis quasi in secretis traditionibus atque doctrinis Habetis Ecclesiam ubique diffundi crescere usque ad messem Habetis Civitatem de quâ ipse qui eam condidit ait non potest Civitas abscondi super montem posita Ipsa est ergo quae non in aliquâ parte terrarum sed ubique notissima est And Contra Cresconium l. 1. c. 33. He iterates the same Si autem dubitas quod Ecclesiam quae per omnes gentes numero sitate copiocissimâ dilatatur haec S. Scriptura commendat multis manifestissimis testimoniis ex eâdem authoritate the Scriptures prolatis onerabo where he that will say this Father speaks of the Church Catholicks only as it was in his not as it is to be in all times must also interpret those Scriptures from which he proves it to speak of his or some times only not of all which is absurd and would have voided S. Austine's arguing used against the Donatists then as well as any others now who might have replyed to him that these Texts were verified of some but not of their times And indeed they did urge that S. Austine's sence of them in application to the Church failed in the Arrian times and upon this See in his 48 Epistle his vindicating them to be verified of it in all times And it seems all reason that in the Scripture's describing that Church to whose bosome and Communion all people were for ever to resort the marks to know it by should be Universal and no more demonstrate to Christians the Church of one age than of another no more that in S. Austines times than that in ours to whose Faith and Communion Christians have in all times a like duty to conform and whose judgement a like necessity to consult Though it is willingly granted that such Properties admit of several degrees nor is it necessary either for its multitude extent or eminency that the Church should alway enjoy them in an equal proportion 3 ly Concerning our duty of crediting §. 82. n. 4. and adhering to the Church's testimony and judgement in matters controverted and obscure he thus discourseth ‖ Contra Cresconium l. 1. c. 33. against the Donatists who pleaded nothing in Scriptures could be shewed clear against them Proinde quamvis hujus rei certe de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum earundem tamen Scripturarum etiam in hac re a nobis tenetur veritas cum hoc facimus quod universae placuit Ecclesiae quam ipsarum Scripturarum commendat authoritas ut quoniam Sancta Scriptura fallere non potest quisquis falli metuit hujus obscuritate quaestionis eandem Ecclesiam de illâ consulat quam sine ullâ ambiguitate Sancta Scriptura demonstrat Again De Vnitate Ecclesiae c. 19. Hoc saith he aperte atque evidenter i.e. in the Scripture nec ego lego nec tu Nunc vero cum in Scripturis non inveniamus c puto si aliquis sapiens extitisset cui Dominus Jesus Christus testimonium perhibet that we should be directed by his judgment Et de hac quaestione consuleretur a nobis nullo modo dubitare deberemus id facere quod ille dixisset ne non tam ipsi quam Domino Jesu Christo cujus testimonio condemnatur repugnare judicaremur Perhibet autem testimonium Christus Ecclesiae suae 4. Lastly Concerning the benefit in adhering to §. 82. n. 5. and relying on the Church authority or testimony before that proved to us which yet she delivers to us he discourseth thus in his Book De utilitate Crerendi i.e. credendi Ecclesiae ‖ cap. 13. written not long after his Conversion to a former acquaintance ' qui irridebat as he saith ‖ Retract 1. l. c. 14. Catholicae fidei disciplinam qua juberentur credere homines non autem quid esset verum certissima ratione docerentur Recte saith he Catholicae disciplinae majestate institutum est ut accedentibus ad Religionem fides i.e. adhibenda anthoritati ecclesiae persuadiatur ante omnia and c. 10. Sed inquis nonne erat melius rationem mihi reddere ut quocunque ea me duceret sine ulla sequerer temeritate Erat fortasse sed cum res tantasit ut Deus tibi ratione cognoscendus sit omnesne putas idoneos esse percipiendis rationbus quibus ad divinam intelligentiam mens ducitur humana an plures an paucos ais existimo Quid Paucos caeteris ergo hominibus qui ingenio tam sereno praediti non sunt negandam Religionem putas If not such must receive this their Religion not from Reason but authority And c. 16. Authoritate decipi miserum est miserius non moveri Si Dei providentia non praesidet rebus humanis nihil est de Religione satagendum Non est desperandum ab eodem ipso Deo authoritatem aliquam constitutam qua velut gradu incerto innitentes attolamur in Deum Haec autem authoritas seposita ratione qua sincerâ intelligere it diximo difficilimum stultis est dupliciter nos movet partim miraculis paâ—â—â—â—â—quentium multitudine And c. 8. He thus exhorts his scepties Friend Honoratus seduced by the Manicheans Si jam satis jactatus videris sequere viam Catholicae Disciplinae quae ab ipso Christo per Apostolos ad nos usque manavit abhinc ad posteros manatura est Those who can humble their reason so far as to embrace this holy Counsil through the abundant providence of God will find no great difficulty in discerning their right Guides and chusing the true Religion CHAP. VII Whether the Church of England doth not require assent to her Articles of Religion Several Canons in her Synods seeming to require it § 83. n. 1. The complaint of the Presbyterians concerning it § 83. n. 4. The Doctrine of her Divines § 84. n. 1. Where concerning the just importance of Negative Articles § 84. n. 1. and 85. n. 2. and concerning conditional assent § 84. n. 4. and 85. n. 10. That to some of the 39 Articles assent is due and ought to be required § 85. n. 1. That the Roman Church doth not require assent to all the Canons of her Councills as to points Fundamental i. e. of any of which a Christian nescient cannot be saved § 85. n. 4. That obedience either of assent or non-contradiction if required by the Church of England to all the 39. Articles seems contrary to the Laws of the Church and to the Protestant Principles § 85. n. 11. AFter this view of the 2. present opposit Churches §. 83. n. 1. which of them more resembles the ancient Catholick the latter whereof the Protestant Churches seem to build the defence of the Reformation and the Vindication of their liberty from former Church-laws upon the denial of any such obedience
of assent or belief due thereto as was exacted by the former Church and her Councils of which matter see what is said before § 39. c. I think fit before I proceed to the 2 d. thing proposed ‖ §. 66. the answering the many difficulties and objections urged against any Infallible Church Authority to search here first more particularly whether this liberty which Protestants claime in respect of an authority superiour the Councils and former Church yet be not denyed by them to their Subjects at least by the Church of England if we may informe our selves out of the most obvious sence of several of those Canons made in the late National Synods thereof 1. That then the National Synods of the Church of England notwithstanding their heavy accusations of the Council of Trent for the like practices do exact the Obedience of Assent to their Decrees and that under pain of Excommunication or of such persons being out off from the Unity of the Church and so if the Excommunication be just of such person if impenitent being cut off from the Body of Christ and taken of the whole multitude of the Faithful as an Heathen and Publican ‖ Ar. of Church of England 33. See 1 st the Synod held under K. James 1603. the 4 th anon whereof runs thus Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that the forme of Gods Worship established by Law and contained in the Book of Common Prayer containeth any thing in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures let him be Excommunicated ipso facto and not restored but after his Repentance and publick Revocation of such his wicked Errors Again thus Can. 5. Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that any of the 39. Articles agreed upon by the whole Clergy in the Convocation held 1562. for the avoiding diversities of opinions and for the establishing of consent touching true Religion are in any part erroneous or such as he may not with a good Conscience subscribe unto let him be Excommunicated ipso facto and not restored but after his Repentance and publick revocation of such his wicked errours To which may be added * the title Prefixed to the 39. Articles which saith that these Articles were drawn up for the avoiding diversities of opinions for the establishing of consent touching true Religion And * those words in the Preface to the same Articles Requiring all the Subjects of this Church to continue in the uniforme profession thereof and prohibiting the lest difference from the said Articles Here then 1 st the Church of England in the Title and the 5 th Canon declares that these Articles were drawn up for the avoiding of diversities of opinions and for the establishing of Consent But how doth the drawing-up or also the imposing of these Articles effect the avoiding diversities of opinions if the Church by this act layes no restraint at all upon opinions nor the Subscription required to them imply any assent to or belief of them or how effect the establishing of consent if all the obedience the Church requires to them be only a non-contradiction 2. Again here in the preface to the Articles not only silence and non-renouncing but professing of them is required but none are tied to profess any thing but what they also are tied either to believe or to profess though against their Conscience 3. Again In the 5 th Canon the words Erroneous or such as he may not with a good Conscience subscribe do imply that he cannot with a good Conscience subscribe to them who thinks them erroneous but any may subscribe to them with a good conscience though they be erroneous if the subscription only oblige to non-contradiction for none are bound in conscience to contradict every thing that they hold an errour 4 ly Here in the 4 th and 5 th Canon the Church of England Excommunicates them that affirme such and such things not till they repent of and publickly revoke their unpeaceful or turbulent contradiction of her decree but till they repent of and revoke their wicked errours and see Can 12 revoke their Anabaptistical errours where Annabaptisticall joyned to Errour clearly applies the word Errour not to the act of contradicting but to the matter wherein such a one contradicts Now Excommunication here till one revokes his Errours is till one changeth or at least professeth that he changeth his opinion for one may revoke or Repent of his Contradiction who doth not at all of his Errours which contradiction is not an Errour of the understanding but a fault of manners which also we easily rectifie without repenting of or revoking any former opinion and consequently without revoking our Errour But here the Excommunication extends to this latter Where if by any ones publickly revoking his wicked Errours be meant only the revoking of the divulging of his wicked Errour then would such a recantation as this be sufficient to restore such an excommunicated person to the Churche 's Communion I hold indeed my former tenent still but heartily repend and am sorry that I have divulged it nor will I for the future do the like But such reconciliative recantations we know are never accepted amongst the Reformed unless such persons condemn also their former Doctrines as false and acknowledge for true and Orthodox those of the Church Again In this matter I aske If any one when required by the Church to declare his opinion doth affirm such a wicked Errour to the affirmers whereof the Church hath denounced Excommunication for Example affirms the King not to be Supreme in Ecclesiastical matters against the 2d Canon whether is he not in such a case by that Canon liable to Excommunication If he be them it is not because he declareth what he holdeth for how can the Church Excommunicate him for doing that which she requireth of him i. e. for declaring what he holdeth upon her interrogation but because he holdeth that which he ought not i. e. for his opinion for his wicked Errour as she there calls it And doth not the Church of England likewise allow of the King 's requiring in the Oath of Supremacy touching this point not only a non-affirmation of the contrary or a non-contradicting of such a truth but a sincere acknowledgment in his conscience and a believing of it I do utterly testify and declare in my conscience c. So also the Parliament 13 Elizab. 12. requireth That every one that hath an Ecclesiastical living declare his assent and subscribe to the 39. Articles of Religion And that no person be admitted to any Benefice with cure except he shall first have subscribed the same Articles with declaration of his unfeigned assent in the same Here you see the subscription interpreted assent Now will the Church deny the lawfulness of the Act of the State passed by the Lords Spiritual as well as Temporal Or may not a Church though fallible enjoyn or require as much acknowledgement as much assent in a matter of Faith as the said Church
the days of Edward the Sixth Expedit quidem saith he prospicere desultoriis Ingeniis quae sibi nimium licere volunt claudenda est etiam janua curiosis doctrinis Ratio autem expedita ad eam rem una est Si exstet nempe summa quaedam doctriâ—ae ab omnibus recepta quam inter praedicandum sequantur omnes ad quam etiam observandam omnes Episcopi Parochi jurejurando adstringantur ut nemo ad munus Ecclaesiasticum admittatur nisi spondeat sibi illum doctrinae consensum inviolatum futurum Quod ad formulam precum rituum Ecclaesiasticorum valde probo ut certa illa extet a qua Pastoribus discedere in functione sua non liceat ut obviam eatur desultoriae quorundam levitati qui novationes quasdam affectant Here I understand him to require the Clergy to be obliged by Oath to receive and Preach such a certain forme of Doctrine and to practice such Ecclesiastical Rites as shall be agreed upon by their Governours In which thing if He speaks reason what can more justify the proceedings of the Church-Catholick in restraining not only her Subjects tongues but tenents and opinions in matters which she judgeth of necessary belief Notwithstanding these evidences cited above §. 84. n. 1. implying assent required to the Articles of the Church of England yet her Divines when charged therewith by Roman Catholicks do return many answers and Apologies whereby they seem either to deny any such thing or at least do pretend a moderation therein very different from the Roman Tiranny 1 rst Then they say α That they require not any oath but a Subscription only to these their Articles ‖ Bishop Bramhal Reply to Chal. p. 264. 2. β Require subscription only from their own not from strangers See Bishop Bramhall vindic p. 155. And This Church prescribes only to her own Children whereas the Church of Rome severely imposeth her Doctrine upon the whole World saith Bishop Lawd ‖ P. 52. 3. γ Nor yet require it of all their own but only of those who seek to be initiated into holy Orders or are to be admitted to some Ecclesiastical preferment ‖ Bishop Brambal vind p. 156. 4. δ These Articles not penned with Anathemas or curses against all those even of their own who do not receive them 5 ly ε Subscription not required to them as Articles of their Faith or at least as all of them Articles Fundamental of their Faith as belief is required to all hers as such by the Church of Rome but only required to them as Theo ogical veritie ‖ Bâ—amh Reply p. 350. and Inferiour truths †Stillingfleet p. 54. To this purpose Bishop Bramhall Reply p. 350. We do use to subscribe unto them indeed not as Articles of Faith but as Thelogical verities for the preservation of unity among our selves Again ‖ Ib. p. 277. Though perhaps some of our negatives were reveald truths and consequently were as necessary to be believed when they are known as affirmatives yet they do not therefore become such necessary truths or Articles of Religion as make up the rule of Faith which rule of Faith he saith there consists of such supernatural truths as are necessary to be known of every Christian not only necessitate praecepti because God hath commanded us to believe them ‖ See Schism guarded p. 396 but also necessitate medii because without the knowledge of them in some tolerable degree according to the measure of our capacities we cannot in an ordinary way attain to Salvation And ‖ Reply p. 264. We do not saith he hold our 39. Articles to be such necessary truths extra quas non est â—alus nor enjoyn Ecclesiastick persons to swear unto them but only to subscribe them as Theological truths And thus the Arch Bishop ‖ p. 51. All points are made Fundamental and that to all mens belief if that Church the Roman hath once determined them whereas the Church of England never declared that every one of her Articles are Fundamental in the Faith To which they add ζ That as for those of these Articles that are positive doctrines and Articles of their Faith they are such as are grounded in Scripture and General Truths about which there is no controversy ‖ Bramh. vindic p. 159. and such saith Mr. Stillingfleet †p. 54. as have the testimony and approbation of the whole Christian World of all ages and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self η And then as for the rest of those Articles they are only negative as the Arch Bishop ‖ p. 52. refuting there where the thing affirmed by the Roman-Church is not affirmed by Scripture nor directly to be concluded out of it Or as Bishop Bramhall ‖ Vindic. p. 159 They are no new articles or innovations obtruded upon any but negations only of humane controverted Traditions †Reply p. 279. and Refutations of the Roman suppositious principles ‖ Ib. p. 277. And though some of them were revealed truths c. as before yet do they not therfore make up the rule of Faith ‖ i. e. as this Rule is before explained θ 6 ly That such subscription whether of positives or negatives is required by the Church of England to a few in comparison of that multitude of Articles made on the other side Though the Church of England saith the Aâ—chb ‖ p. 51. denounce Excommunication as is before expressed yet she comes far shoâ—t of the Church of Romes severity whos 's Anathema's are not only for 39. Articles but fer very many more about one hundred in matter of Doctrine 7 ly ξ Concerning the just importance and extent of such subscription several expressions I find that the Subscribers do not stand obliged thereby * to believe these Articles § 84. n. 2 and the reason given because the Church is fallible but only * not to oppose not to contradict them To this purpose We do not look saith Bishop Bramhall ‖ Bishop Bramh. Schism garded p. 190 Stillingf p. 55. upon the Articles of the Church of England as Essentials of saving Faith or Legacies of Christ and his Apostles but in a mean as pious opinions fitted for the preservation of unity neither do we oblige any man to believe them but only not to contradict them And Si quis diversum dixerit we question him Si quis diversum senserit if any man think otherwise in his private opinion and trouble not the peace of the Church we question him not ‖ Vindic. p. 156. Again λ Never any son of the Church of England was punished for dissenting from the Articles in his judgement so he did not publish it by word or writing After the same manner speaks Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ P. 104. The Church of England excommunicates such as openly oppose her Doctrine supposing her fallible the Roman Church excommunicates all who will not believe
whatever she defines to be infallibly true And The Church of England bindeth men to peace to the Churches Determinations reserving to men the liberty of their judgements on pain of Excommunication if they violate that peace And Mr. Chillingworth saith ‖ P. 375. That Protestants cannot with coherence to their own grounds require of others the belief of any thing besides Scripture and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it without most high and most Schismatical presumption plain irrefragable indubitable consequences such therefore cannot be the most of the 39. Articles we know by how great a part of Christianity controverted denied Lastly thus the Arch-bishop answering to the fifth Canon of the Church of England objected by A. C. ‖ P. 51. It's one thing for a man to hold an opinion privately within himself and another thing boldly and publickly to affirm it as if that Canon prohibited only the latter of these This then seems of late the commoner exposition of subscription and most suitable to the Protestant Principles 8. But 8 ly Some other expressions also fall from the same Writers §. 84. n. 3. and others intimating assent required For 1 st The Arch-bishop saith concerning the fifth Article that perhaps only publick affirmation is the sence of it but speaks nothing clearly against assent required by it and I suppose he saw good reason for it I pray you view the place in him So in the precedent page he saith The Church of England is not such a shrew to her Children as to deny her blessing or denounce and Anathema against them if some peaceably dissent in some particulars remoter from the Foundation Where this restriction remoter from the Foundation seems so to indulge dissent in respect of some of the 39. Articles as that she doth not allow it generally in respect of them all unless any will say all the Articles are such So Mr. Whitby ‖ P. 100. in his Answer to Mr. Cressy amongst other ifs puts in this for one If they the English Church-Governours require a positive assent it is because the thing determined is to be evident in Scripture c. We do use saith Bishop Bramball ‖ Reply p. 349. to subscribe unto them indeed not as Articles of Faith but as Theological verities is not this a subscribing that they assent to or hold them for Theological verities So p. 264. We do require Ecclesiastical persons only to subscribe them as Theological Truths for the preservation of unity among us and the extirpation of some growing errors and Mr. Stillingfleet useth the same expression from him To subscribe them as Theological Truths meaneth he not here to subscribe that they are Theological Truths For the preservation of unity means he not unity of Opinion and of the Profession of such Truths As the title also prefixed to the Articles mentioned before ‖ §. 83. n. 1. imports saying That the Articles were drawn up for the avoiding diversities of Opinions and establishing consent Else where diversity of Opinion is allowed in all things what extirpation of errours which follows in the next words can be hoped 9. μ Lastly §. 84. n. 4. I find frequent mention in these Authors of a conditional assent or belief required in general as due to the Churches proposals whether concerning matters of Faith or other constitutions yet without any particular application thereof to the 39. Articles Conditional viz. Then * when a person is not competent to search her grounds or * where the Church adheres to and forsakes no part of the Apostles depofitum or * when she proveth and evidenceth to them the truth of what she proposeth or * so long as they cannot evidence and prove to her the contrary But then they leave the judgement of this condition when she sufficiently proves such a thing or they the contrary when the party is not competent to search grounds or when the Church adheres not to the Apostles Depositum to themselves and not to the Church reserving to every private person the ultimate judgement a judgement of discretion as they call it See Dr. Ferne's Case between the two Churches p. 40.48 49. Division of Churches p. 45.47 61. Considerations p. 19. Dr. Feild p. 666. Dr. Jackson on the Creed l. 2. § 1. c. 5. 6. out of which see some Quotations before § 20. Dr. Hammond's answer to a Catholick Gentleman p. 16.17 Dispatcher dispatched c. 5. p. 358. Having seen this defence of Learned Protestants for the Church of England her composing new Articles of Religion §. 85. n. 1. and exacting of her Subjects subscription and conformity to them wherein they endeavour to represent the Yoke of these her Articles and her Excommunications very light though the Presbyterians groan under the weight thereof in comparison of that of the Roman Canons and their Anathemas Now give me leave to make some reflection on what they have said and out of these to return answers to the precedents so far as it seems necessary Obs 1 1 st Then this is clear that they confining their Rule of Faith within as narrow a compass as they please yet some of their 39. Articles will be found to be a part of it and to be such supernatural truths as are necessary to be known of every Christian necessitate medii and such as extra quo◠non est salus as well as some of those in Pius's Bull or in the Council of Trent are Of this sort must several of the 1 st 8. Articles be concerning the Trinity Son of God c. And I ask whether they are not willing that some other of them as 8. The fall of Adam 18. Salvation only by Christ 15. Christ only without sin 11 Justification by Faith 25.27 Two Sacraments ordained by Christ and these not only bare signs but effectual Instruments of Grace 6. Sufficiency of the holy Scripture for Salvation be admitted into the Rule of the Protestants Faith but thrown amongst Theological and inferior verities Since then it is most certain that some of their Articles are part of their Rule and of the most necessary and fundamental Faith Next I ask concerning these whether in the liberty they profess in their Church and the want of it they accuse in the Roman they require no assent from their Subjects or at least from those of them whom they admit to H. Orders and Ecclesiastical Preferments to these Articles or whether they do not require them to profess and teach all or some of them at least which they cannot do unless they also oblige them to hold them for none may profess against what he thinks and therefore who is tyed by them to profess so is by them tyed to think so But if they do not require such assent then may one that holds against them the 〈◊〉 Doctrines in several of the prime Articles of their Faith not only enjoy their Communion but sit down among their Doctors only if as he believeth professeth
or teacheth none of these Articles so he do not teach or profess the contrary but spend his discourses on other subjects See now whether there may not be some reason for that which is observed before § 84. n. 3. concerning the Arch-bishop Obs 2 2 ly Concerning those other Articles of which it is said that they are no new positive Articles of the Protestant Faith but only negations §. 85. n. 2. and refurations of new Roman assertions and additions You may note concerning them 1 st In General that Negatives may be Scripture-truths revealed therein matter of our Faith and as necessary to be believed as Bishop Bramhall granteth ‖ Reply to Chalced p. 227. when known to be revealed as any affirmative and possitive Articles are and the most Fundamental Articles may be as well negatively as affirmatively proposed and seeing that the one necessarily implies and inferrs the other as one is ratione medii necessary to Salvation so is the other So the negative Articles in the Nicen or Athanasian Creed Pater non creatus a nullo genitus non tres â—atres Filius non factus Filius unus non conversione divinitatis in carnem aut confusione Substantiarum are Articles of as necessary belief as the positives and indeed the same with them the same with Pater unus Pater eternus Filius genitus Filius ex duabus naturis consistens And they as much Hereticks that affirm any of these negatives as that deny the affirmative 2 ly Concerning the Negatives in the 39. Articles of the Church of England if they be well considered you may find that they are both in the Articles pretended to be Scripture and revealed truths and that all or most of them are equivalent to affirmatives and as new and positive on the one side as the Roman Articles which they contradict are pretended on the other and the Protestants Confession of Faith supposing him obliged to believe these Negatives as large and as particular on the one side as the Roman or Tridentine is on the other as to the maine Controversies that are bandied between the two Churches and these not only privatively but positively opposite For no difference can be made in the thing but only in the expression between a negative and positive Article where the negative implies and is equivalent to the affirmative of its contrary as it is where the contraries are immediate and the one of them is necessarily put wherever the other denied As God being granted a substance He that denies him to be a corporeal substance in this he affirmes him to be a Spiritual and so those that deny here something which others affirme in this must needs affirme somthing which the others deny and the negative may be as we please changed into another positive and he who had before the positive shall have now the negative side He that denies any Soules after this life to go into any temporal purgatory affirms them to go into Bliss or Pain Eternal and he that affirms Purgatory denies this So he that denies a Transubstantiation in the Eucharist affirmes the Substance of the Symboles to remain there and so e contra Hence he that hath 39. Articles of his Faith whereof 30. are in the expression negative 9. positive hath in matters wherein the one contrary being excluded the other is admitted as it is in most of these Articles of Religion that are in debate no fewer positive Articles of his Faith than he who hath 39. expresly positive and again he who hath 39 positive cannot but have 39. Negative also and e contra only a negative confession argues a former contest And as Faith so Heresie is conversant in either And here also note that it is one thing for a Church meerly to exclude from or omit in her Articles or confessions of Faith those points which another Church defineth i. e not to tye her Subjects to believe them and another thing to tye her Subjects to believe the Negatives of them or not to believe them Which is indeed a defining one way as much as the other Church doth the other way For Example 'T is one thing not to tye her subjects to believe or hold the Roman Doctrine concerning Purgatory Pardons Images Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints c. and another thing to tye her subjects to believe or hold that the Romish Doctrines concerning Purgatory c. are vainly invented or grounded on no warrant of Scripture but rather repugnant to the Word of God as it is in the 22. Article Ecclesiae Anglic. Neither can the Church of Rome be here more justly questioned in her not leaving points in Universals only and their former indifferency but new-stating Purgatory Transubstantiation c. than the Reformed for their new-stating the contrary to these Which to make more perspicuous §. 85. n. 3. It is to be noted that of those who seem in their Theological Positions to affirm lesâ— and so to make fewer Articles of their Faith than some others do there are two sorts 1. Either such as peremptorily deny the truth of those additionals which the other affirm 2. Or such as do suspend their judgement concerning such additionals neither affirming nor denying them for truths only denying that the others as yet do prove or evidence them to be so Now though it may be said of these later that indeed they do not make so many Articles of Faith or new definitions as the other do and so also that they seem much more safe and modest in the paucity of their Credends because they who neither affirm nor deny a Tenent cannot err in it yet the former who deny as far and as peremptorily every new point as the other affirm it these can free themselves from no curiosity tyranny liableness to errour c. wherein they pretend the other to transgress nor can plead any safety in their Doctrine viz. in their not erring because not determining but do ingage every whit as far in such points as their adversaries do one in holding and endeavouring to prove such a thing a truth the other in holding and endeavouring to prove it an error And this is the case of the Church of England which suspends not her judgment in those new points which the Roman defines nor denies them onely to be proved or clear in the Scripture but denies them as Errors and things contrary to Scripture So Purgatory Adoration of Images and Reliques Invocation of Saints Indulgences are declared repugnant to Gods Word Art 22. Works of Supereorgation Art 14. Publick Prayer or Ministery of the Sacraments in a Tongue not understood by the People Art 24. Denying of the Cup to the People Art 30. Sacrifice of the Mass Art 31. Transubstantiation Art 28. Now he that believes Transubstantiation for Example to be contrary to Scripture makes the contrary to Transubstantiation to be Scripture and so to be also a point of his Faith if Scripture be so and hence the
English Church in obliging her Subjects to believe these points Errors which the Roman Church doth hers to believe Truths hath in his as large a Creed as the other if the other hath Twelve new Articles so in her stating the contrary to them hath she and is equally tyrannical or more because the Articles of the other are the elder of the two the Subjects of the one having no liberty left to affirm them as of the other to deny them For Example A Subject of the Church of England supposing him obliged to believe her Articles true hath no more liberty left to hold Transubstantiation a Truth than a Romanist hath to hold it an Error Or to instance in the implyed affirmative that is maintained in opposition to Transubstantiation on the Church of Englands side a Subject of this Church hath no more liberty left to hold the remaining of the Substance of the Symbols in the Eucharist an Error than those of the Roman have to hold it a Truth This of the first sort those who as peremptorily deny a thing as the others affirm it But next you may observe that neither are the later sort who suspend their judgment because such point seems not proved to them in this always the most secure and safe If the proposers to them of that point be such persons as they are commanded to believe unless themselves can prove the contrary to it which is the case of all those who have Spiritual Superiors and if the knowledge of such a Truth be any way profitable to their Salvation which Truths I suppose these Superiors never define without foreseeing First such Doctrines defined beneficial to be known This from § 85. n. 2. is my 2d. Observation concerning the Church of Englands negative Articles 3ly You may observe §. 85. n. 4. that when these Protestant Writers say Obs 3 that these 39 Articles that is the most of them or the negatives see Observation 1. ‖ §. 85. n. 1. are not made by them Articles of their Faith they explain themselves to mean not made fundamental Articles of their Faith or such the belief of which is necessary ratione medii for attaining salvation and such as extra quas creditas non est salus ‖ § 84. n. 1. they meanwhile not denying that whatever is Scripture and a revealed Divine Truth is an Article of our Faith i. e. as Bp. Bramhall Necessary to be believed and assented to by us when it is known to be revealed Now as they do not make the most of their 39 Articles the rule or articles of their Faith in the forenamed sense so neither doth the Roman Church or Council of Trent her Canons whatever Protestants tell the World so often to the contrary Fundamental indeed they call sometimes all points defined by the Churches Councils and hold them necessary to be believed for attaining salvation but not necessary in such a sense as ratione medii necessary or absolutely extra quas creditas non est salus but onely necessary to be believed upon supposition of a sufficient proposal of them to any person that they have been so defined Again necessarily to be believed also for attaining Salvation not because that no person can be saved and that after the Churches definition of them in his not believing them But because if after such proposal and sufficient notice given him of their being defined he believe them not he now stands guilty in this his disobedience to his supreme spiritual Guides of a mortal sin unrepented of destructive of his Salvation A thing spoken plainly enough by the answerer of the Archbishops Book §. 85. n. 5. and yet misrepresented by the Replier ‖ p 48 49. who imposeth these propositions as maintained by the Roman Church That what the Church determines as matter of Faith is as necessary to be believed in order to Salvation as that which is necessary from the matter i. e. necessary ratione medii And that an equal explicit faith is required to the definitions of the Church as to the Articles of the Creed and that there is an equal necessity in order to Salvation of believing both of them Whenas he might easily have informed himself that there is not an equal necessity required by the Roman Church of the very Articles of the Creed in order to Salvation and whenas not onely this one condition of the Churche's having defined them for none are obliged necessarily to believe explicitly whatsoever the Church hath defined but a second also of a sufficient proposal to us of what the Church hath defined renders her Definitions necessary to be believed and then necessary to be believed indeed as to the doing of our duty in order to our Salvation but not all of them necessary to be believed as if the knowledg of them were so necessary to our Salvation as that without this it could not be had as that of some of the Articles of the Creed is Neither is the Greek Church one ground of this authors mistake by F. Fisher or others of the Roman Church charged as guilty of Heresie in any other manner save this that supposing a lawful General Council accepted by the Church Catholick to have defined The procession of the H. Ghost à Filio so many of the Greek Church as have received a sufficient proposal that such a Council hath so defined it if they continue to deny or disbelieve it are guilty of Heresie leaving the rest free unless it can be proved that à Filio is a Fundamental in the other sense i. e. ratione medii free I say so many amongst them as happen to be either by natural defect and incapacity or external want of instruction invincibly and inculpably ignorant either of the just authority of such a Council or of its Divinely assisted inerrability in all necessaries or of such its Decree or of the true sense thereof which persons indeed by reason of the evidence of all these things cannot be the most or the learned but yet may be some for all in an Heretical Church are not affirmed Hereticks though the Churches censures according to the reasonable grounds of conviction concerning any such point generally published are passed upon all that are involved in such a Society whilst God who knows all capacities absolves from them whom he seeth innocent and preserves his Wheat from the fire though by the Church bound in the same bundle with the Tares As for the other ground of the Replyers mistake ‖ Stillin p 48. That famous passage of Pius Hanc veram Catholicam Fidem extra quam c. he might have learn'd to have made a more moderate and qualified construction of it from his own descant on the like clause in the Athanasian Creed Haec est Fides Catholica quam nisi quisque c. where he ‖ p. 70 71. could well discover a conditional necessity as to some of the Articles thereof viz. A necessity
of believing them upon conviction that they were of Divine Revelation why not then allow such a one here extra quam nulla salus i. e. to such as receive a sufficient proposal of their being so defined and therefore do or might receive a sufficient conviction that they must also be Divine Truth Though for a fuller answer to that clause of Pius I must refer you to the considerations on the Council of Trent § 80. n. 2. Now to proceed in our Discourse Fundamental therefore the Church of Rome affirms many of her Canons for I speak not of all not so to be §. 85. n. 6. but that 1st A Christian may be ignorant of them without loss of his salvation and indeed amongst the vulgar who is there that is not ignorant of several of them Onely in time of need and where danger of seducement as any Canon is of greater moment or the truth thereof particularly invaded the Pastors are vigilant to inform their Sheep of the Churches former definitions of them 2ly Nay further may hold the contrary to some of them though defined yet if not sufficiently proposed to him that they are so without loss of salvation 3ly In ones holding the contrary to them after sufficiently proposed I mean both the decree manifested to him and the just authority that made it and the divine assistance thereof the loss of salvation doth not ensue nor the Churche's censures take hold on such a person for the simple non-believing the matter of such Canon or for the holding of the contrary For if this the meer non-believing or the holding of the contrary to any Church-definition whatever abstracting from a sufficient proposal that such thing hath been defined by the Church were enough to destroy any ones salvation then so this would be before the Churches determination of such Point or so would be to the invincibly ignorant after it a thing which no Catholick affirms and see S. Austins stating of this matter de Baptis 4.16 before § 18. Though it is freely granted here that the ignorance of such a truth as is beneficial for our salvation which all definitions of Councils are supposed to be to some or other both after and also before the Councils defining thereof may confer something in its degree according to the benefit of the truth one miscarries in to the loss of his salvation The Churche's censures therefore I say as to many of her Canons are incurr'd and salvation ruin'd not for the meer disbelieving such Point defined but for obstinately doing this after sufficient ground of conviction that such an authority hath so defin'd it Posiquam ea quae ad fidem pertinent authoritate Vniversalis Ecclesiae determinata sunt si quis tali ordinationi pertinaciter repugnat haereticus censetur ‖ S Thom. 22.11 q. 2. Qui autem ex ignorantiâ crassâ vel etiam affectatâ saith Layman out of the common Doctrine of the Casuists †Theol moral â—2 Tract 1 13. c. propter inquirendi taedium c. errorem aliquem contra fidem tenet eum statim derelicturus si intelligat Catholicae Ecclesiae repugnantem esse talis non est pertinax nec Haereticus So that the Churches Anathema in many of her Canons seizeth on a person not so much for the matter of his error though this not denied to some degree hurtful to him and diminishing his perfection in the Faith as the pertinasy of his erring and the contumacie and perverseness of his will disobeying the Church and his Spiritual Superiors sufficiently manifesting the contrary truth to be her Doctrine and a portion of the Christian Faith and manifesting it always for some good ends of preserving her Sons orthodox in such parts thereof as she sees to be invaded by some contrary error of perilous consequence Now let it be considered whether the Church of England if the sense of the 5. Canon related above ‖ § 83. n. 1. stand good doth not make her 39 Articles Fundamental and exclude from Salvation those who affirm or hold any of them erroneous on the same manner whilst she excommunicates i. e. cuts off from the Body of Christ if the Excommunication be just as she thinks it is such persons as remain in this wicked error till such time as they repent and publickly revoke it For I ask what is this wicked error for which unrepented of he is so cut off from Christ and consequently his Salvation destroyed but his holding or if you will his not repenting upon her Admonition but persisting to hold the contrary to some one or more of her Articles or Definitions if she declare then his Salvation lost in his holding the contrary to such Article is not the Article then after her proposal made in the sense we are speaking of fundamental to him Or suppose his wicked error be not holding but saying the contrary to such Article when he holds otherwise which I cannot apprehend to be sense i. e. that any one can be said to erre in a thing when he saith onely that he holds it but really doth not hold it at least thus far then as to non-contradiction the Article still is made fundamental for here whoever contradicts unrepenting thereof is damned 4ly For the application of Haec est Fides extra quam non est salus which is so often said by Protestants to be made to all the Definitions of the Council of Trent and the confession thereof necessary to the enjoying of the Communion of this Church 1st No such Sentence is applied to the definitions by the Council it self except onely to the Nicene Creed of which they say it is Fundamentum firmum unicum Sess 3. but onely by a Pope after it And 2ly If we should also grant the sense of this clause to be that which Protestants put upon it whereas it is capable of another sense which they cannot disallow of which see Consid Conc. Trid. § 80. namely this That an explicit belief of every one of the Definitions and Canons of all the lawful General Councils that have ever been or made any such for Pius speaks of all Canons of Councils as well as those of Trent is necessary to every one and that ratione medii for attaining Salvation For thus the Protestants will needs understand it a thing so irrational that any one may see that a Church that holds this must damn all or most of her children for who is there especially among the laity or vulgar that hath an actual knowledg or explicit faith of every Canon of every lawful General Council that hath been in the Church Yet is it not required by Pius of all men that they assent to this truth for their enjoying the Roman Communion but onely of those who enter into Sacred Orders or Religions But 5ly It may be noted also concerning this Bull of Pius which seems of a long time the main grievance of Protestants the main Apology for their
as a Prelatist For since the judgment here concerning the condition viz. when the Church proves what she proposeth or when the Subscriber proves the contrary when he is competent to search grounds or the Church unfaithful in conserving her Depositum is left not to the Church but to the Subscriber it casts the assent and dissent also wholly into his dâ—sposal and arbitrement and note here also that who may require only a conditional assent can likewise exact only in such points as are practical a conditional conformity i. e. that none be absolutely enjoyned to practice such a thing but onely upon supposition that the Church first prove it to him lawful to be done or that he cannot prove it to the Church to be unlawful or that he is a person unable to searth the grounds of the lawfulness or unlawfulness thereof c. of which conditioâ—s himself also not the Church is judg For otherwise he that obligeth a person absolutely to the performance of a thing obligeth him also absolutely to the believing that thing lawful to be done which later the Church of England not owning neither may she the first and who ought to have his liberty for the one ought so for the other too Now 't is ordinary in the English Canons to require upon pain of Excommunication conformity to her Constitutions where had this secret been known to the Presbyterians that it is understood onely of such a conditional conformity I suppose there would have been no cause of their forbearing subscription or complaining of the English Church-Laws their being as rigorous and unjust as those of Rome Thus I have made a search into the obedience §. 85. n. 11. which is required of her Subjects by a Church that seems not well grounded in her authority by reason that having disjoyned herself from that which she acknowledgeth was formerly the Catholick Church and from Superior Councils she can neither lay claim to that Infallibility in necessaries which from our Lords perpetual superintendency resides in the whole as all members throughly consenting with the whole and guided by it do lay claim to such Infallibility and therefore do require obedience from their Subjects in the same manner as the whole doth as to all such doctrines wherein they agree with the whole nor can she standing apart and alledging the reason of it the former Churches errors have the confidence to claim a new Infallibility to herself and therefore it is no wonder if there seem some uncertainty what obedience she requireth where there is what authority she possesseth and where such obedience is grounded rather on the pretended clear evidence of the matter proposed than the soveraign and undeclinable authority of the Proposer Meanwhile whether she challengeth an obedience of assent from her Subjects §. 85. n. 12. or that of non-contradiction I see not how she can be justified by the Laws of the Church or by her own Principles For 1st By the Laws of the Church if she justly require assent from her and was she not in conscience obliged to yield it These as well as she determining nothing but what they think a clear truth Or can she blame the fallible Church of Rome for requiring assent to her Canons upon Anathema when she fallible requires the same upon Excommunication For the disparities that are made here have been formerly answered and any evidence or certainty Protestants pretend for those Doctrines to which they require assent the Roman Church pleads the like for hers and so sub judice lis est Concerning this hear Mr. Chillingw †p. 375. Any thing besides Scripture and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it I suppose he means appearing such not onely to the Church-Governors but their Subjects and that all the 39 Articles have not such an evidence well may Protestants hold it as matter of opinion but as matter of Faith and Religion neither can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it themselves nor require the belief of it of others without most high and most schismatical presumption But 2ly If laying assent aside onely a non-contradiction of her Articles or a non-affirmation that they are any way erroneous is required upon excommunication of the person so offending yet neither will this be justifiable by the Laws of the Church for no Canon of a National Synod can justly pronounce Excommunication on any for affirming so many points in their Articles erroneous as have been determined by Superior Councils a General or a Patriarchal Synod contrarily For example It is not lawfull for a National Synod in England to excommunicate a person for affirming their Articles erroneous in denying Transubstantiation because this hath been determined affirmatively by many former Superior Synods accepted by the whole Western Church as is shewed before 1. Disc § 57. which therefore oblige Christians to the belief and profession of it against the Decrees of any Inferior Western Synod Neither 2ly Do they seem to inflict Excommunication on every one that affirms any of their Articles erroneous without condemning their own Principles because what they say of General Councils is as true I suppose for their own Synods viz. That they may err grosly and manifestly in which case they say one may lawfully affirm these Councils in such thing erroneous else how can they ever be corrected See before § 43 44. c. The case therefore is the same as to their own Synods And then for what they say a person may lawfully do they cannot lawfully excommunicate him But if it be replyed §. 85. n. 13. that their Synods challenge an obedience of non contradiction onely to what they are certain is truth and therefore none may lawfully in such case contradict them or affirm they err 1st It follows they may upon the same terms require assent also of which they seem more shie But 2ly As theirs plead certainty so do other Councils whom yet they will not excuse upon this pretence for requiring assent as hath been but now said 3ly It seems unreasonable that a certainty either from the sense of Scripture necessary Deduction former universal Tradition or any other way should be pretended by a particular Church in any such matters from which a major part of Christianity perusing the same evidences dissents †Disc 2 §. 5. Disc 4 § 11 12. such as are several of the 39 Articles 4ly Protestants themselves affirm that those who are certain of truth yet may not require an absolute but conditional assent from others who first know them in general to be fallible and next do not know or have it not proved to them that in this particular they dot err See before § 85. n. 10. And the same they say for non-contradiction required that it must be onely conditional i. e. if the contrary truth to the error defined do not appear to the Churches Subjects necessary to be divulged Meanwhile it is not denied which was also
but now said that particular Churches or Provincial Synods may be certain of something as Truth where either Scripture saith it or a necessary deduction collecteth it or Tradition delivereth it such as are Generally undisputed and unquestioned and may require from their Subjects an absolute assent and that upon Excommunication or Anathema to all such Articles of Religion as are either defined or otherwise agreed on by the whole Catholick Church and that herein they have the same infallibility as the Catholick and their Subjects are or may be convinced that they are the tenents of the Church Catholick As the Church of England though otherwise fallible may require not a conditional but an absolute assent to the Articles of the Athanasian Creed because she in these is infallible if the Catholick Church be so Thus much said concerning the quality of the submission required of her Sons by the Church of England to her Articles of Religion I now proceed to the 2d thing proposed before § 66. The many Difficulties and Objections urged against an Infallible Church-Authority CHAP. VIII Solutions of several Questions concerning an infallible living Guide 1. Q. From what we can be assured that Councils are infallible since neither the Texts of Scripture the sense whereof is disputed nor the Decree of any Council whose erring is the thing questioned can give such assurance § 86. 2. Q. From whence General Councils receive their Infallibility such promise if made at all being made onely to the Church diffusive and not delegable by this Church to others Or if so no such Delegation from the Vniversal Church appearing to have been beforehand made at all or any General Council § 91. 3. Q. How the Infallibility of General Councils is necessary or serviceable to the Church without which Councils the Church subsisted for several ages most Orthodox § 98. 4. Q. How Lawfull General Councils which experience hath shewed to have contradicted one another can be all Infallible § 100. 5. Q. Lawfull General Councils being supposed to be liable to error in some things how Christians can be assured concerning any particular point that in it these Councils do not erre § 101. 6. Q. Whilst such Councils are supposed Infallible How if they should not be so can any error of theirs be rectified § 102. 7. Q. Whether such Councils onely when confirmed by the Pope or all when yet unconfirmed by Him are infallible § 104. 8. Q. How the Popes Confirmation can any way concurr to such Councils non-erring since if it erred before it doth so still though he approve it but if orthodox before it is so still he not approving it § 105. 9. Q. In which the Pope or the Council this Infallibility lies For if in one of them the other is needless if in Both then either of them sufficient such qualities being indivisible and without integral Parts § 106. § 86 AGainst a living infallible Ecclesiastical Judg of Controverfies in necessary matters of Religion Solutions of several Questions asserted above in this discourse by Catholicks and the Church Governors in a Lawfull General Council affirmed to be so many difficulties are urged and some with much subtilty which it seems to me may be with as much plainness satisfactorily removed 1st Then Q. 1. it is asked †See Mr. Stillings p. 409 539 558. whence can arise a sufficient certainty to Christians that lawfull General Councils are infallible Since it cannot arise * from the Decree of any Council because we know not whether Councils err in such a Decree till this thing first be stated to us whether they are infallible Nor 2ly * From the Scripture Because this were to make the Scripture the sole Judg of this great Controversie which Catholicks deny to be the sole Judg of any and if Scripture may decide this Controversie it may as well all others for that it is evident that there are no places of Scripture whose sense is more controverted than the sense of those urged concerning the Churches Infallibility If therefore these may be understood without a living and Infallible Judg so as that we may be certain of their true sense then why not all others which concern the rule of Faith and manners whose sense is far less disputed than of these § 87 To which I answer 1st That Scripture though it cannot properly be a Judge to decide any dispute about its sence yet may be a rule plain and free enough from obscurity in its sense there where some corrupt and interessed judgements may question it nor is it to be thought really ambiguous where ever disputed or controverted and that though the clearness of this Rule can never be pretended or such argument in reason made use of on that side where a few do oppose either the common traditional sense of former ages or of the much major part of the present age yet on the other side the sence thereof that is given by the common judgment either of former or present times may be rationally urged against these few and especially where a superior Authority requires their conformity they ought to yeild unto it And here see what he saith ‖ Still p. 58 59. who urgeth this both concerning Scripture wrested by some in its sence even in those places of it where it is a Rule of necessary faith and manners and concerning the Christians duty herein to follow the common sence and consent of the Church Now that these Scriptures here spoken of however by some of late controverted have been alwayes understood in the common sence of the Church to declare a promise of infallibility in its Governours for necessaries appears sufficiently by the proceedings of her Councils ancient and modern requiring upon Anathema assent to their decrees and inserting some of them in the Creeds Of which more by and by ‖ § 90. Here then it is denied that Scripture when ever controverted by a few in some age against the traditional and common sence of the Church both in the former and present age as the Texts concerning the Trinity are now of late by the Socinian is no Rule plain or free enough from obscurity in the traditional sence thereof to decide such controversie § 88 2ly I answer for so much as is affirmed of such Councils namely their infallibility in all their definitions made in necessary matters of faith That Protestants themselves grant a sufficient certainty both from Scripture and from universal tradition that the Church Catholick of all ages is unerring in necessaries and that this Church Catholick alwayes doth and shall consist as well of a guiding and ruling Clergy as a guided and subject Laity And that thus far there is no controversie concerning evidence of Scripture or Tradition And next from hence it certainly follows that there shall be a body of Clergy for ever not erring in necessaries And again from this that this Clergy when joyned in a general assembly or Council and unanimously
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
true That the Church of England blindeth men to peace to her determinations reserving to men the liberty of their judgments on pain of excommunication if they violate that peace For it is plain on the one side where a Church pretends infallibility the excommunication is directed against the persons for refusing to give internal assent to what she defines But where a Church doth not pretend to that the excommunication respects wholly that overt Act whereby the Churches peace is broken And if a Church be bound to look to her own peace no doubt she hath power to excommunicate such as openly violate the bonds of it which is only an act of caution in a Church to preserve her selfe in unity but where it is given out that the Church is infallible the excommunication must be so much the more unreasonable because it is against those internal acts of the minde over which the Church as such hath no direct power And p. 55. he quotes these words out of Bp. Bramhall †Schism guarded p. 192. To the same sence We do not suffer any man to reject the 39. Articles of the Church of England at his pleasure yet neither do we look upon them as essentials of saving faith or legacies of Christ and his Apostles but in a mean as pious opinions fitted for the presâ—rvation of unity neither do we oblige any man to believe them but only not to contradict them By which we see what vast difference there is between those things which are required by the Church of England in order to peace and those which are imposed by the Church of Rome c. Lastly thus Mr. Chillingworth †p. 200. of the just authority of Councils and Synods beyond which the Protestant Synods or Convocations pretend not The Fathers of the Church saith he in after times i. e. after the Apostles might have just cause to declare their judgment touching the sence of some general Articles of the Creed but to oblige others to receive their declarations under pain of damnation what warrant they had I know not He that can shew either that the Church of all ages was to have this authority or that it continued in the Church for some ages and then expired He that can shew either of these things let him for my part I cannot Yet I willingly confess the judgment of a Council though not infallible is yet so far directive and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to afford it an outward submission for publick peace sake Thus much as the Protestant Synods seem contented with so I allow Again p. 375. He saith Any thing besides Scripture and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it Well may Protestants hold it as matter of opinion but as matter of faith and religion neither can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it themselves nor require the belief of it of others without most high and most schismatical presumption Thus he now I suppose that either no Ptotestant Church or Synod will stile the Son 's coequall God-head with the Father a plain irrefragable indubitable Scripture or consequence thereof about which is and hath been so much contest or with as much reason they may call whatever points they please such however controverted and then what is said here signifies nothing § 36 Prot. Be not mistaken I pray especially concerning the Church of England For though she for several points imposed formerly by the tyranny of the Roman Church hath granted liberty of opinion or at least freed her subjects from obligation to believe so in them as the Church formerly required yet as to exclusion of your doctrin she professeth firmly to believe the 3. Creeds and concerning the additions made in the two latter Creeds to the first Dr. Hammond †Of Fundamentals p. 90. acknowledgeth That they being thus settled by the universal Church were and still are in all reason without disputing to be received and imbraced by the Protestant Church and every meek member thereof with that reverence that is due to Apostolick truthes with that thankfulness which is our meet tribute to those sacred Champions for their seasonable and provident propugning our faith with such timely and necessary application to practice that the Holy Ghost speaking to us now under the times of the New Testament by the Governors of the Christian Churches Christs mediate successors in the Prophetick Pastoral Episcopal Office as he had formerly spoken by the Prophets of the Old Testament sent immediately by him may finde a cheerfull audience and receive all uniform submission from us Thus Dr. Hammond of the Church of England's assent to the 3. Creeds She assenteth also to the definitions of the 4 first General Councils And the Act 1. Eliz. †cap. 1. declares Heresie that which hath been adjudged so by them now in the definitions of these first 4. General Counclls your tenent hath received a mortal wound †But lastly the 4th Canon in the English Synod held 1640. †Can. 4. particularly stiles Socinianism a most damnable and cursed Heresie and contrary to the Articles of Religion established in the Church of England and orders that any convicted of it be excommunicated and not absolved but upon his repentance and abjuration Now further than this namely excommunication upon conviction No other Church I suppose hath or can proceed against your Heresie It being received as a common axiom in the Canon Law that Ecclesia non judicat de occultis And cogitationis poenam nemo patitur And Ob peccatum mere internum Ecclesiastica censura ferri non potest And in all Churches every one of what internal perswasion soever continues externally at least a member thereof till the Churches censures do exclude him § 37 Soc. The Church of England alloweth assenteth to and teacheth what she judgeth evident in the Scripture for so she ought what she believes or assenteth to I look not after but what she enjoynes Now I yeeld all that obedience in this point that she requires from me and so I presume she will acknowledge me a dutiful Son Prot. what obedience when as you deny one of her chiefest and most fundamental doctrins Soc. If I mistake not her principles she requires of me no internal belief or assent to any of her doctrins but only 1st silence or non-contradiction †See Disc 3 § 84. n. 2. n. 4. or 2ly a conditional belief i. e. whenever I shall be convinced of the truth thereof Now in both these I most readily obey her For the 1st I have strictly observed it kept my opinion to my self unless this my discourse with you hath been a breach of it but then I was at least a dutiful subject of this Church at the beginning of our discourse and for the 2d whether actual conviction or sufficient proposal be made the condition of my assent or submission of
judgment I am conscious to my self of no disobedience as to either of these for an actual conviction I am sure I have not and supposing that I have had a sufficient proposal and do not know it my obedience upon the Protestant principles can possibly advance no further than it now doth The Apostles Creed I totally imbrace and would have it the standing bound of a Christian Faith For other Creeds I suppose no more belief is necessary to the Articles of the Nicen Creed than is required to those of the Athanasian And of what kind the necessity is of believing those Mr. Stillingfleet states on this manner †p. 70.71 That the belief of a thing may be supposed necessary either as to the matter because the matter to believed is in it self necessary or because of the clear conviction of mens understandingâ— that though the matters be not in themselves neâ—â—ssary yet being revealed by God they must be explicitly believed but then the necessity of this belief doth extend no further than the clearness of the conviction doth Again that the necessity of believing any thing arising from the Churches definition upon which motive you seem to press the belief of the Article of Consubstantiality doth depend up on the Conviction that whatever the Church defines is necessary to be believed And where that is not received as an antecedent principle the other cannot be supposed Now this principle neither I nor yet Protestants accept Then he concludes That as to the Athanasian Creed and the same it is for the Nicen It is unreasonable to imagin that the Church of England doth own this necessity purely on the account of the Churches definition of those things which are not fundamental it being directly contrary to to her sence in her 19th and 20th Articles Now which Articles of this Creed are not Fundamental she defines nothing nor do the 19 20. or 21. Articles own a necessity of believing the Churches Definitions even as to Fundamentals And hence that the supposed necessity of the belief of the Articles of the Athanasian Creed must according to the sence of the Church of England be resolved either into the necessity of the matters or into that necessity which supposeth clear conviction that the things therein contained are of divine Revelation Thus he Now for so many Articles as I am either convinced of the matter to be believed that it is in it self necessary or that they are divine Revelations I do most readily yield my faith and assent thereto Now to make some Reply to the other things you have objected § 38 The Act 1º Eliz. allows no Definitions of the 1st General Councils in declaring Heresie but with this limitation that in such Councils such things be declared Heresie by the express and plain words of the Canonical Scripture On which terms I also accept them § 39 Dr. Hammond affirming That all additions settled by the Vniversal Church if he means General Councils are in all reason without disputing to be received as Apostolical Truths that the Holy Ghost speaking to us by the Governors of the Christian Churches Christ's Successors may receive all uniform submission from us suits not with the Protestant Principles often formerly mentioned †See before §. 26. For thus if I rightly understand him all the definitions of General Councils and of the Christian Governors in all ages as these being still Christs Successors are to be without disputing embraced as truths Apostolical § 40 If the words of the fourth Canon of the English Synod 1640. signifie any more than this That any person convicted of Socinianism i. e. by publishing his opinion shall upon such conviction be excommunicated and if it be understood adequate to this Qui non crediderit filium esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deo Patri Anathema sit and that the Church of England for allowing her Communion is not content with silence in respect of Socinianism but obligeth men also to assent to the contrary then I see not upon what good grounds such exclamation is made against the like Anathema's or exactions of assent required by that of Trent or other late Councils or by Pius his Bull. If it be said here the reason of such faulting them is because these require assent not being lawful General Councils such reason will not pass 1st Because neither the English Synod exacting assent in this point is a General Council 2ly Because it is the Protestant tenent that neither may lawful General Councils require assent to all their Definitions Or if it be affirmed either of General or Provincial Councils that they may require assent under Anathema to some of their decrees Viz. Those evidently true and divine Revelation such as Consubstantiality is but may not to others Viz. Those not manifested by them to be such then before we can censure any Council for its Anathema's or its requiring of assent we must know whether the point to which assent is required is or is not evident divine Revelation And then by whom or how shall this thing touching the evidence of the Divine Revelation be judged or decided for those that judge this who ever they be do sit now upon the trial of the rightness or mistake of the judgment of a General Council Or when think we will those who judge this i. e. every person for himself agree in their sentence Again If on the other side the former Church in her language Si quis non crediderit c. Anathema sit be affirmed to which purpose the fore-mentioned Axioms are urged by you to mean nothing more than Si quis Haresin suam palam profiteatur hujus professionis convictis fuerit Anathema sit Thus the Protestants former quarrel with her passing such Anathema's will be concluded causeless and unjust But indeed though according to the former sentences her Anathema is not extended to the internal act of holding such an opinion if wholly concealed so far as to render such person for it to stand excommunicated and lie actually under this censure of the Church because hitherto no contempt of her authority appears nor is any dammage inferred to any other member of her Society thereby Yet her Anathema also extends even to the internal act or tenet after the Churches contrary definition known which tenet also then is not held without a disobedience and contempt of her authority so far as to render the delinquent therein guilty of a very great mortal sin and so at the same time internally cut off from being a true member of Christs Body though externally he is not as yet so cut off And the Casuists further state him ipso facto to be excommunicated before and without conviction if externally he doth or speaketh any thng whereby he is convincible and not if there be any thing proved against him but if any thing at least provable and such a one upon this to be obliged in conscience not only to confess his heretical opinion
for his being absolved from mortal sin but also to seek a release from excommunication incurred for his reinjoying the Churches Communion Thus you see a rigor in this Church towards what it once accounted Heresie much different from the more mild Spirit and moderate temper of the reformed § 41 To conclude For the enjoying the Protestant Communion I conceive that as to any necessary approbation of her Doctrines it is sufficient for me to hold with Mr. Chillingworth as I do †Chillingw Preface § 39. That the doctrine of Protestants though not that of all of them absolutely true yet is free from all impiety and from all Error destructive to salvation or in it self damnable And †Ib § 28. whatsoever hath been held necessary to Salvation by the consent of Protestants or even of the Church of England which indeed hath given no certain Catalogue at all of such necessaries that against the Socinians and all others whatsoever I do verily believe and embrace And which is still the same †Ib. § 39. I am perswaded that the constant doctrine of the Church of England is so pure and Orthodox that whosoever believes it and lives according to it undoubtedly he shall be saved For if all truths necessary to Salvation be held in it then so is no error opposite or destructive to Salvation held by it and so living according to the truths it holds I may be saved Again †Ib. I believe that there is no error in it which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturb the peace or renounce the Communion of it For though I believe Antisocinianism an error Yet if I hold it not such as that for it any man may disturb the peace or ought to renounce the Communion of this Church I may profess all this and yet hold Socinianism Lastly as he †Chill p. 376 so I Propose me any thing out of the Bible seem it never so incomprehensible I will subscribe it with hand and heart In other things that I think not contained in this Book I will take no mans liberty of jud gment from him neither shall any man take mine from me for I am fully assured that God doth not and therefore that men ought not to require any more of any man than this To believe the Scripture to be Gods Word to indeavor to find the true sence of it and to live according to it Without pertinacy I can be no Heretick And †Ib. §. 57. indeavouring to find the true sence of Scripture I cannot but hold my error without pertinacy and be ready to forsake it when a more true and a more probable sence shall appear unto me And then all necessary truth being plainly set down in Scripture I am certain by believing Scripture to believe all necessary truth and in doing so my life being answerable to my faith how is it possible I should fail of Salvation Thus Mr. Chillingworth speaks perfectly my sence Prot. I see no other cure for you but that you learn humility and mortification of your understanding in which lies the most subtle and perilous of all Prides And It will reduce you to Obedience and this to Truth That with all the Church of God you may give glory to God the only begotten Son and the Holy Ghost coessential with God the Father To which Trinity in Vnity as it hath been from the beginning and is now so shall all Honour and Glory be given throughout all future ages Amen FINIS Addenda PAge 30. line 31. After Turky Add. Brerewood Brerw Enquir p. 84. 88. computing the whole Body of Christians in Asia including also those united with Rome not to amount to a twentieth part of its inhabitants and all the Turks Dominions in Europe not to exceed the magnitude of Spain Ib. p. 67. Throughout whose Dominions also the chief c. Page 30. line penult After Field p. 63. Add. And Brerewood's inquire c. 19. p. 147. Page 31 line 17 After reside Add. To which in the last place may be added that great Body of the same Communion that hath long flourished and daily enlargeth it self throughout the West-Indies Page 51 line 4. After practice Add. To all these may be further added the early Condemnation that is found in Antiquity of those modern tenents of several Protestants in opposition to a subordination of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy to the utility of Prayer for the Dead of Invocation of the Saints Veneration of Saints Reliques set Fasting-dayes Festivals Vigils Abstinence from certain meats Monastick vows especially that of Virginity and Celibacy Hermitages Disparity of the Coelestial Rewards and degrees of Glory The maintainers of which long ago Arrius Vid. Epiphan Haer. 75. August Haer. 53. Jovinian Vid. Hieron contra Jovin Austin Haer. 82. Vigilantius Vid. Hieronym contra Vigilant were condemned as Hereticks i. e. as opposers of those points that the general Church practice received and allowed as lawful by the Fathers of those times and being crushed by their Censures were prevented from receiving any further sentence from a Council Lastly why was there made a departure from the Church at least for many of these points c. Page 66 line 19. After Himself Add. And so this Person supposed by Protestants to have been raised up by God to vindicate his Truth yet was permitted by him to dy in their conceit a Desertor of it i. e. reconciled to the doctrin of the Church Page 93 line ult After exordium unitatis Add. The Ecclesiasticalunity in which Bishop Grotius conceiveth so necessary as that he saith Rivet Apol. discussio p. 255. Non posse Protestantes inter se jungi nisi simul jung antur cum iis qui sedi Romanae cohaerent sine qua saith he nullum sperari potest in Ecclesia commune regimen Again Inter causas divulsionis Ecclesiae non esse primatum Episcopi Romani secundùm Canones favente Melancthone qui eum primatum etiam necessarium putat ad retinendam unitatem Neque enim hoc esse Ecclesiam subjicere Pontificis libidini sed reponere ordinem sapienter institutum Thus moderate Protestants of the Churches unity founded Supremely as to single persons in the Bishop of Rome Page 96 line 15. After Coeteris Add. And accordingly in all those instances gathered out of Antiquity by Arch-Bishop Lawd § 24. n. 5. where inferior Synods have reformed abuses in manners or made Decrees in causes of Faith as it is willingly granted many have done it cannot be shewed that any of them hath done either of these in matters stated before contrarily by a Superior Authority a thing with which Protestants are charged Somthing was then stated or reformed by Inferiors without nothing against their Superiors Page 103 line 36. After times Add. Baron saith A. D. 358. That In tantâ errorum offusâ caligine qui substantiae Filii Dei assertores essent a nostris in pretio habebantur ut pote quod ut soepius est dictum nullâ aliâ re viderentur a Catholicis differre nisi quod vocem Consubstantialitatis non admitterent Page 104 line 8 After mentioned Add. So but that the words are well capable of an Orthodox sence So that the seventeenth and twenty sixth Articles in the first Sirmian Confession as they are understood by Sozomen in the Semi-Arrian l. 5. c. so are they compared with the antecedents expounded by St. Hillary De Synodis in a Catholick sence The Semi-Arrian Bishops it seems c. Page 125 line ult After errores Add. And Ib. q. 5. a. 3. Omnibus articulis fidei inhaeret fidei propter unum medium sci propter veritatem primam propositam a nobis in Scripturis secundùm doctrinam Ecclesiae sane intelligendis See several Authorities to this purpose collected by Fr. a S. Clara in System Fid. c. 7. Page 206 line 3. After Accesserunt Add. Concerning 1 the corruption of humane nature and bondage under sin 2 Justification gratuital and 3 Christs Sacerdotal Office thus he censures ancient Church-Tradition Resp ad Cassand offic Pii viri in Cassand oper p. 802. Verum si quid in controversiam vocetur quia flexibile est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the holy Scriptures inter nasi cerei si absque Traditionis subsidio quicquam definire fas non sit quid jam fiet praeciputs Fidei nostrae capitibus Tria solum exempli causa proferam 1. Naturae nostrae corruptio misera animae servitus sub peccati Tyrannide 2. Gratuita justificatio 3. Et Christi Sacerdotium apud vetustissimos Scriptores ita obscurè attingitur ut nulla inde certitudo possit elici Si ex eorum Traditione haurienda sit cognitio salutis nostrae jacebit omuis Fiducia quia ex illis nunquam discemus quomodo Deo reconciliemur quomodo illuminemur a Spiritu sancto formemur in obsequium justitiae quomodo gratis accepta nobis feratur Christi obedientia quid valeat sacrificium mortis ejus continua pro nobis intercessio quarum rerum luculenta explicatio in Scripturâ passim occurrit Itaque novo hoc Magistro Cassandr Authore quaecunque ad salutem apprimè cognitu necessaria sunt non tantùm manebunt semi-sepulta sed quia nulla Traditio suffragatur i. e. in Antiquity certitudine carebunt Thus he And it is very true that of such a Doctrin as many Protestants deliver in these matters no footsteps will be found in antiquity and that nulla Traditio suffragabitur Page 230 line 35. After censetur Add. And Ib. q. 5. ar 3. Si quis non pertinaciter discredit articulum Fidei paratus sequi in omnibus doctrinam Ecclesiae jam non est haereticus sed solùm errans Page 342 line 28. After Prot. Add. No person that is appointed by our Lord to be a Judge in any Controversie as those Bishops you have mentioned were in the cause of Arrius can rightly or properly be said to be on that side for which he gives sentence a Party Nor doth their giving sentence once against any side prejudice them as enemies or opposites or interessed from sitting on the Bench as oft as need requires to passe it again alone or with others But if every one may be afterward called an Anti-Party who once declareth himself of a contrary Judgment I perceive c. FINIS